Larry Hancock

Hi folks, I thought I would provide a brief update by posting a sampling of speaker's presentations. This is only partial of course and does not include several of our speakers; I thought it would give some flavor to the scope and nature of topics being addressed. In addition I'm happy to announce that Jim Teague, Aubrey Rike and Beverly Oliver Massagee will be joining us for the conference and it still looks like Billy Sol Estes will be there as well.

Sampling of speakers and topics JFK Lancer November in Dallas 2005 :

Jim Marrs, “Means, Motives and Opportunities”?

Joan Mellen, "A Farewell To Justice: Demythologizing Jim Garrison"?

Larry Hancock, “Covert Operations – from Cuba to Dallas?”

Jim Olivier and Stuart Wesler, “News on Oswald in New Orleans”

David Kaiser, "Making Everyone Unhappy: The Kennedy Administration, Castro, and Cuban Exiles, 1963"

John Williams, "A Conspicuously Disowned Presence: General Curtis E. LeMay

at The Bethesda Autopsy of Friday, November 22"

Ian Griggs, “Search For A Stripper” - deals with the life and times of the

Carousel Club dancer Kathy Kay

Stuart Wexler and Tom Pinkston , “Bullet Fragment Fallacies”

Phil Hopley “Deep History of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee”

John Simkin, “Grant Stockdale, Mary Pinchot Meyer and the Assassination

of John F. Kennedy”

Ben Rogers, "Research in the Papers of Penn Jones, Jr"

Pat Speer, “Lawyers, Doctors, and Head Shrinkers: Lies and Deceptions in the JFK Medical Evidence”

Greg, I'll be really interested in seeing your article when its done.

All I can say for now is that Matthew Smith has provided more information

on Ray in his recently published book including that on the other item he

disclosed, the DC3 incident. My own research, including some early

Dallas media coverage of Ray's remarks and an investigation of the documents

on the DC3 leads me to belive that Ray was not a xxxx and disclosed some

very important information.

I have mixed feelings on the FBI report, it certainly would not be the first instance

of their inserting something to discredit a report that was not going in the right direction....that's more consistent than not. However there is also a possibility that Ray realized his remarks, as reported in the Dallas press, were about to get him a lot of attention he didn't need and might bring some people back to make sure he did not disclose the DC3 information which was far more important. He may have misdated it to the FBI himself to divert attention and protect himself.

I do think that unless you have turned up something brand new, that writing off January would be a mistake. ....at least based on what I can see so far.

-- Larry

At the risk of being repetitive this looks like it fits in this thread as well:

An interesting document which you might order a copy of RIF 104-10072-10289 from NARA. The title is rather uninteresting e.g. "Special Activities Report on a JMWAVE Relationship" however the content has to do with a several year relationship between JMWAVE and various personnel at the Miami Harald.

The document describes relationships with AMCARBON-1, AMCARBON-2 ...and apparent multiple identities of individuals (which totally confuses me). Apparently AMCARBON-2 was approched in Sept 1962 at the same time AMCARBON-1 was given identity 4. Apparently AMCARBON-1 had gotten a significant promotion at the paper at that time and increasing confidence by Indentity-3 management. Someone with the crypt Reuteman made the introduction for AMCARBON-2 to JMWAVE, can't tell if he was a Harald employee or not., sounds like it though.

This document is probably our best insight to reveal the extent to which JMWAVE had working relationships with several personnel at the Harald and that Hendrix probably fits one of the CARBON crypts. Supposedly AMCARBON-1 originally

started to work for Identity 3 (the Harald?) in 1957 on the City Desk, then went on to Florida political stories.

You would probably be more interested in the fact that the memo gives a long list of sources for AMCARBON-1 and discusses how JMWAVE used him as a progaganda outlet e.g. "a propaganda outlet through which items of interest to KUBARK could be surfaced in the free world press"....the memo goes on to list specific incidents and their related stories.

There is also a variety of interesting dialog about the ground rules for using press assets and media tactics.

Hi Jack, actually I'll just follow Ron on this. There is no doubt it's Hicks

in the photo, coming down from the direction of Houston and going down

the south side of Elm. In fact we know why he was in Dallas and where

his wife was working; it was her having a job and him having lost his that

brought him to be in Dallas and left him free to watch the motocade.

The problem is that his descriptions of what he saw don't match very well

with where he was standing nor of the other photos of the area he describes

seeing a man standing in a car trunk who "might have shot the President". His description of the sign he saw with a hole in it being immediately removed that day

doesn't match the signs on Elm and beyond that the rest of his so called

inside information just is totally out of left field....including meeting the Cubans in a Dallas bar a few weeks later who then decided to share the full details of the plot with him.

By the time he was talking to press about going back for the Garrison trial

he was claiming to know the names of the people involved in the shooting.

It really is a sad story when you piece it all together.

-- Larry

Greg, I've posted frequently on this so I'll try to keep it brief. Most everthing you find in print about Hicks is urban legend class stuff....except that he was in DP that day, because his wife was working in Dallas and he was down there with her having lost his job. Hicks was provably a man with a drinking problem and when you dig into his statements - made primarily to newspaper folks and never to law enforcement per se - you find that they are either not credible (his talk of seeing a man in the open trunk of a car off Elm street) or change to just unbelievable e.g. he ran into Cubans in a bar in Dallas and after a few drinks they told him all the details of the assassination.

And he was not stashed away in a secret medical facility to prevent his testimony, he was placed in what was primarily a psychiatric hospital (Fort Supply in Oklahoma, not a military installation but literally a hospital on the site of a former calvary post) because of his drinking problem.

I know there are still folks who think Hicks is another JFK mystery but after digging into his story the best I can give you is its more of a sad story about a man with a problem. He was not one of the better leads generated by the Garrison investigation and when he went down to testify for the Grand Jury he ended out drinking with a couple of guys who went back to his motel with him, rolled him and beat him up....not good press for Garrison either. Later he would talk to a lot of press folks and seemed to feel that Garrison would call him back as a major witness for the actual trial...which Garrison did not.

-- Larry

Tim, a few observations:

1) Sylvia Odio was asked to write fund raising letters for her two visitors; we don't know what they would have asked her to say specifically because she turned them down. However, personal letters of endorsement referencing JURE, signed by Sylvia - who personally associated with Ray - could have been used to contaminate JURE in many ways. Certainly if such letters had been planted on Oswald or associated with him even short of an assassination, given his active pro-Castro stance, it would have been more political ammunition against Ray within the Cuban community.

Everything doesn't have to tie to the attack in Dallas; in fact there is good reason to belive the plan as of the Odio visit may not have jelled at all as far as an attack in Dallas. Only a few weeks earlier Oswald had been writting letters about a move to the East Coast.

2) There is no concrete reason to associate Angelo's agenda with Leopoldo's; nor to associate the letter request with the call afterwards - based on the data we have so far. There is no particular reason to think either Angelo or Oswald knew about the follow-up call, indeed there is good reason to think Leopoldo was working his own separate agenda.

3) The visit could have been used to "contaminate" JURE through association with a very pro-Castro, Marxist, Russian defector may be very relevant to Angelo's agenda while Leopoldo's may have been setting up Oswald for something more violent.

4) The autonomous group project which started in 1963 had multiple players, Artime and Williams and Ray. Assuming the plan had worked, Castro had been eliminated and a coup successful, you can bet that the next step would have been a direct conflict between Artime and Ray. And unfortunately the exiles were not ones to set aside such conflicts until after their primary objective was achived. Given all that some sort of political effort against JURE makes a great deal of sense even without the assassination plot coming into play.

John, from Johnson's call log and tapes we have a very good timeline of who he talked to prior to the point of actually working through proposed members....which he did first with Fortas on the phone. Check my Chapter 15 on that. I think you will be hard pressed to find any contact with RFK before the WC list is pretty well set.

-- Larry

In his autobiography, The Vantage Point, Lyndon Johnson claims that RFK asked him to put Allen Dulles and John McCloy on the Warren Commission. Is there any supporting evidence for this claim? Why would RFK want Dulles and McCloy on the Warren Commission?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd add the observation that reality is generally more complex and circumstantial than idealogy would suggest.

For example during 1963 and 1964 we see the following:

1) The Kennedy's put their leverage behind autonomous exile groups and leaders and everybody involved acknowledges that this means a grave loss of control...but that's OK as long as they do their thing off shore and don't blame the U.S. And in the process they get backed up with plans that anticipate a coup which can only succeed if somebody kills Castro. So that's OK, as long as the somebody isn't the CIA per se.

2) Fitzgerald proceeds to court Cubela and goes along with his request for assassination equipment....although evenutally Cubela will go to Artime for an assassination rifle. Which is of course much better than CIA just giving it to him...

3) The 303 Committee gets word that crime folks have approached exiles with an offer to take out Castro...and is incensed, going to great lengths to try and shut such a thing down (why you ask given items 1 and 2 and the fact that these crime folks aren't even from the U.S.?) And Fitzgerald sits on the Committee while the subject is discussed.

.....talk about "conflicted"...with or without the President Larry

I just wanted to express my sadness for John's passing. I was excited that he was going to present at the November Lancer conference and really looking foward to meeting him in person.

I followed his posts with great attention, his passing is another example of why its so important to get work like his in print one way or the other, even if it's individual papers and essays.

If someone is aware of any published papers or essays from John it seems fitting that they be identified and perhaps linked on this forum in his memory.

-- Larry

Hi Dawn, on your questions:

Tom Bowden previwed a copy of the Remond video in Dallas a few years ago, William was there as I recall and the video was in English. I don't think it has ever gone on sale in the US though, not sure why?

Actually Bowden stated in the video that he had heard one or more of the tapes that Estes describes...on the other hand in his own recent book Estes seems to say that he sold all the tapes long ago...very confusing.

The witness is Kyle Brown, he is on the video describing being in the meeting with Carter and Estes and reportedly has heard the tapes as well.....he is named in the Caddy letters to Justice as a witness but now Estes denies that and says he will not name the real witness.

As to leaking the letters, I have no definite knowledge but Glen Sample received the letters from two sources who he does not identify either source. I've heard speculation on the sources which includes Caddy (the letters were not given to Sample until his first edition was in print) and also another man in Texas who was a good friend of Madeleine Brown and who was writing an unpublished manuscript on the Texas Mafia at the time of his death. Still, the letters would have had to have come from either Justice (unlikely), from Estes himself or somehow from Caddy's office files in some fashion.

John, I think you asked the key question on why Estes selected Caddy to represent him to Justice. Of course it may be as simple as the fact that Estes would need a lawyer in DC who had experience negotiating with Justice - Caddy fits the bill and surely his Watergate visiblity made him a prominent name in that. Perhaps Caddy might know and say how Estes was referred, that might not be considered part of client priveleged info. On the other hand its pretty clear from the remarks in his own book that Estes was and is less than happy that his Justice communications were leaked to the public and blames Caddy for that.

Of course in the same book Estes states that he gave a false name to Justice as a witness for his offer...something that neither Justice or his lawyer would look on with much appreciation. Then again said witness is on video with Remond as confirming exactly what was described by Caddy in the letter...again further cluding the whole affair and making Estes look less than reliable.

-- Larry

I thought itmight be interesting to start a thread on Douglas Caddy. He is one of those figures who is linked to both the JFK assassination and Watergate.

Caddy was born in 1938. While attending the New York University Law School he became an active member of the far right group, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Eventually he became YAF's first executive director. After graduating in 1966 Caddy went to work for General Foods Corporation in White Plains, New.York.

In 1969 Caddy was transferred to corporate headquarters in Washington. According to Caddy: "The corporate plan was to open an office for Washington representation a year later. Meanwhile, I was ordered as an employee to work out of the public affairs firm of Robert Mullen and Co., which General Foods had retained for decades." Caddy met E. Howard Hunt after he joined the staff of Robert Mullen, being recommended by Richard Helms, then director of the CIA.

Caddy left General Foods and joined the Washington Law firm of Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen. In 1970 Hunt became a client of the company. When Charles Colson invited Hunt to join the White House staff in 1971, Caddy provided him with a character reference.

Caddy, who was an active member of the Republican Party, doing volunteer legal work for Richard Nixon. In March 1972 he had a meeting with John Dean. Over the next four months he performed a number of legal tasks connected with Nixon presidential campaign assigned to him by Dean's office. Caddy also did work for Gordon Liddy, the counsel for the finance committee of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP).

Caddy's past is clearly locked into Nixon's dirty tricks campaigns. He claims he met Hunt for the first time while he was working at Robert Mullen. However, Hunt had himself been heavily involved in YAF with Charles Colson. We also know that YAF were involved in a bombing campaign against the anti-war movement in the late 1960s. Caddy also became involved with Dean and Liddy in 1972. However, he claims that this had nothing to do with any "dirty tricks" campaigns. 

When Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, Bernard L. Barker and James W. McCord were arrested at Watergate, the first person that Hunt and Liddy called for help was Caddy. The other Watergate burglars claimed that they had never heard of Caddy when he arrived to represent them. According to William Turner (Deadly Secrets), Caddy told Sturgis that "Olympus is watching over you." Sturgis assumed that it was "a shibboleth that the fail-safe mechanism was in operation".  Later that day Caddy arranged to represent Sturgis, Gonzalez, Martinez, Barker, McCord, Hunt and Liddy.

Eleven days later Caddy was instructed to appear before the Grand Jury. Caddy answered some of the questions but refused to answer those he claimed "involved the attorney-client, which protects confidential and legitimate communications between an attorney and his client."

On 10th July, 1972, Earl J. Silbert filed a "motion to Compel Testimony of Grand Jury Witness Michael Douglas Caddy". At issue were 38 key questions that Caddy refused to answer. According to Caddy, these "38 questions was to attempt through my lips as their defense attorney to implicate and incriminate Hunt and Liddy in the break-in." On 13th July, Caddy once again refused to answer these questions and therefore John J. Sirica sent him to prison.

Caddy was soon released and on 19th July, 1972, Caddy appeared before the Grand Jury and answered all the questions he was asked. He was surprised that he was never questioned about his relationship with John Dean and the White House before the Watergate break-in.

It is also noticable that both Dean and Liddy in their memoirs make no reference to the fact that they did business with Caddy before the Watergate break-in.

Strangely he was never asked to testify before Sam Ervin and the Senate Watergate Committee. However, when Herbert W. Kalmbach was interviewed it was discovered that Caddy had rejected attempts by Anthony Ulasewicz to pay "hush money" to his clients.

In 1984 Caddy became a lawyer for Billie Sol Estes. On 9th August, 1984, Caddy wrote to Stephen S. Trott at the U.S. Department of Justice. In the letter Caddy claimed that Estes, Lyndon B. Johnson, Mac Wallace and Cliff Carter had been involved in the murders of Henry Marshall, George Krutilek, Harold Orr, Ike Rogers, Coleman Wade, Josefa Johnson, John Kinser and John F. Kennedy. Caddy added: "Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders."

I wonder why Billie Sol Estes selected Douglas Caddy as his attorney?

Caddy wrote an article about Watergate in a recent edition of The Advocate (Ist August, 2005). Caddy obviously feels he was badly treated during the Watergate Scandal. He also believes that the Senate investigation attempted to cover up the links between Watergate and the White House. He is no doubt right about this. But I would go further than that. All those involved in investigating Watergate (including the Washington Post) successfully attempted to cover-up all those dirty tricks operations outside the Watergate incident. That probably involves Caddy and other leaders of the YAF.

Anyway, if you want to read his long article it can be found here:

http://www.advocate.com/special_feature_ektid19186.asp

Douglas Caddy has his own website here:

http://www.reformtexas.com/

Here are the details of Caddy's work for Billie Sol Estes:

http://home.earthlink.net/~sixthfloor/estes.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, it is a most interesting report and Stu and I have been discussing it as well. It gets really hard to separate the Nixon phase from the post-Nixon phase as a lot of the players did change. I'd sure like to have dates on the items you mentioned - especially the "must go" list and the Phillips/Esterline conversations. Unusual to find real name/initials on a must go list if it came from within CIA though. Such a list sure does smack of the PBSUCCESS cadre though.

One thing we do know via new CIA documents is that beginning in 1960 it was Morales who was running the counter intelligence effort and making the lists of names of Cuban targets. And he had a group going in before and with the Brigade specifically targeted on those lists. Whether there was a separate PM group with lists remains to be seen but we also have some documents about at least one paramilitary assassination program targeting Castro. And Robertson seems to have made an attempt against Che which he tagged on to another mission....which sounds like standard Rip stuff with or without ourders. Its now very clear that the Roselli/Varona efforts were not the only project in play and that Cuba project people were putting together their own attempts...regardless of Esterline's later testimony (like anybody should belive any CIA testimony from the guy in charge of the project...).

-- Larry

I followed a link posted by Tim to read an internal CIA history of the Bay of Pigs, newly declassified, and learned a lot. Maybe this stuff was previously available, but it was new to me. http://www14.homepage.villanova.edu/david.barrett/bop.html

The history corroborates a number of suspicions, and provides fresh evidence to tie the BOP with the Kennedy assassination.

In a section on Nixon it corroborates Robert Morrow's story that  Nixon, along with Marshall Diggs and former Senator Owen Brewster, backed a Cuban exile named Mario Kohly as a replacement for Fidel. It also reveals that Kohly threatened to blow the lid off  the upcoming invasion when the CIA and state department decided he lacked the right stuff to lead the new government.

This section also reveals that Nixon was heavily backed by William S Pawley, and that Pawley was similarly miffed when his candidate, Rubio Padillo, was written off as a reactionary.

It also notes that shortly after Padillo and Kohly were cut out of the action, Nixon's contact with the CIA dropped off considerably.  Since Nixon was certainly planning on becoming the next President, and since Nixon was undoubtedly committed to having a commie-free Cuba, this makes me suspect that Morrow's other contention, that the exile government sponsored by the CIA was to be killed upon arrival in Cuba, has merit.  I just don't see Nixon walking away from the BOP, after he was so involved in its beginning stages. I believe he'd made plans of his own...plans he would have implemented once elected.

In a section on assassinations, there's even more dirt.  In a discussion of whether or not assassinating Castro was part of the plan, one agent is quoted as asking "can we get a Rip Robertson next to him?"  This indicates that Robertson, who looks exasctly like a man seen in Dealey Plaza, was THE man in the CIA most likely to be involved in assassination (as evidenced by his role in Guatemala).  At another point, a memo is quoted that says Jake Esterline discussed a program of assassination with David Atlee Phillips.

Even more surprising, in a discussion of a program called AMHINT, it is mentioned in passing that the DRE, (yes, those wacky student protestors who had that goofy fight with Oswald on the streets of New Orleans) were provided with high-powered rifles with silencers and scopes.  (Have you read this, Jeff Morley?)  It is explained that these rifles may have been part of a canceled plan to kill the Soviet Ambassador to Cuba.

The writer of the history describes as well a "must go" list found in the files.  This is presumably a list of Cubans who were to be killed once Fidel was overthrown.  The list was from someone using the initials E.L., which one of the CIA men involved says must mean Edward Lansdale (who wasn't directly involved in the Bay of Pigs).

What's intriguing about this is that in the section on Nixon it is noted that Nixon suggested the CIA contact Lansdale early on in the planning of the BOP.

This raises the question:  was there a separate assassination element to the BOP planning kept separate from the main plan, and did Nixon supervise this element behind Eisenhowers back?

I find it hard to believe Nixon would ignore the BOP planning because he was too busy campaigning.  He planned on winning the election.  He would not want to inherit an unwinnable situation in Cuba.  I believe he had his own plans, on hold,  ready to go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert, I've had the same discussion with PDS and definitely come down with your direction. I think that is supported by Martino's remark that the plot totally came apart with Tippett was killed and Oswald was taken into custody. That blew the rest of the plan.

On the other hand, I retain at least a suspicion that one or more parties involved with inciting the plot may have actually been prepared to double cross the exiles by getting to Johnson and setting the stage to squash a conspiracy response if at all possible. Roselli would be my suspect in that - after all getting JFK and especially RFK out of the picture would be good for buisness, atomic war would be bad. I do know that at least in Martino's case that he came to believe the people who had incited the plot might have had an agenda of their own and that the exiles may have been used. More may emerge on that, hard to say.

Question...could you give a reference for that Oswald luggage tag thing...I've heard that come up before but was never sure of the source?

-- thanks, Larry

Ron, WADR, I do not think LBJ was a plotter.  But I do think he may very well have been black-mailed into the cover-up, which is why the plotters could be assured there would be a cover-up.

Makes no sense to me that the plotters' goal was to create a scenario to force an invasion of Cuba but all of a sudden things changed and the goal became to potray LHO as a lone nut. 

I have had the distinct privilege of discussing this very thing with Peter Dale Scott, for whom I have the utmost respect.  Those familiar with his hypothesis will know that Dr. Scott breaks it down into Phase One [Oswald as foreign-directed Commie proxy] which was the catalyst for Phase Two [Oswald as lone nut, to forestall the inevitable repercussions of Phase One.] 

That is the point at which Dr. Scott and I diverge, for I think his scenario gives the conspirators far too much credit for prescience, and assumes that the assassination went exactly according to its original specifications.  In short, he does not believe that a genuine push to react militarily against Cuba was ever in the cards.

I do think that a military retaliation against Cuba was the secondary goal of the assassination, and that much was done to achieve this.  [The MIG alert re: Oswald/Hidell, the utterly false Stringfellow memo from DPD to MIG, Hosty's report that McDill jets were scrambled toward Cuba, etc.]  The Joint Chiefs and CIA had both long advocated a direct military incursion into Cuba to overthrow Castro, and the assassination would have provided the perfect pretext, given the superficial evidence of Oswald being a Havana proxy.

Moreover, we know from Antonio Veciana's tale that certain parties were not only willing to tip the scales toward a military confrontation with both Havana and Moscow at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but anxious that there be no other outcome.  It is not that nobody was insane enough to push for this; only that it didn't happen.

In our conversation, Dr. Scott asked me directly: "If a military strike against Cuba was planned, why didn't it happen?"

"Because Oswald was arrested," I replied.  Had he simply vanished, and then CIA reported:

* Oswald had previously defected to the USSR and threatened to reveal US military secrets to the Soviets

* Upon his return to the US, Oswald had militated for Castro via the FPCC

* Oswald had been in Mexico City only months earlier, applying for travel papers to both Cuba and the USSR

* While there, Oswald met with Kostikov, reputed head of Soviet assassination and sabotage operations in the Western Hemisphere

* A light plane arrived in Mexico City from the Dallas Redbird airstrip

* A single passenger disembarked and made his way across the tarmac to a Havana-bound flight that had been delayed as though awaiting only him

  

* "Oswald" luggage had been found at the Mexico City airport, tagged for travel to Havana

... the conclusions of Soviet and Cuban complicity would have been inescapable, and the demand among the general populace for retribution would have been unavoidable.

The fly in the ointment was Oswald's arrest.  With that unintended development, everything changed.  It was now necessary to silence him, which led to a certain amount of extemporizing and ad-libbing that hadn't been part of the original game plan.

I think the plotters knew what they were doing.  Their goal was to kill JFK, create a patsy, blackmail LBJ into a cover-up, and give him a scenario to use to persuade others to go along with a cover-up "in the national interest".

In your scenario, the plotters achieved their goals perfectly, but were rather unambitious, prepared to settle solely for killing the President.  In my scenario, they were far more ambitious - killing Kennedy and sealing Castro's fate, the very thing that JFK himself had denied them while alive - but less effective.

It seems an odd bunch of plotters, indeed, who would go to the effort of killing the President, but then forego the spinoff benefit of deposing Castro and settle instead for just JFK's death.  If you can effectively kill two birds with one stone, why let the second bird escape?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert, that has been done (by Dick Russell among others) and unfortunately everything Shawn knows can be found in the material on his WEB site. When you net it out two things are clear i) David's brother and others in the family had strong suspicions he was involved in the conspiracy in some fashion....enough so to stop speaking with him and ii) even when dying and with the opportunity of one last phone call to reconcile himself with his brother Phillips refused to deny his involvement.

At a minimum I would have to judge that Phillips either consciously aided some area of the conspiracy or suspected who had done it and consciously covered it up. Given his remark as reported by Summers about believing that it was a conspiracy involving US intelligence officers (made after denying any such thing for years and legally challenging any implication of same) that confirms to me the Phillips knew there was a conspiracy and who was involved...which of course would make him an accessory to conspiracy for not reporting what he suspected or knew.

-- Larry

In all fairness, I would like to point out that, in the thread on the topic of "Castro Did It," the "testimony" of Veciana has turned out to be merely a summary...no one has actually produced this "testimony" on this Forum, and the veracity of Veciana's statements has been questioned.  To then turn around and use Veciana's "testimony" to make a point is, I believe, not very solid ground upon which to base an argument.

This is NOT a defense of any particular member of the Forum [although, had I NOT posted this disclaimer, one certainly would expect him to claim so], but merely a defense of fairness in debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recently read a post on a JFK forum, it might have even been on the JFK Lancer forum, that Shawn Phillips (who was a fairly famous rock singer in the 1970's) the nephew of David Atlee Phillips said that David told him shortly before his death that "he was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. It would be of interest for someone to interview him to find out what, if more Shawn is willing to reveal about his Uncle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James, I'm not sure I can leap all that way with you but I do know the following:

1) Many of the companies operating in Cuba, Freeport and King Ranch among them, were coerced by Castro for donations - it went as far as kidnapping personnel and holding hostages. The point man for the collection efforts worked thorugh New York and eventually defected via New York and became a very active anti-Castro leader....eventually commanding the Tejuna III which was obtained in New Orleans, funded out of Texas and coordinated by CIA. Introductions were made via the Lobo network out of NYC which I referenced earlier. Gets complex but I try to deal with it in a couple of appendices which will be in my second edition.

2) Bishop (Phillips) always used the cover of representing a group of businessmen whose interests were either threatened or taken over by Castro, I think that was a pretty simple and standard ploy and there was plenty of press around over the expropriation of American business to make it stick and to lend some names which could be implied. Seeing Roselli use the same line would be no great surprise, its either that or say that he is representing the syndicate (poor taste and maybe dangerous since its clear that he and Giancana were not acting with syndicae approval) or the CIA (even poorer taste and frowned on by his real employers).

There is absolutely no doubt from the paper trail that there was an axis of American companies serving as a peripheral (one step removed) network which aided and in many cases funded moves against Castro which could be deniable by the CIA. Fellow travelers is one way to think of it but these guys had clout and no problems about using people....its clear that some folks who thought they were working for the US government or CIA were recruited and paid by this network. It takes the concept of fronts and covers way beyond what my simple mind can handle...

-- Larry

James,  I've never seen anything to indicate that Roselli was connected

to Freeport, much less taking money from them.  His money was

virtually all from deal making within the LA and Vegas venues. 

Not that he didn't have connections in New Orleans but if Freeport was one of

them it would be news... (Larry Hancock)

Larry,

I mentioned it because and I am going on memory here, that a contact (can not recall his name) of Andrew Sciambra told him that a Mr. Wight of Freeport Sulphur contacted him regarding an assassination attempt against Castro.

A Charles Wight was a director of Freeport Sulphur.

In Peter Wyden's 'Bay of Pigs - The Untold Story', John Roselli told his Cuban contacts that he represented Wall Street money men who amongst other things, had nickel interests in Cuba.

Freeport Nickel Company was a subsidiary of Freeport Sulphur. Given that Roselli was the one approached for the early Castro assassination plots, Freeport Sulphur may have been one of the early benefactors?

A few leaps of faith required but worth pondering I believe.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James, I've never seen anything to indicate that Roselli was connected

to Freeport, much less taking money from them. His money was

virtually all from deal making within the LA and Vegas venues.

Not that he didn't have connections in New Orleans but if Freeport was one of

them it would be news...

-- Larry

Given this thread it is also worth noting that we now have documents that show that Phillips was very well entrenched with a lot of the old school Cuban and American businessmen who very much wanted access to Cuba again.  This involved not only the King Ranch folks but the Freeport Sulpher people (Phillips was introduced to them and apparently traveled to New Oreleans for meetings) as well as the whole Lobo sugar axis of companies in New York.   (Larry Hancock)

Hi Larry,

I found it interesting that one of the Bay of Pigs planners and advocate for the assassination of Castro, Arleigh Burke (below), was on the Board of Directors for Freeport Sulphur.

Do you give any credibility to the possibility that John Roselli was receiving money in the early days of Castro assassination plans from Freeport Sulphur?

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dave, Trull was indeed a friend of the King ranch folks and we now know that it was they who introduced him to Sierra after a meeting with him. Apparently it was felt that Sierra needed an American who was a good talker to assist and they thought Trull would serve that role.

Given this thread it is also worth noting that we now have documents that show that Phillips was very well entrenched with a lot of the old school Cuban and American businessmen who very much wanted access to Cuba again. This involved not only the King Ranch folks but the Freeport Sulpher people (Phillips was introduced to them and apparently traveled to New Oreleans for meetings) as well as the whole Lobo sugar axis of companies in New York. The range of Phillips connections is extremely impressive. I think it is probably worth pointing out though that he does not have seemed to be spending all that much time in Florida in 1963 and that others had much more direct contact with Cuban exiles, both pro and anti-Kennedy during 1963. Much more on that will come out in print this fall it appears. I'm certainly not writing Phillips out of the whole equation but I've also come to feel that it would indeed not be as simple a matter as he, by himself, inciting a plot to kill the President.

No John,  not really.  Morales connections were primarily to gambling types,  first in Havana and then in Vegas.   Phillips did have some minor oil connections in Texas where he and his family owned some leases but there's no sign that he was a known quantity in the oil business - what we do know for sure that Phillips did make contacts with people who were willing to make contributions to the Anti-Castro cause.   That included Kleberg of King Ranch in Texas and some other individuals in New Orleans.  Primarily these were people who had been doing business in Cuba while Phillips was stationed there;  there is a list of some of the companies in my 2004 supplement, in the appendix "The WAVE way". 

There are some suggestions that Phillips may have approached other people doing off the books fund raising for projects perhaps not on the official CIA task list but that is very speculative at present and again,  the individuals would primarily have been those with pre-Castro business holdings in Cuba.

Larry,

If memory serves me, wasn't William Trull associated with the King Ranch? Trull was reportedly Paulino Sierra's entree into certain circles when Sierra first started his new anti-Castro organization (JGCE).

Dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet, Steve pointed you to my comments in the Lancer thread so you've got that - but to throw in a couple more observations:

1. Puterbaugh was introduced in various ways at various times by people who really didn't know him....he was an Ag Dept employee who was officially borrowed by the DNC and represented the DNC and by generalization the administration e.g. the White House staff although he was in no way attached to it. Whether all that is suspect is a completely different story and I happen to think it may have been even without Puterbaugh's knowledge...that takes you back to Cliff Carter who was standing behind the scenes coaching him (logically Carter himself would have been the logical political advance man and performed that function for Johnson both before and after the Texas trip....very experienced in that). However it does make sense that people introduced Puterbaugh in different ways - given that he traveled with Lawson and attended all the advance planning meetings, I expect many people assumed he was actually Secret Service.

2. No matter what we would all have wished, the DPD did not regard the motorcade as a security matter, they regarded it as a parade and as a traffic control challenge. You can see that in the morning instructions to the force, you can see it in many of Sneed's interviews with officers long after the fact. Its clear that security worries were about crowds and demonstrations at the Trade Mart - the DPD security chief was at the Trade Mart not with the motorcade and arrests had already been made there before the assassination. Previous violence in Dallas had all been when political targets were "on the street" in front of crowds - and there were special security precautions for that, we know that DPD built photo files of protestors and did special briefs for the door guards at the Trade Center. Based on history that made sense, as I have said repetitively (sorry) neither the Secret Service or DPD or likely any other law enforcement group had any history or experience with covert operations against public figures. You can see that in the primitive and pitiful way the SS handled threat intelligence - if somebody made a public threat against the President it got investigated, but only for that city, apparently the thought of even a lone nut "stalking" a President from place to place did not occur to them prior to Dallas.

3. Having mentioned my study of the 112th / MI which is available on CD I won't bore anybody but I think if you want to pursue that track you really ought to either check it out or get copies of the extensive investigation of the 112th conduced by the ARRB for yourself.

-- Larry

Steve,

Great stuff, as usual. Could you go over all that again and give

us your conclusions or hypothesis about what was going on?

From a first look, it seems that Whitmayer may have been

"out of the loop" a reserves MI guy who was not linked to

the 112th and the suspicious Texas MI/Ed Walker connected

Captain Sidwell.

What do you think was really going on?

Anybody else who has looked into this is encouraged to comment.

(great material lately --- thanks, everybody)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Robert, I tend to agree although I still rubs me the wrong way. For example Manchester gave a very specific time and description of the Hoover call...along with calls before and after it. I don't know how he would have come up with such a thing out of clear air - but now the call log shows the call he listed before and the one after with the time differences adjusted to eliminate the time for the Hoover call. A Hoover call makes so much sense its hard to imagine it not happening....and there is no other record of anyone seeing Hoover anywhere in DC that evening where he could have met personally with Johnson, Hoover definitely stand out by his apparent absense.

I tend to wonder if DeLoach simple heard Hoover mention having talked to the new President and assumed it was in person.

Beyond that, and my distaste for loose ends, we have another source who in his biography describes being with McCone for that purported security brief first thing in the morning; he states they met Johnson in the hallway and Johnson had no interest in a brief and after a short exchange he left with no dialog. Now if this is true it seems very significant and if not somebody is working very hard at covering up matters of importance like MC that were dicussed.

Not sure that we will ever claify it but for the moment the apparent absence of Hoover in D.C. that evening, the disappearing phone call and Johnson's lack of interest in any national security brief the morning after the assassination sound pretty silly given what one would have thought would be the interests of all the parties involved (Hoover not ususally being bashful about thrusting the Bureau to the fore as one example).

-- Larry

My issue is that Saturday morning Johnson's first query is about Mexico City;  the question then is had Hoover and Johnson discussed Mexico City before?   If not who did brief Johnson and when? 

Larry, I suspect I was unclear and should have simply cut to the chase.  The Hoover-Johnson call came at 10:01 on 11/23/63.  Forty minutes earlier on that same morning, Johnson had been briefed in person by McCone.  The obvious inference is that Johnson learned of the Mexico City nightmare from McCone, as cited by Scott and Beschloss.  I think this resolves the mystery.

Plus did Johnson speak with Hoover on November 22......Manchester says he called him at home,  DeLoach seems to indicate they spoke in person and Johnsons phone log does not support the call Manchester describes (at least now).  

Barring evidence of a phone call on 11/22, DeLoach seems to be correct and that Hoover and Johnson must have spoken in person.

If the two did not talk how did Hoover get the order to take over the investigation and evidence from DPD Friday night?   And are we really expected to think the Hoover just went home from work that night like any normal day?   Or that Johnson called everybody in DC except Hoover?

Again, I suspect DeLoach was correct about an in-person meeting, rather than the phone call that didn't seem to have transpired, based on the extant logs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert, sorry if I was unclear, I'm familiar with the 10:01 AM call on Saturday morning....and I think Newman has gone a good way with this story beyond what even PDS did with Deep Politics III.

My issue is that Saturday morning Johnson's first query is about Mexico City; the question then is had Hoover and Johnson discussed Mexico City before? If not who did brief Johnson and when? Plus did Johnson speak with Hoover on November 22......Manchester says he called him at home, DeLoach seems to indicate they spoke in person and Johnsons phone log does not support the call Manchester describes (at least now). If the two did not talk how did Hoover get the order to take over the investigation and evidence from DPD Friday night? And are we really expected to think the Hoover just went home from work that night like any normal day? Or that Johnson called everybody in DC except Hoover?

I wasn't really referring to the Phase 1 and 2 concepts nor even to CIA/Mexico City pushing the Commie plot...which gets agonizingly stupid once you get to the Alvarado story.

I'm stuck down in the details of the individuals personal activities during the first twelve hours or so when there appear to be loose ends and abnormal behavior all over the place.

-- Larry

Pat, I would sure like to seem some detail or corroboration for DeLoach's remark. As you know I've studied Johnson's movements on his return almost minute by minute.... largely based in Manchester's work. I can find no indication that Hoover met Johnson in person and although Manchester does record one call from Johnson to Hoover at his home that call has gone missing from the Johnson phone log.

If the two men did meet then something serious has been erased from the record, and DeLoach didn't know not to mention it. Could you give any further details or corroboration?

And if memory serves, its an interesting experiment to time how long the published transcript of the "lost" recording takes to read and compare that to the purported time of the conversation. Its probably no fluke that we don't have the actual recording itself anymore...

Also interesting to ponder that Johnson knows about Mexico City and the Kostikov thing when he calls Hoover. Question is, when and how did he learn that?

-- Larry

The following paper from Rex Bradford should probably be considered here.  It relates to the fact that there is no recording of the Saturday, November 23, 1963 phone call between President Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, relating to Oswald's impersonation in Mexico City:

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/...enMinuteGap.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve, you can find out the details on this from the Newman pressentation that Joe B. was good enough to archive in the Lancer site. Newman speaks to Tumbleweed in that.

Basically Tumbleweed refers to the FBI identification of a foreign national in NYC who had a range of contacts in the U.S. and in Mexico City with persons of interest including Soviet intel. staff. This was part of the identification of Kostikov as attached to Soviet espionage and sabotage. Tumbleweed and Loredo are both names that come up in conjunction with this; interestingly enough Loredo was also a Soviet contact name given by Nagell.

This was one of the biggest FBI counter intelligence breaks of the time and there is reason to belive that Hoover was very much interested in exploiting it.

Tim, one caution and one suggestion. First as to the test for reliability I'm afraid that with some of the sources involved in the secret war your criteria would be underestimating the informants. Both the exiles and their fellow travelers were wont to go to both the FBI and CIA frequently with a definite agenda. Their official information often was structured to meet their political or tactical agenda. We have recently learned (once again) that exile groups are very dangerous sources of information since they conciously seek to maneuver their supporting powers into conflict with their enemies. Which leads to bad intelligence and bad intelligence estimates, after our experience with the paperclip/Gaelin (sp) network, with nationalist China, with the Cuban exiles, in Vietnam - you would think we would learn that eventually but it seems not.

I can show you numerous examples of exiles and secret warriors making reports to the FBI which can now shown to vary from their true knowledge. Calls me to discuss examples if you want. In fact Martino as an FBI informant is a case in point. Veciana has admitted he would never identify Phillips as Bishop even if it were true pretty well undermines his HSCA testimony. Escalante can be shown to be basing much of his commentary on JFK research books...its only when he gives unique Cuban data that he becomes of interest. So my caution is that consistency may only reflect agenda, not reliability.

My suggestion, especially for the CIA and FBI Castro leads, the ones identifying purported agents is to list out the chain of info as to ultimate source, evaluate whether that source would indeed be privy to any quality information or the info they claim (Alvarado convinced everybody in MC for several days and the CIA station guys continued to support him....even a simplistic evaluation would have written it off plus we know know they had photo coverage that would have answered the question in about 15 minutes and proven him a xxxx). Then you have to break out the case officer or filter for the report and see if you find any patterns there. Those investigating in MC found a very interesting pattern, all the bogus Castro leads were coming from sources who would have been part of Phillips CI network.

But at least when you slog through all this and present it you will have helped educate everyone. It's something Russo didn't even attempt, he just repeats the stuff at face value and third and fourth hand in some cases, rumors and gossip stuff.

-- Larry

I thought Larry's analysis was very good.

I tend to agree with Larry's suggestion that the efforts to link Oswald to Castro prior to the assassination may have been part of a US intelligence operation that had nothing to do with the assassination, but that did make Oswald an attractive "patsy" to the conspirators.

Larry wrote:

Seems to me that the only way to deal with it is to list out the incidents and suspects and then study them individually rather than talk in general terms. Tim, that takes you back to analysing the source, timing and credibility of your Castro agents suspects in the same manner I did the other side. And when I say credibility, you need to dig up enough background on your Castro agents to at least demonstrate they have some background or experience that would make them credible as running some sort of conspiracy or some tactical participation.

I agree with Larry that one ought to try to examine every lead linking Castro to the assassination.  I am not sure how it is possible to check the background of the informants.  I think if the information is from an informant who has provided reliable information in the past, then the information from that informant ought to be considered reliable.  Does this seem acceptable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gary, this really does not sound at all like the material Goltz covers in

his newspaper report. The material in the box he writes about was left

in a closet and found after her roommates sudden departure by the

girl who turned it into police. She thought it might have been from

her roommates latin boyfriend. Some of the material was notes written

on the stationary of the theatre company where the girl worked. However

much of what the officers reported were receipts and other material.

It would be pretty strange for Preston to write a report on what Goltz

described and not mention hotel receipts and telephone charges for

Jack Ruby. In fact if this memo is on what Goltz reported and confirmed

by interviewing the officers then it certainly obscures what was

actually in the box.

In Goltz's story the officers only report physically handing off the box,

nothing about making a report of it or doing more than turning it over

to the DA's office. Certainly nothing about reporting it to the FBI.

I'd sure love to know if this is the same incident and if so why this

memo differes so radically from Goltz's interviews with the officers

themselves. Then again it is an FBI report, from the same field office

as the agents who backdated Ray January's RedBird encounter by six

months making it look nowhere nearly as important as it really was.

And by the way, since when do FBI reports not itemize contents...grin.

-- Larry

Thanks Larry.

I do have one document in my files that refers to this incident. It is an FBI document, dated January 1, 1964 (RIF #180-11007710009) from agents Will Hayden Griffin and Arthur Carter

Mr. Billy J. Preston, Executive Deputy, Precinct 1, Dallas County, Dallas Dallas, Texas, advised that he is an executive deputy in Precinct 1 under ROBIE LOVE, Constable, Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, and he obtained thirty-three documents, including one 2- by4-inch spiral-bound notebook from Mrs. MARY SIMS, who resides at 4311 Cole, Apartment E, telephone LA 1-4764. He stated Mrs. SIMS is employed as a clerical secretary for the Stanley Warner Management Corporation, Dallas, Texas, telephone number RI 8-0781, Extension 28.

He said that Mrs. SIMS told him these documents were obtained by her from one BILLY LEE JONES, also known as H.L. JONES, who claimed to be a great-great, grandson of WILLIAM H. (BILLY THE KID) BONNEY. He said that Mrs. SIMS told him that JONES, a transient, stays at the City Mission on South Ervay in Dallas and allegedly resides at an unknown address in San Antonio, Texas. She told him that she wanted to check up on this man inasmuch as he claimed to be formerly connected with the office of Naval Intelligence and she recalled typing a report for him concerning JACK RUBY's going to Cuba.

Mr. PRESTON advised that the documents had been turned over by him to the District Attorney of Dallas County and believed that Assistant District Attorney FRANK WATTS had examined them and made photostats of them for any interest they might have in the trial of JACK RUBY in Dallas County for the murder of LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

He also advised that this subject called Mrs. SIMS twice on the night of January 27, 1964, advising her that he was in Myrtle, Mississippi, at Camp Zion. He said Mrs. SIMS told him that the subject told her something abouth the Marine Corps—Love Field, and mentioned Serial No. 634168.

He said that Mrs. SIMS resides with a girl whose nickname is “PUTSY”. He was unable to supply additional information concerning her roommate except her roommate was employed by the V.A., Dallas, Texas.

He advised that JONES had advised SIMS that he was in the Carlson Raiders of the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence and called her sometime before the 23rd and claimed that he was with DAVE SCARBORO, an attorney from Abilene, Texas, and advised SIMS that he and SCARBORO were in an automobile accident and were hospitalized in a hospital at Fort Worth, Texas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>