Larry Hancock
-
Posts
4,087 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Larry Hancock
-
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
Let's try to parse some of this out with the following:
1) There is an identifiable pattern of activities which were intended to frame Oswald and Ruby as being associated with Castro. A good deal of this was done by impersonation and association prior to Nov. 22, more of it was done immediately afterwards. What was done before hand was well thought out and pretty well executed and some of it may have had nothing to do with the conspiracy but rather with Oswald's intelligence dangle to the Cubans as a fervant Castro supporter.... which of course is what made Oswald the most attractive patsy the plotters had found up to that point. What was done after the assassination (when the plan to fully frame Oswald after the murder fell apart) was iterative, catch as catch can and not nearly well enough put together to match Johnson's clout in driving the cover-up. Some of it, such as the Pedro Charles letters and the Gilberto Alverado incident was really badly done and even Hoover and Phillips respectively had to give up on Castro after a few weeks of investigation - even though Hoover had told Johnson he really wanted to hold in the possiblity of conspiracy in the FBI report and Phillips had strongly endorsed the Alvarado story (didn't seem to be a real black mark in his career file though).
2) There is also a pattern of exiles who sincerely felt that Castro was behind it since he was behind pretty much anything evil going on (which easily leads to the temptation of identifying DGI agents in photos as much as we tend to see our favorite suspects in DP).
3) There is also a pattern which includes virtually all the "secret warriors", exile and fellow travelers at least being suspicious of Castro and open to the suggestion he did do it (let's list Mann but again its easy to demonstrate that both FBI and CIA were far more receptive to leads that Castro agents were involved than exile Cubans...think I pretty well document that in the book). Plus the real secret Cuban warriors are going to blame Castro whenever they can reasonably do so - sort of a knee jerk reaction (why does this make me think of red and blue states and party politics?). I would be as skeptical of Veciana inserting a DGI agent into a DP photo as I am of Escalante reading assassination books and throwing in any name tied to the CIA. Works both ways.
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. As an example, an FPCC member who is a U.S. resident and has been trying to travel to Cuba for a considerable time, gets permission and transits to Mexico City via Dallas .....well I'd just like a little more detail before seeing how he makes a very credible assassination participant since the only way to get to Cuba was to go via Texas to Mexico.
What would be really interesting would be to see you do a detailed presentation of the people and at least a strawman theory of how Castro thought he was going to pull it off. Until we get to that point we are still up at a super high level arguing motive and opportunity. Which you can obviously do forever. How about taking it down a few levels if you want to do it justice?
-- Larry
Larry wrote:Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.
The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is falsified, then Castro did it.
Not that I necessarily believe in UFOS, but if 100 people reported seeing UFOs, and 99 were delusional, but one was not, and correctly reported what he saw, then UFOS do indeed exist.
But I will add to what Larry said. There could be reports linking Castro to the assassination which were not deliberately false but were simple cases of mistaken identity. So I will amend my reply to the following:
The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is either falsified or mistaken, then Castro did it.
Now Stephen had tried to belittle Veciana's report by implying that Veciana made it up because he hated Castro and had tried on more than one occasion to murder him. If Veciana hated Castro enough to kill him, Stephen argues, why would he not lie about him? A fair enough question. But we have to remember that Veciana first made this report in 1975. It was clearly not an attempt to prompt an invasion of Cuba in the aftermath of the assassination. Nor did Veciana even go to the media about it. In other words, it has the "ring of truth" about it. Is it possible that Veciana was simply mistaken? Certainly is.
Stephen also wonders why there is no photographic evidence of all these DGI agents in Dealey Plaza. Come on, Stephen, use the brain God gave you (oops! excluse the religious reference). I suspect the DGI agents were in Dealey Plaza to kill Kennedy, not to wave at him. I do not suspect they were standing around on the corner of Elm and Houston smoking cigarettes.
Many peope think there was a shooter on the grassy knoll or behind the picket fence. Some even think they can make out images of a shooter. If I am right about my scenario, that shooter could have been a DGI agent. Same thing with respect to mysterious images in the TSBD photos.
Can I, as Stephen suggests, identify the operational role of every DGI agent in Dealey Plaza? Of course not. But surely Stephen does not think this disproves my scenario, does he? For if he does, then I guess no one killed Kennedy--because no advocate of any assassination theory has been able to identify by name and operational status every shooter. Therefore, by Stephen's "analysis" all theories advanced to date must be false.
I think Larry impliedly acknowledges there is more evidence pointing to Castro than to anyone else. Larry believes each and every such piece of evidence must be falsified. But I suspect Larry would admit there are some reports that he cannot PROVE to be false. And, as I noted above, even if only ONE such report is true, then Castro did it.
-
Gary, the Enquirer has things a bit wrong but are in the ballpark. For the real story you need to go back to a news article that Earl Goltz wrote in Dallas. It names the officers involved and traces back the origin of a box of materials that certainly would have tied Oswald and Ruby as well as suggested that the two men were involved with parties outside the U.S. As I recall there was nothing specific about Castro per se but various leads across the border into Mexico.
Jim Marrs first surfaced this in his book Crossfire and you will find some good details there. I cover it in Chapter 13 of my book along with a variety of other indications that Ruby may indeed have been set up as being tied to Oswald and some sort of conspiracy.
Certainly Ruby was tied to an interest in doing business with Castro by his McKeown contacts and McKewon was brought back into play in 63 by an apparent Oswald impersonator.
There are a variety of other apparently planted stories from Miami and Dallas about Ruby being involved.....Martino related to Weyl that reports out of Cuba indicated that Ruby went to Havana to make a shady deal at the same time Oswald was in touch with Cuban intelligence. I'm pretty sure Bringuier was floating a similar story in New Orleans. And in Dallas we have an amazing and somewhat corroborated report of a man named Yates giving a ride to an Oswald impersonator with a rifle and dropping him off at the TSBD...after the fellow had floated the question of whether JFK would be shot when he came to Dallas and asking if Yates was familiar with the Carousel club. This story was confirmed by a fellow employee of being told by him to Yates before the assassination.
Bottom line is, if officials had really been interested in tieing this to Castro it there would have been material for them to use.
Which of course is just what the plotters had arranged...if Yates had gone to the FBI earlier or to the press on November 22....hard to say how history might have been written.
-
Chris, the report I mentioned is one of thousands of documents in the Russ Holmes collection of the segragated CIA files. I made no record of it simply because it was so transparent. An older Cuban exile, a Doctor, reported to the FBI that he had seen a magazine photo of DP which showed one of the people in the plaza to have been someone he remembered as being a Castro "spy/agent/cadre" in Cuba. There are several exchanges in the file trying to tie down the magazine, the exact photo, the name of the person etc and in the end there was nothing concrete at all that could be developed other than the gentleman felt Castro must have been involved. If you slog though the Holmes files you can find other examples of the same. As I've pointed out before, the FBI and CIA were actually pretty diligent about following up on any reports that pointed to Castro or Castro agents, they show much less interest in reports that deal with suspicions about exiles. I provided several concrete examples of that in my book.
Larry could you tell us more about this? “…in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness.”Truthfully I’ve given up caring about this whodunit, it’s the collaborative communication that’s valuable here, especially since the last chapter on Cuba hasn’t been written. US and Cuba is the best long and winding story I know of in current history.
Tim, Castro didn’t do it. He had no need to. Others were willing to do Dallas for him, same crews that tried to off him perhaps but independents too. Hired hands and sheep dipped soldiers perhaps patriotic renegades. Castro, however, did have every reason not to cry a single genuine tear for Kennedy while keeping what he knows (if anything) a secret. In exchange, he is safe to drum on until he dies. What insane blowback this is. You know he doesn’t have to worry about a bite to eat—that’s a hefty reward in most parts of the world. Now, doesn’t that make a better story?
Larry, your: “The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deeply involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK.”
Chris, you should know my work well enough by now to know that I don't evaluate sources on who they are, that always seems silly to me in a crime, about as silly as the FBI refusing all sorts of sources because they had some sort of stain on their character or legal record. After all, the most productive law inforcement informants are people within the context of the crime, not the local minister or mayor. My point was not about the source but the need to evaluate and corroborate the source in regard to the time frame in which they are informing and as to whether there is any reason to belive they would have been expected to know/possess the information they claim to know (for example to they claim "big picture" details when their actual role in life at the time of the event was that of a worker, I'm always suspicious of sources that claim too much high level insider information. However in this post I was referring to Veciana's comment about a Castro agent in DP.....not to Veicana as an informant, I consider him an extremely valuable source of information. Sorry if that sounded like a lecture but I figured I must need to be clearer than I was at first.
The source may be weird: a mental patient, a guy in jail, a drunk, a guy with an agenda, but the fact they are a source is worth noting. Sometimes if I look behind a source I see the essence of why they think the way they do, a worthwhile exercise. The FBI files are frankly, fubar, some Cubans may have an old agenda they rightly deserve after the big eviction of ’59, no thanks to US who aided the revolutionary cause. You see you can excuse anyone if you understand his or her m.o. The fact is many of my sources pan out in the history so they can’t be summarily discounted, no matter how they appear at first. They sometimes interpret differently is all, the facts we both have. The militant anti-Castro folks are also the militant revolutionaries of 26deJulio you can’t forget this fact. It’s a big one. The counterrevolution was guided by a Castro betrayal real and perceived depending on whom you talk to.
For another take on the backfiring of US foreign policy check this out. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GG19Ag04.html
-
John, that's a fine idea and if someone has a way to contact him I will surely do so, there will be several presentations on things relating to Cuba and secret war history and it would be fine to simply have him on the appropriate panels as a commentator - to make observations about what is presented.
I'd love to have as much participation as possible from historians and authors dealing with the period in question as I think (and tend to bore people by saying) that the history profession is not making full use of the huge amount of data in regards to several areas of U.S. history which have been brought forth by the JFK records act and the ARRB. I that that some authors and commentators writers from the 70's and 80's would be amazed to see some of the material available to us now. As far as I know its the type of raw, once highly classified, data that is probably available for no other country in the world during the cold war with the possible except of some niche topics pertaining to the Soviet Union or East Germany.
-- Larry
-
Stephen, a couple of comments. First, I have to say that most of us who have seriously wrestled with the conspiracy make use of the type of source material which is being discussed here - in this particular case Veciana's remarks about Phillips and Veciana's cousin in the MC embassy has some real potential value.
The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deepley involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK. The first is to cast suspicion on Castro for JFK's murder, that is so consistent as to be almost universal and its pretty easy to understand why. The second is to disclaim that they really had nothing against JFK and he was OK - that's not quite as universal but its frequently said by individuals who are on record saying the exact opposite when not talking to an interviewer.
I've seen more than one interview including approaches to the FBI by exiles with stories about Castro agents in DP, in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness. Reminds me of Roselli telling his media friends he could name the Castro agents involved in the hit on JFK and the only individual he eventually was forced to cite was found be found was a long term inmate in a mental hospital.
Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.
....OK, so that's my estimate of the data... Larry
Stephen, here is the link you requested.http://cuban-exile.com/doc_326-350/doc0329.html
It looks like the document is a summary of interviews rather than of a deposition. I would love to see the document itself but cannot afford to order it now.
You satisfied now, buddy?
Tim, thank you for posting the link, now we can all make our minds up as to what this is worth. Just a few questions.
1,You say his statement does not form part of the C/C report, do you know why such an important observation was left out?
2,Do you know what his actual words were?
3,Do you know the name of the Attorney who took his deposition?
4,Do you know which photo he is refering to?
5,Do you believe that more than one DGI agent was present in Dealy Plaza at the time of the shooting? What do you believe their operational roles were? Why does photographic evidence not support this scenario?
Tim, I am a long, long way from being satisfied.
-
Nic, it would be extremely difficult to corroborate Broshear's remarks but Dick Russell did an interesting follow up interview with him in 1975. Many of his remarks remained consistent, interestingly enough he did not point Dick at the CIA in regard to Ferrie but rather to a plot driven by Marcello. And in a familiar theme is stated that the whole idea was to kill Kennedy and blame it on the Communists.
All in all Broashear's seems to be a total wild card, the only thing that ever struck me that might be testable was something that I ran into while researching Beckham and Crisman and the religious credentials scam....Broashears ended up helping draft dodgers in California representing himself as a priest, and apparently turned some of them in as an informant. In the materail relating to that he stated that he left New Orleans because Ferrie had also told him something about Johnson being involved and that Broshears had spoken out against Johnson in public and had been questioned, harrassed and perhaps even charged by the Secret Service for threatening the President. An interesting tangent made more interesting by the fact that he named one of the agents that called on him.....an agent named Youngblood. It's that sort of thing that can drive you to distraction.
-- Larry
-
Hello all, just to keep everyone updated, I'd like to announce that we are pleased to have Jim Marrs return as a speaker at this year's Lancer conference.
Jim will be addressing the fundamental and hard core issues in JFK research, including the range of possible motives for a conspiracy against JFK along with issues dealing with both document and witness reliability.
-- Larry
-
Possibly also relevant that there is some mention that FAL's were the weapon of deniable choice for one of the last of Roselli's plans for Castro - James, you probably recall that better than I...
As I recall the weapons, uniforms and general appearance of the Menoyo camp
put it virtually in a league by itself as far as exile group camps went. It seems to have been extremely professional and dedicated to advanced training - specifically including a heavy emphasis on sniper training.
Larry
Good post, Larry.I have not been able to find out where the money came from to fund the Menoyo camp. This exercise would have been expensive and it should be noted that a large collection of Belgian FAL's were distributed amongst the trainees. It also seemed to attract some of the more motivated of exile militants.
Pure speculation here, but maybe some Mob money (Trafficante) laundered by Paul Helliwell being filtered into this operation would not be out of the question.
Eloy Menoyo calling the shots below.
James
-
James is absolutely right, we just got some new Customs documents on Rose from the period immediately following the assassination and as it turns out because Fritz of DPD was unresponsive to her JFK information literally nobody questioned her in any detail about the JFK lead, only about her drug information.
There is a bit of a mystery in that some of the memos reflect communication with the Secret Service but the related SS documents appear to be missing....how strange...not.
As it turns out given the information available it seems very unlikely that Rose actually heard anymore than some general gossip that was running through certain networks out of Miami. Its unlikely the two men with here had anything to do with the conspiracy and very unlikely that they were Arcacha Smith or Santana. I've added an appendix dealing with this to the forthcoming second edition of my book and it will reference the new documents. Its possible to make a speculative but reasonable case that several of the pre-assassination leaks were coming from one small group of folks in Miami...but the gossip spread as far as Chicago and New Orleans.
-- Larry
As I recall it was also Rose Cheramie, who identified one of the men she had overheard discussing the assassination prior to Nov 22, 1963. Apparently this same group of men drugged her etc.Perhaps some other Forum members recall this matter in more detail.
Hi Antti,
I am going on memory here so if I get anything wrong, hopefully a forum member can correct me.
A Lt. Fruge was investigating the Cheramie claims and interviewed Mac Manual, the bar owner of an establishment called the Silver Slipper. Fruge showed Manual some photographs of which he picked out Arcacha-Smith and Emilio Santana who accompanied Rose that evening.
I'm not sure if any solid connections between these men has ever been established.
Santana below.
James
-
Chris, as I recall the FBI traced back the actual payment for the Ad and found that the money had originated with either the Cuban embassy or Cuban UN diplomatic staff, I forget which. My note lists a reference to Newman's book page 95 on this so there might be more detail there.
It's late and I must be getting groggy.... refresh my memory on Matthews, I don't think I posted on him?
-- Larry
Larry, what is the evidence ad was Castro-funded? NYT only or news outlets using government sources? Thanks for clearing up Taber relationship. Interesting, was Matthews of NYT a member? Where was he when this was going on? Did he author any articles on subject? -
Just to jump back in here; its probably good to point out that this particular camp that Robertson took Ayers too is very much unlike the normal JMWAVE training facilities...in location, management etc. Now that we can see more and more daily JMWAVE ops documents we need to remember that in general WAVE was run in a very professional and a very tightly controlled fashion. This "mystery" camp which seems to be autonomous and at the disposal of Roselli even in the summer of 1963 is very, very different. I've speculated to James that its just possible that Ayers dropped in a bit of disinformation and that this mystery camp is the Menoyo camp. Even if its not, if Ayers is willing to dish out some real names related to this particular camp and its personnel that could be some pretty important information. Especially if the names were to match some of those James has offered.
-- Larry
The Julio mentioned may indeed be Julio G. Garcia.That is Garcia on the right in the image below. Apart from Roselli, he also had connections to Eloy Menoyo and during the late summer of 1963 during that Everglades training period, to Herminio Diaz Garcia.
During the hunt for Che Guevara, Garcia was still working as an Agency asset and was stationed in Bolivia. His cover was as an Urban Police Advisor associating with a Dr. Gonzalez who in fact was Gustavo Villoldo, ex Brigade 2506 member and graduate of Fort Benning.
FWIW.
James
-
James, according to the documents I have the FBI was requested to obtain the FPCC information by a "mid-level" CIA officer in conjunction with a new project against the FPCC to be launched outside the U.S. The documents make it sound as if the FBI obtained the ifnormation not the CIA. I've never heard McCord brought up in conjunction with it.... actually one would think prime candidates for the CIA side would be either Phillips in his new Cuban position or Hunt in his new position in charge of Domestic Ops covert actions.
On a side note, given that Oswald was in the FBI files as an officer with the FPCC (per his claim in New Orleans), by their regulations he should have been kept on the Watch List - all officers or individuals involved in public demonstrations in support of targeted subversive organizations (such as the FPCC) were to be maintained on the Watch list for pick up in case of a national emergency.
-- Larry
Larry, I seem to remember reading that the man who performed the break-in at the FPCC was none other than James McCord. Is there evidence to support that?I believe the reading of Oswald's letters to Lee were acknowledged in the report Quigley made in N.O., and were attributed to a "reliable informant tells us" or some such thing. It's impossible not to take from this that the FBI was very interested in Oswald and his activities.
BTW, thanks for posting the info on Lee. With that info and Harry's description of Lee, it sounds like he was not the same guy who scuffled with Ruby. The two Vincent Lees is apparently just another one of those coinkydinks.
-
Sorry John, that's just slang for a very covert break in / illegal entry where nothing is actually removed but rather photographed in place - the point is not just to steal stuff but to collect information without the target knowing they have been compromised.
If they later find out, the target may assume there is a leak in their organization - which will then play with their minds even more.
-- Larry
-
John, Newman goes into some depth on this in his book which is probably the best source on he Oswald letters to the FPCC. Basically the FBI says they got mailing lists and letters through an informant inside the FPCC office however there seems a very good possibility that was standard FBI protocol to cover the fact that they really got it through a black bag job on the office.
Its a bit humorous in a way that the FBI knew all about the Oswald letters well before the assassinationa and it took a good while for the FPCC itself to locate references to Oswald - they initially had denied they had no knowledge of him.
Who knows, maybe some of their records were sitting on FBI and CIA desks while they were frantically searching for them in their own office files.
-- Larry
-
There has been some excellant background research on the FPCC. Jay B. Mogan did an in depty article "The Real Origin of the FPCC in New York City" which appeared in Penn Jones "Continuing Inquiry" newsletter many years ago. The following is an exerpt from some material I collected and made available in the 2004 supplement to my book - John heard me mention a bit of this in Canterbury last month. The level to which the FPCC was being targeted by FBI and CIA makes it totally laughable that anyone associated with them would be ignored as an intelligence target...especially since the FBI had Oswald's letters to them in their possession well before the assassination (based on a request from CIA as part of a new program being started up against the FPCC outside the U.S):
Fair Play for Cuba Committee
The national FPCC organization originated in New York City and was founded by Robert Taber, a CBS journalist who had been the first newsmen to be invited by Castro to go to Cuba. Taber wrote a book with the title “M-16, Biography of a Revolution.” The co-founder was Richard Gibson, another CBS journalist with a great interest in social revolutions and interests ranging from the Algerian revolt against the French to Castro and Cuba. Later, V.T. Lee of Tampa Florida, showed up in New York City and started hanging around with Gibson; eventually inheriting leadership of the organization when both Taber and Gibson had moved on to other interests. Reportedly Lee was an ex Merchant Marine and very
familiar with illegal travel to and from Cuba. The FPCC quickly
came to the attention of both the FBI and the CIA, especially after
an April, 1960 full page ad in the New York Times which was
found to have been paid for by Castro and further evidence of Castro
funding for the organization. In October, 1960 the CIA launched an
illegal domestic intelligence operation involving informants, wire taps
and surveillance against Richard Gibson and in February 1961 David
Phillips was involved in another operation against a student member
who was planning on traveling to Cuba. In December 1962, the CIA jointed with the FBI in the AMSANTA project, using FBI penetration assets into Communist Party and front organization to develop information on Cuba and the Castro regime. By the fall of 1963 the CIA was requesting the assistance of the FBI in a new project targeting the FPCC outside the United States; the FBI responded by obtaining mailing lists, documents and letters from the FPCC NYC office, including copies of letters from and to Lee Oswald.
-
Pat, a couple of thoughts on that. First, Ayers did not get to JMWAVE and to that particular camp until the summer of 1963, some six months after the Harvey/Roselli assassination plots were supposedly laid to rest and Harvey was gone. What Ayers heard about Col Roselli was apparently from Robertson. I'd love to find something concrete to show Roselli was present or involved with that particular group of Cubans as of late summer 1963 but Ayers didn't give us that in his first book. Second, Roselli didn't give anybody much about any plots aside from the early poison pill attempts; that was supposedly on the agenda for his next visit interview (which someone made sure he didn't make). So we have a lot of juicy rumors about Roselli and exciting boat raids into Cuba but nothing to back it up - and its very likely all that was very much compartimentalized from normal JMWAVE operations anyway. Certainly Ayers description of that independent little camp is a great deal different that the tight controls somebody like Shackley ran.
I think there is a lot of value in considering a small and highly aggressive team that would have been loyal to Roselli and maybe Robertson and Morales as well. Maybe Ayers knows something about that but it would seem, given Ayers time frame and associations at JMWAVE, that the best we could expect is perhaps some inside gossip - unless of couse he continued his investigations into Morales and otehrs beyond what he provided to Fonzi and other researchers?
-- Larry
As I recall, Ayers mentioned in his book that Johnny Rosselli was called "Colonel" by the men working with him and that he had his own swift boat and assault team with which to conduct raids. One piece of info that's never been developed that could be a real find is the name of the men who worked with Rosselli in his swift boat. As many here know, men under fire develop a loyalty to each other beyond their loyalty to a cause. It could very well be that Rosselli's men developed a loyalty to him beyond their loyalty to the President, and were quite willing to assist him when he was ordered to kill Kennedy.
David Atlee Phillips And Absolute Power
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.