Larry Hancock

Well it seems like Ayers gives us a pretty good idea of what he did and who he knew in his first book. He was one of two military trainers recruited to come in and give tactical military training to CIA recruited exiles who had been selected, screened and vetted by JMWAVE to go into its small sabotage groups. He gives some very detailed descriptions of that training. Of course as part of the overall picture that was part of the Mongoose project and as a military trainer he worked along side Robertson (whom he describes at some length), Lynch and other trainers and his overall operational supervisor was Morales (whom he also describes at some length and which was a real key for Fonzi in trying to figure out who the Big Indian was). As a JMWAVE military trainer he would not have been working with exile groups which were not under the control of or part of JMWAVE operations.

As I recall he never met Roselli although he visited one camp with personnel he was told had done missions for Roselli. Perhaps a good read of the book would yield his comments on assassination missions or some mention of Phillips which I don't recall.

I didn't recall that assassination was a key part of the training he did nor the missions he describes - the ones I recall sound very much like the sabotage missions that were officially approved all the way up to JFK as part of the Mongoose project in that period of time. He also describes SWIFT boat operations , a base and the mother ships which are all well documented now.

All in all his first seemed pretty accurate with a bit of "romance" added - the work he did on investigating Morales was good investigation but was done privately after his book was out.

The question will be what experiences he had or sources he may be willing to produce that will provide something beyond his first book.....he expressed a good deal of suspicion about the assassination in the first book, perhaps now we will get to see something more solid behind that suspicion. The good news is that we do know enough about him to have a baseline for evaluation and that's a real advantage.

For reference, this thread should also have the following:

Those interested in Underhill might check the following: RIF 104-10170 and 104-10180-10401

These documents are a) a CIA internal analysis of the Ramparts article mentioning Underhill and an internal study of names sufaced during the Garrison investigation to determine which one really offered an exposure to CIA operations. It was this internal investigation that confirmed that Clay Shaw was a domestic contacts informant (the list of such in the 50's was pretty huge).

The second memo states that Underhill was in military intelligence from 43-46 and became an expert in enemy weapons, photography and related technical specialities. It states that he was an infrequent contact with CIA Domestic Operations in their New York office, that the contacts were routine information collection and that he was not a CIA employee.

The first memo describes a staff citation for superior work in military intelligence during WWII. It gives more detail on his Domestic Contact stating that in 1949 the CIA contacts office in NYC became interested in using Underhill as a contact for foreign intelligence. Background checks with various military members of the intelligence community "yielded insufficient information" and the office was advised that contact with Underhill be developed "with caution" on a limited basis and no information above "confidential" was to be shared with him. In 1957 national agency checks were again requested on him because of interest by the Office of Security. The Office of Security reported in 1954 that Underhill had contacted one Herman Axelbank who was trying to sell photos of Soviet military subjects and Underhill had reported those contacts to both the FBI and CIA. Underhill discussed Axelbank with Ricky Haskins of CIA.

Namebase entry for Gary Underhill

http://www.namebase.org/xtwa/Gary-Underhill.html

DiEugenio, J. Destiny Betrayed. 1992 (27-30)

Gritz, J. Called to Serve. 1991 (512)

Groden, R. Livingstone, H. High Treason. 1990 (143-4)

Hepburn, J. Farewell America. 1968 (339)

Marrs, J. Crossfire. 1990 (202, 559)

Stich, R. Defrauding America. 1994 (439)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron, among other things Underhill worked as a free lance writer on security and international/and intelligence topics for the New Replublic, Esquire and Colliers. It was in his position for Colliers that he was approached by Axelbank offering to sell him the Soviet military photos - he reported that to the FBI and CIA.

It was his writing work and the contacts he made through it that made him of interest as a domestic contact for the CIA.

Although the CIA memos don't mention it I seem to recall that he also did consulting work for Civil Defense in the 1950's.

-- Larry

Those interested in Underhill might check the following:

RIF 104-10170 and 104-10180-10401

These documents are a) a CIA internal analysis of the Ramparts article

mentioning Underhill and an internal study of names sufaced during

the Garrison investigation to determine which one really offered an exposure to CIA operations. It was this internal investigation that confirmed that Clay Shaw was a domestic contacts informant (the list of such in the 50's was pretty huge).

The second memo states that Underhill was in military intelligence from 43-46 and became an expert in enemy weapons, photography and related technical specialities. It states that he was an infrequent contact with CIA Domestic Operations in their New York office, that the contacts were routine information collection and that he was not a CIA employee.

The first memo describes a staff citation for superior work in military intelligence during WWII. It gives more detail on his Domestic Contact stating that in 1949 the CIA contacts office in NYC became interested in using Underhill as a contact for foreign intelligence. Background checks with various military members of the intelligence community "yielded insufficient information" and the office was advised that contact with Underhill be developed "with caution" on a limited basis and no information above "confidential" was to be shared with him. In 1957 national agency checks were again requested on him because of interest by the Office of Security. The Office of Security reported in 1954 that Underhill had contacted one Herman Axelbank who was trying to sell photos of Soviet military subjects and Underhill had reported those contacts to both the FBI and CIA. Underhill discussed Axelbank with Ricky Haskins of CIA.

Well GPH has told us before that some folks went back to various people who had talked about how happy they would be of JFK was eliminated. Apparently a few of those folks had mentioned money and afterwards their was an effort to collect.

Which raises the question that some of our favorite names may even have thought they were responsible....

-- Larry

Or..... were working their own agenda and just shopped the idea around for anyone else who might think it was a good thing and might want to contribute...

...sorry, I couldn't help myself, its John and Pats fault...grin Larry

Well OK, with that sort of set up its hard to resist...grin.

First, a qualification on Trafficante and organized crime, I'd go further Shanet and say he did not just have dealings with organized crime but by 1963 he was organized crime in the SE, inheriting Lansky's network and very efficiently running serious organized crime (the big money stuff like sports gambling and more importantly narcotics). While at one time in Cuba, a relationship with Castro may have been of temporary importance (in part to get out of the country intact) its very much unclear that Castro's ongoing good will was of much importance to Trafficante's business as of 1963. Of course at the time FBI and DEA kept generating headlines that narcotics were coming through Cuba from China but that was a front to cover up the fact that the new source was in SE Asia and the traffic was through Marseille, shifting to Trafficante and Marcello's networks. Interested parties should read "Strength of the Wolf" on this.

I'm well aware of the one FBI informant report about Castro and bolita but I'm not aware of any verificationa and everybody should be cautions about any reports in Miami blaming things on Castro... unless you know a lot of detail about the informant and circumstances. Everybody was trying to nudge the FBI and CIA in the direction of their own agendas.

The big problem here is that viewing any 1959 contacts between Castro and Trafficante in terms of 1963 motivations for Trafficante is probably a mistake. Trafficante was firmly entrenched in 1963 and making good money doing a very conservative crime business.... why in the world would he expose himself for Castro? What's to gain? If he were involved he would have a much more understandable motivation in the standard "get Bobby off our backs" crime motive.

On another point though, I strongly urge you to study Marita Lorenz in detail before relying on anything she says....... especially about the caravan. Read Fonzi's research on her in his book. And consider that she was front page news in Miami during the fall of 1963 because of her paternity legal actions. She had photographers following her around for candid photos. Certainly not the sort of profile I'd want in an assassination caravan to Dallas... never know when the next photographer may show up.

-- Larry

Aha, glad you did decide to come Francesca! I will look forward to seeing all the British attendees and have high hopes that we will be providing you all with a very exciting conference this year!

I also wanted to take this opportunity to announce that the newest speaker to come on board for the conference is Bill Miller. Bill will be presented a variety of photo studies of DP and among those will be his work on the controversial issue of Gordon Arnold and Arnold's story of his presence in DP.

-- Our last group visit to Campisi's was great fun but although I remember the the conversations I can't seem to recall the food at all?

-- Larry

A couple of observations on the questions about Ferrie.

First off althought he flight plan cannot be substantiated in any pure sense there

are several elements that seem to corroborate it including a very interesting incident in Texas which fits with these dates and strongly suggests that Ferrie may have been doing some shuttling around Texas and possibly on into Cuba. Everything I could find of that nature is in Someone Would Have Talked.

Second, I have sources that indicate that although Ferrie was with Marcello in the courtroom on Nov. 22, he did not wait for the verdict but left before hand....shortly after the word came from Dallas. This seems suggests to me that he very likely did not have a planned role in the attack but rather than he certainly did know Oswald and was aware of a number of previous contacts and activities that would quickly make him a suspect...or at least a "person of interest" as we call it today.

Have you heard anything similar about Nov 22 Stephen?

-- Larry

To correct myself, Gary Mack informs me that full frame Dorman and Towner films show without question that the limo turned from the center of Houston into the center lane on Elm. The Hughes film supposedly shows a regular turn as well. There was no wide turn at all.

-- Larry

Pat,  it's pretty speculative but I have heard reports that some witnesses remarked that Greer almost botched the ultra sharp turn at Elm and Houston and went way out of center,  almost to the curb.  If that were true its just possible that it may have slowed him down a good bit.... that limo was pretty heavy and takes a bit to get moving again. 

I guess you would have to run the light in Dallas to test it but it would be interesting to see how much that turn slows down an average driver and how quick you do come back up to speed without punching it and annoying your passengers.

-- as I said,  just speculation,  Larry

I've done quite a bit of research on silencers and psycho-acoustics, and it is an absolute fact that a silenced shot could have been fired from the Dal-Tex or County Records Buildings without being obvious to the spectators below.  I believe that the fact that neither the WC or HSCA mentions the possibilities of silencers being used in their reports is indicative that they were aware one could have been used.  It makes sense to me that if there were reasons to believe one wasn't used they would have definitely discussed it.

The earwitnesses reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that SOME LOUD NOISE was heard from an area west of the TSBD. The lone-nutter argument that the earwitnesses heard echoes is completely refuted by the HSCA tests of an actual M-C rifle being fired in Dealey.  If there was a shot fired from the knoll area, it missed.  Due to the reports of smoke on the knoll, which would have been minimal if a shot had been fired, I suspect that someone up there may have lit off a cherry bomb or some other explosive, designed to distract everyone from the TSBD, so that the REAL shooter(s) could escape.

But back on point... Larry's post seems to shut down my speculation about the SS being deliberately distracted.  While I agree that Greer's mistakes are understandable, we still  don't know exactly why he was driving so slow.   We'll probably never know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, it's pretty speculative but I have heard reports that some witnesses remarked that Greer almost botched the ultra sharp turn at Elm and Houston and went way out of center, almost to the curb. If that were true its just possible that it may have slowed him down a good bit.... that limo was pretty heavy and takes a bit to get moving again.

I guess you would have to run the light in Dallas to test it but it would be interesting to see how much that turn slows down an average driver and how quick you do come back up to speed without punching it and annoying your passengers.

-- as I said, just speculation, Larry

I've done quite a bit of research on silencers and psycho-acoustics, and it is an absolute fact that a silenced shot could have been fired from the Dal-Tex or County Records Buildings without being obvious to the spectators below.  I believe that the fact that neither the WC or HSCA mentions the possibilities of silencers being used in their reports is indicative that they were aware one could have been used.  It makes sense to me that if there were reasons to believe one wasn't used they would have definitely discussed it.

The earwitnesses reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that SOME LOUD NOISE was heard from an area west of the TSBD. The lone-nutter argument that the earwitnesses heard echoes is completely refuted by the HSCA tests of an actual M-C rifle being fired in Dealey.  If there was a shot fired from the knoll area, it missed.  Due to the reports of smoke on the knoll, which would have been minimal if a shot had been fired, I suspect that someone up there may have lit off a cherry bomb or some other explosive, designed to distract everyone from the TSBD, so that the REAL shooter(s) could escape.

But back on point... Larry's post seems to shut down my speculation about the SS being deliberately distracted.  While I agree that Greer's mistakes are understandable, we still  don't know exactly why he was driving so slow.  We'll probably never know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, you might want to post on Lancer or drop Deb a note; she and I had been chasing after the question of who escorted or pointed the SS guys to the club, I had speculated that it was somebody who could be connected to Ruby. However a year or so agp she came across a new book by a Dallas newspaper journalist and he described exactly how he got into a dialog with some SS agents after their arrival in Forth Worth and they began hitting him up for a local place that would still be open. My memory is vague but I think that possibly they even mentioned that particular club, possibly from conversation with some of the locals. The newspaper guy called over and got the manager and asked him if he would stay open late to entertain the agents and he said he would. Debra later interviewed him and he did describe that call. I wish I could give you the name but I'm sure Debra will remember it.

-- Larry

I totally agree with Al's basic point.  It's highly likely that the White House Detail was not knowingly involved in the conspiracy.  It's highly likely that Greer's behavior was innocent.  What I'm stretching for here, and seeming to find some confirmation, is that their behavior might not be by chance.  That is, that some outside factors were put into play in order to get them to fall down on the job.

Admittedly, I have not researched this at all. I'm away from my books and am just throwing out ideas.  (Thank you Ron for posting Greer's testimony, BTW).  I believe Chief Curry's car had pulled over and was trying to get those men off of the bridge.  I remember reading that somewhere.  I wonder if Greer didn't see that and fail to increase his speed as a result.  I'm trying to remember who had the car pulled over.  Was it Lawson?  Wasn't Lawson also the man who planned the route?  We know the WHD went out drinking the night before--were they accompanied by any of the local SS?  Would not these men know the "cool" dives? Is it unreasonable to speculate that one of the local SS "invited" the WHD out for the evening?  Is it a coincidence the bar they went to was owned by a pal of Ruby's?  Did Ruby's friendship with the DPD extend to the local SS? Could not getting the security detail hammered have been part of the plan?  I believe these are valid questions, and ones that should be answered, before we convince ourselves that there was nothing suspicious about the SS' behavior in Dealey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes Pat, in general I think this, like all the discussion of Greer's "reaction" is largely a non-issue. You might want to check the WC work itself though because one entire section pertains to a study by the SS itself its own procedures and what revisions might be required based on the experience in Dallas. Also I would heartily endorse reading all of Vince Palamara's work on this including interviews with agents and managers from the period in question.

There are some relevant issues including the apparently endemic drinking problem a good deal of the WHD had developed not to mention the cover-up of the late hours the night before. We have interviewed the club manager who says that without a doubt serious drinking was going on and that most of the agents left far later than they admitted. The club was also visited by an SS agent a few weeks later...apparently the one who went back to talk with the Parkland Doctors...who pleaded with the club personnel not to talk with the press about the drinking that evening. There are also a few things that are suspicious about the motorcade including the lack of a camera vehicle ahead of the limo and the movement of a couple of motorcycles with orders coming from a man from the VP's car at Love field. It's also important to recall that the Texas trip, following on the heals of several other trips, had placed a lot of strain on the WHD. Certainly you should read Lawson's report...and note that some arrangements such as freezing train traffic also appeared not to have worked in DP (which nobody ever really investigated).

Personally I think there is much more to be gained by looking at the details of the cover-up as supported by a few SS personnel afterwards...in particular there are some very interesting quotes from the SS agent who went back to Dallas, something about "it was too bad people had to die but" (very rough paraphrase). It freightened the interviewer....makes one wonder exactly what story was given to some of the individuals engaging in the cover-up.

-- Larry

So, Larry, in essence, you're saying this issue is probably a non-issue, but has never quite been resolved.  While people talk about the SS breaking its own rules on the 22nd,  no one has actually ascertained just what their rules were.

So, then, it remains to be determined whether or not the Dallas motorcade traveled at a rate that was slower than mormal.  I wonder if anyone with footage of the other Texas motorcades might be able to make an estimate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, the SS procedures manual and issues like motorcade speed, turn radius, closure of windows, building security have been discussed for ages. One of the problems is that the last I heard nobody has turned up an actual copy of the SS procedures manual circa 1963. At one point I seem to recall that McAdams claimed to have a copy but no scanned pages or other concrete references turned up to justify that claim so it was greeting with some skepticism (perhaps someone is more current on this than I am though). I know that Vince P. looked diligently for this withoug locating it. And of course SS procedures and training were dramatically revised after the assassination so reference to anyting after 1963 is pretty meaningless. Interestingly two sources have claimed to know a great deal about Presidential motorcade security. Fletcher Prouter gave that impression however in his ARRB interview that totally came apart and he backed off it; however David Phillips notes in his book that he was in Mexico City for JFK's visit and became quite familiar with all elements of Presidential security (given that his job was totally unrelated one wonders why, also why he would bring such a thing up in his book...hmmm).

I would say however, based on Vince's work and numerous photos of Presidential motorcades its pretty obvious that the motorcades did not always travel at a minimum of 20 miles an hour on city streets. And of course maintaining

a speed like that going around the Elm/Houston turn would have been impossible. No doubt they would have tried to make up time heading up onto the freeway but the turn certainly slowed the limo even without crowds rushing into the street (which often happened to JFK and is seen in many photos).

Bottom line, anyone knowing about the motorcade route two days in advance would have redily seen that the car was going to be very slow coming out of that turn.....and could have also picked a few other places were crowds and turns

would have slowed the vehicle substantially (any 90 degree turn on a downtown

street would do it....say Main to Houston). And we know that there were a number of apparent Oswald impersonations at locations in downtown Dallas including a couple on Main street (one right across from Ruby's club).

Sorry for the rambling, Larry

Great news Terry, I'm glad you are planning on coming! Please share with

John that I've been trying to reach him; I know his presentation topic but

sometime in the next couple of months I will be finalizing the actual speakers

schedule and will need to know if he has any preferences as well as provide him

with some other background material including the final schedule (well as final as it gets until everyone actually appears in Dallas...grin).

JFK Lancer will host the "November in Dallas 2005," annual research conference dealing with the murders of John and Robert Kennedy on November 18-20, 2005, in Dallas, TX to be held at the Crown Plaza Hotel.

Speakers will include Paris Flammonde, John Williams, Billie Sol Estes, Lamar Waldron, Joan Mellen, John Hunt, Stuart Wexler, William Law, Debra Conway, Larry Hancock, Larry Teeter, John Ritchson, and Stuart Wexler.

I hope to go this year. It would be great if members of this Forum could meet up at the conference. Please post on this thread if you intend to go. Also, use this thread to ask Larry about the conference. For further information see:

http://www.jfklancer.com/dallas05/index.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Ritchson and I have been going over formulating plans for making the trip down there this past year, and hopefully making a side trip to Austin to hook up with Dawn and Erick, depending on my cash flow and time allotted.

My new equipment won't be up and running until December or January, so I don't have to worry about leaving for applications classes until after the holidays.

It'll be great meeting up with everyone! I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Ter

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, although its probably pretty clear that I don't agree with either

the Soviet or Cuban scenario, we do have some indication that

there was a very high level of concern (although no significant military

or national security response) as soon as the Oswald/Kostikov connection

surfaced. Take a look at the Lancer site and read Newman's analysis of

the Mexico City to D.C. cable traffic. It gets so tense that CIA HQ tells them

to put all cables in clear language and not standard shorthand because the

risk of a mistake in interpretation is too great. Those folks were tense.

And its clear that at Mann's level the take was that the Soviets were very likely

behind Oswald and they were extremely bitter that LBJ and RFK suppressed the inquiry across all agencies there.

Plus, because of unavalable National Security transcripts, apparently missing AF1 traffic and other holes in the record, we don't really know how strong a response their may have been. I'm hoping that is going to be the topic of a presentation in November, let's just say the military response shows signs of being stronger than was later represented.

However, none of this has to mean more than that the bad guys were fully aware of how hot an item Oswald would be as a patsy. Of course that's only for that short crisis period before you begin asking yourself who would be so stupid as to sponsor somebody like Oswald who would leave an obvious trail to Cuban and or Soviet sponsorship....probably not either party. Sort of like Johnson relying on Mack Wallace to go into the TSBD and shoot the President, its just not a good odds thing.

-- Larry

I wanted to give everyone a bit of an update on speakers and content; we have added several new speakers since my intial post on the conference.

John Ritchson will present on the physical evidence and if you know John from his posts you can anticipate this will be a real treat. Combined with John Hunt's work on physical evidence handling by the FBI and the work done by Stuart Wexler and Tom Pinkston, this is definitely going to be an interesting conference for those of you interested in physical and ballistics evidence.

(note to John, I'm having difficulty reaching you so would you please drop me a note via email larryjoe@westok.net or via the forum so that I can maintain contact).

Ian Griggs will be presenting on his research into Kathy Kay and her history with remarks on husband number two Harry Olsen and the relationship between Jack Ruby and both of them. We missed Ian last year and are really happy to have hi and a other British researchers return to Dallas in 2005.

John Simkin will be presenting on a panel which I hope to expand to deal with several aspects of the Kennedy family (and their friends) response to the assassination.

Ben Rogers, Archivist for the Penn Jones Jr. Collection at Baylor will be present and demonstrating this new research resource. This collection is going online and should be of great interest to everyone. With further luck we may also have the archivist from Hood College and the Weisburg collection, pending his travel schedule.

We have also invited the group of Dallas reporters including Bob Huffaker and George Phenix to speak on their personal experiences as detailed in their new book "When The News Went Live."

In addition, we have also issued an invitation and have tentative acceptance from both Peter Dale Scott and Vince Palamara (schedule and travel permitting)... keep your fingers crossed.

I think we can promise that even expererienced researchers are going to encounter some fascinating new research at this year's conference.

Simone, I think you have picked an excellant topic. There is a wealth of material on this in documents released through the JFK records act as well as in U.S. State Department documents. Unfortunately it seems to have received very little recognition within the realm of professional history..... it's a bit sad when the best article and most document references you find are in Cigar Afficianado (sp) Magazine (no kidding, really).

However in your research, I would also suggest that you look no only at the dialogs between Castro and Kennedy (dialogs initiated by Castro at the time of the BOP prisoner release) but at the issues relating to the settlement of the missile crisis. Much has been written about this settlement and Kennedy's non-invasion pledge. Much has not been written about the fact that a key element (on site inspection by the U.N.) of the settlement was totally rejected by Castro, in a move that put Castro at odds with the U.N., the Soviets and the U.S. It would be interesting to evaluate that action as a counter/caution to Castro's approach to Kennedy. All of which is going to focus you on a lot of internal Kennedy administration and State Department documents I suspect.

There have been some good articles written on Katzenbach's letter and the issue of the legal response to the assassination. They were generally published in journals. I would recommend Donald Gibson's article "The First 72 Hours" in PROBE Nov-Dec 1999. Also North's book Act of Treason has some very good detail material on the actions of various parties.

One thing is very clear from the Johnson tapes and that is LBJ was not at all happy with this Katzenbach/Justice Department initiative because it was going on when he was trying to ensure that the matter would be officially addressed by a Texas Court of Inquiry reviewing an FBI report.

Clearly it was not a matter of all parties working from a shared script.

Mark, it is clear from his calls, diary and in particular his dialogs with Fortas (who was serving as Baker's lawer and whom Johnson shifted into being his personal representative to the Texas AG on the investigation) that Johnson wanted a Texas "state" level Court of Inquiry....which I think translates into Hoover giving a report to a set of lawyers (pretty much named by Fortas and Johnson) in Texas and having them rubber stamp the Oswald lone nut conclusion. He clearly was not interested in having a real criminal investigation in Dallas as he had Hoover essentially force that closed and suppressed any internal dialog in Dallas about conspiracy (reference Carter's calls to Dallas and the Texas AG the night of Nov. 22 at Johnson's behest).

However in testing the waters with his pet media folks it quickly became really clear that a Texas Court of inquiry was going to meet with national skepticism, heck even Alsop warned him about that and tried briefly to challenge the idea until Johnson rolled over him. After about 48 hours of this Johnson was smart enough to get together with Fortas and come up with a new plan, the names for the WC commission were largely generated between the two of them. On a side note, you will note that Johnson was very unhappy with Justice department folks and the idea of federal investigative panel; Johnson did not like that idea at all until he was forced to bow to the fact that he could not sandbag the whole thing to a group of Texas lawyers). Note: Johnson was very likely relying on his influence in Texas and given the Kinser and Marshall affairs there is some justification for confidence.

I think it is clear that Johnson was suppressing discussion of conspiracy and driving a cover up from a time shortly after Oswald was arrested. As to the reason for that, he could have been given early signs that foreign parties were behind it or he could have been "gotten to" before the assassination. As I outline in my book, I tend to suspect the latter - I think he was blackmailed over the Baker scandal (not that he was totally unhappy about it - anyone reading Caro's books would have an insight into his blind need for power to consider that). However that is simply a working hypothesis, although I do think his behavior on the plane and his infamous "wink" is suggestive. Lady Bird's big smile during the swearing in has always bothered me a bit as well...

-- Larry

Anyone who has read the transcripts of the LBJ tapes should certainly have the same question in mind as I: 

Why was LBJ initially so adamant that there would be NO presidential commission, and NO congressional investigation into the JFK assassination, and then ABRUPTLY change course 180 degrees?

I can understand, from a political standpoint, LBJ's objections to a congressional investigation.  As a career politician, LBJ understood that he had to get some legislation through Congress--and into the headlines--if he was to be elected in '64 [can't say "re-elected," because he wasn't elected president to begin with].  And if Congress was tied up with an assassination inquiry, Johnson wouldn't get the press he needed to be elected.

But his initial response--that, since there was no federal law broken, the "Great State of Texas" should conduct any investigation--was most likely the correct way to go.  It was TEXAS laws that were broken, so that made it a TEXAS crime, and called for a TEXAS investigation.  The plus to THAT scenario was that, while the investigation would still garner national headlines, it wouldn't push LBJ and his political agenda--and his hopes of winning in '64--off the front pages all across America.

So the question that comes to MY mind is STILL:  WHO [person or group] got to LBJ and convinced him to change his mind?  Johnson was initially ADAMANT that there would be no federally-led investigation; yet a few short days later, he was EQUALLY adamant that there MUST be a federal investigation.

LBJ's change of position would be analagous to Tim Gratz suddenly deciding that Castro WASN'T involved, and that the assassination was part of a coup led by C. Douglas Dillon...yet it apparently doesn't raise many "red flags" among other researchers. 

My question is: WHY NOT?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm going to weigh in with Pat on this one. Having invested a good deal of "skull sweat" and research on the details of the cover up I presented a case in my book that one can isolate LBJ as the single driving force behind the all the key elements of the cover up, including medical via Burkley, the FBI's evidence management via Hoover and the quashing of objections like those raised by Mann. According to Mann himself LBJ was supported (for whatever reason) in this by RFK who also used his influence to quash pursuit of conspiracy immediately following the assassination. Beyond that other elements were covered up for security and CYA reasons within the agencies involved - e.g. intelligence contact with Oswald covered up by both FBI and CIA, Ruby's crime connections and extensive associations in site the DPD covered up by DPD senior officers etc. SS negligence covered up by the service itself, think of the effect of the late night drinking session on national news. And we know directly from the Johnson tapes how he alone drove the legal cover-up, the formation of the WC and the manipulation of the press.

So after written about all this minutia in boring detail I'd be happy to discuss it with anyone who managed to wade through it....grin.

-- Larry

I also feel that a widespread conspiracy of willing participants is unlikely.  But unfortunately I know that most people are like sheep and are easily controlled by those with "authority" or "expertise." 

Still, Salandria really stretches things to make a point.  At least half of the things he finds mysterious can be easily explained. His paranoia hurts the credibility of his argument.  The government's allowing Dr. Humes to destroy his notes, for instance, is not indicative of anything.  I mean, how were they gonna stop him?  It's not as if he asked permission.  Furthermore, since the only way we even know that he destroyed his notes is that he told us, how suspicious are his actions really?  If anything, Humes' action indicates he may have changed his interpretation of the wounds after writing his report--this doesn't fit with a widespread conspiracy, in which he'd have been briefed beforehand and told what his findings should be, and in which he would never admit to destroying any notes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good work Steve, actually my DPUK presentation last week was about

Kirknewton, the Guerini brothers, the Mondoloni network which went into

the east coast via Miami and increasingly through Texas via both Loredo

and Houston. Big busts in from this network were made in Loredo, Houston

and interestingly enough at Fort Benning during the period of 63-65.

For anyone serously wanting to follow this line of research I would

definitely recommend The Strength of the Wolf, the secret history of

America's war on drugs by Douglas Valentine. Published by Verso in London

last year.

In a chapter on the JFK assassination he speculates that the Mondoloni

network might have been used to support the conspiracy. And as I pointed

out last weekend, a great number of the pre-assassination leaks can be

tracked to people who could well have been on the periphery of that network.

-- Larry

Charlie, I would love to see a response to your question from an expert on Constitutional or Federal law. As Commander In Chief I have a hard time understanding how the President would not have the power to request or even give himself clearance for any particular piece of information.

However as Ron points out, first he had to know about something to even make an inquiry and its pretty clear that information is often very much "controlled" by those who hold it. Its probably also not impossible that those in control at certain points might not even trust a certain President not to leak secure information or try to "use" it - that's happened a lot and certainly discourages "sharing". Certainly the same is true in regard to revealing information to Congress who can't seem to keep much of anything to themselves without eventually trying to use it in some fashion.

And to make it worse, the President might have to have some pretty detailed information to retrieve a really closely held piece of information compartimentalized within an organization - its possible for military commanders not to have either knowledge or access to compartimentalized information within parts of their command. So just asking an Agency chief or commander might not be enough... security and deniability often cover-up more than might even have been intended. I'm currently researching some pre-BOP Castro assassinations projects that clearly were known to only a few people way, way down the Agency food chain and certainly not at any Executive levels.

.... However I remain very much confused about the ongoing story that Nixon asked for the CIA IG report on the BOP and it was denied to him. I don't understand how that could stick legally if the President really wanted it?

-- Larry

James, do you have the Fort Benning graduation date handy?

It is pretty clear that most of not all the exiles that were being trained in 1963 were likely going to end up "seconded" one way or the other to the SNG/Artime project. In Rodriguez case that would have made a huge amount of sense as his family had been well to do and old school establishment in Cuba. Exactly the sort of credentials one would want for a new post-Castro political leadership.

In fact, that sort of profiling was very throughly done by Morales in recruiting and setting up his groups before the BOP - which included individuals who were to become part of the interim government as well as the infrastructure for the new intelligence community which would support the post-Castro government.

This Morales information will be in my second edition and comes from the CIA internal investigation following the BOP fiasco. For what its worth Morales was the only individual to receive unreserved praise for his work - in fact it appears that he was about the only one on the team who was perceived to totally have had his act together.

So much so that nobody objected to him personally retaining independent control over the personnel he had trained and prepared - after those individuals showed up back in Florida (most never made it onto the beach although a couple were killed and others captured - just as Rubin described Morales remarks to him).

Given the origin of this thread I thought a couple of personal observations might be in line.

First, as John mentioned, I did bring up Felix R. in my presentation - however I was trying to use him as an illustration/profile of the types of individuals that David Morales trained and mentored among the different groups (AMMOT, AMFAST and AMCHEER) of exiles that he prepared for operations into Cuba before and after the BOP. Although we do not have specific lists of those individuals, both Rodriquez and Victor Hernandez fit the profiles and operations described in a recently available document on Morales trainees. The actual point of all of this was to illustrate how much more significant (and capable) that Morales was than has been realized by those who simply consider him a lone wolf covert operator.

We know absolutely nothing of Rodriquez activities in 1963 (he avoids that period as well as comment on Kennedy or the assassination in his own book) and I have seen nothing that would tie him to the operation against JFK. What he may or may not have done that year is pure speculation - less someone has some information to contribute. The same is true of Victor Hernandez.

There is however, plenty of data to characterize Rodriquez's later activities in Latin America, especially in Contra operations. Rodriquez is a passionate anti-Castroite and a passionate anti-Communist....was in the 60's and remains so. However at this point there is nothing that suggests that he participated in the sorts of "terrorist" activities that Posada, Bosch and other exiles appear to have turned to in the years following the BOP.

That's not a defense of him, its simply the most accurate profile I've seen in all my own readings on him. As always I'm more than open to further education on the subject.