Larry Hancock

Jim, that's a great question. I don't know that the FBI went as far as to maintain list of all correspondants to target groups such as SWP; I suspect they did indeed maintain master lists of actual members and officers. I do have a document that specifically says anyone who was an officer or politically active (including in demonstrations) in any of the target subversive groups had to be placed on the master watch list (Hoover's pick up and intern in case of hostilities list). Actually according to that FBI reg. Oswald should have been held on the formal watch list after his actions in New Orleans but that's antother story. The opening of mail to him was triggered by different factors after his return from Russia. One being his incoming mail from overseas/Russia and the other being his having been placed on a watch list during his time in Russia while he was sending mail back to the U.S. However beyond that its obvious that the FBI was continuing to have their postal office informants monitor not only his mail (which doesn't mean opening it but does mean surveillance on source and destination as well as moves). Newman documents that at length and I have an FBI document that shows they were doing the same with Robert Oswald in 1963 as far as monitoring one of his changes in residence. I wish we could answer your question one way or the other but I suspect that Oswald did not come onto the FBI radar that early. However it might be worthwhile checking some of the magazine subscriptions he held as a Marine because that would be a very good place for him to come under ONI and FBI monitoring at the same time. -- Larry

John, lots of sources on this, I'd certainly suggest you read John Newman's book which tackles it in detail. I've presented before on the problems Oswald had with his mail in Dallas.....his receipt of the mailed material was one of the things that was monitored by the FBI. Indeed his mail was opened as part of the FBI intercept program on incoming overseas mail and Oswald filed a protest to the Post Office department in NYC about it. That doesn't seem to have made much difference toall the postal inspectors (T-1, T-2 who were also FBI sources) in his mail chain). There is no doubt that he ordered and received this sort of mail. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone do a detailed study of the extent to which he actually read it or discussed it.

Jeff, William has clarified the source and high level differences in the books in a separate post. I confess that I need to reread the new Estes book and ask some questions before I fully understand where Billy Sol stands on the tapes. He speaks of having sold off some tapes to Hoffa and it is unclear to me exactly what he might still have in his possession. However he also states that there are still unnamed participants in Texas who are a threat to him, makes it clear that he has not and will not name all names and certainly presents that there is still some fear of retribution if he does more. I see no sign that he is going to provide any tapes to validate the story. Perhaps as importantly, he refutes his statement to the Justice Department that Kyle Brown was in a meeting with Carter and can corroborate the JFK information from Carter. Estes says that the real person will remain unnamed. This seems to be in direct conflict with Brown's statements in William's videotape. Again, all this continues to cast down on rather than lead to any corroboration for Carter or Wallace's statements to Estes. I hope that we can get some further clarification from Billy Sol himself. As to Carter's work back in Texas, supposedly (and per his oral history at the LBJ library) he moved back to Texas to either begin campaign preparations for the 1964 election with Johnson on the ticket as VP (a bit hard to swallow) or perhaps to support a general Democratic slate in Texas (he is not specific). On a side note, Carter did indeed do some advance work for the JFK trip, we know for example that he visited Dallas. However he did not personally participate in the final advance work immediately prior to the visit but seems to have stayed in constant touch with Jack Puterborough (sp) from a distance. That strikes me as a bit odd given Carter's personal touch but then Dallas really was not a Johnson city and Cliff may not have had the personal connections he had in south Texas. On your VP / November 22 question. It's unclear there was any thought or discussion given to that and knowing Johnson's character I doubt he would have even thought of a VP before he had to recruit one for the 64 campaign. In regard to Baker, personally I don't see Baker as anything more than a "nexus" that events pertaining to the assassination may have jelled. He was important for bringing certain people in touch with each other as part of his many business dealings and for creating the scandal that put so many of them at risk, but I think that was it. And yes, Johnson's purported concerns about a Communist conspiracy or about possible war don't seem to have much to do with his actions the afternoon and evening of November 22 - unless somebody has scrubbed a lot of information out of the historical record. On the other hand it seems to me that there should probably have been more of a defensive response by the Joint Chiefs or by the Sec of Defense than there was. It's rather amazing to me that at the height of the Cold War, the President could be assassinated by parties totally unknown for some two hours and that the Joint Chiefs did not even elevate the DEFCON status. ...good thing it wasn't a Communist conspiracy, Larry <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

William, many thanks for clearing the source up for all of us, that eliminates one part of the mystery on the new book. It's truly unfortunate that your version is not available in the U.S. in English,. As you say, I'm afraid this turn of events is going to make it harder rather than easier to investigate Johnson's actual involvement. -- Larry

Jeff, you probably know that Estes recently broke his leg in two places and has some other medical problems. I surely hope he does feel well enough to actively participate in November. I also hope to have the chance to get some further comments from him before the conference so that I can better deal with the new information in his book. One of the biggest problems at present is that it is extremely difficult to boil out specifically what details he was told first hand by Carter or Wallace versus his general observations about the JFK assassination - and other conspiracies. Unfortunately his book also seems to remove the possibility that we can ever get direct corroboration - if I am correct in reading what I think he says about the tapes. He also states that Kyle Brown was not a personal witness in the meeting with Carter....even though Estes did identify him as a witness to the Justice Department. This disclaimer is also in direct conflict with Brown's Remond video remarks that he was indeed present in person. Up to this point I had developed one (unpublished) scenario as to how the bottoms up information in my book would connect to a Johnson/Carter/Wallace scenario. Estes newest version of the plot pretty well blows away that scenario although his statement of a direct involvement of Marcello/Trafficante opens up other speculation. Perhaps the more significant issue is that his newer remarks speak to a much broader conspiracy with a much greater number of people involved in Texas and with a direct involvement by two or mor major crime families. Hopefully by November I'll be in a position to offer a more cogent view but a lot of questions need to be addressed first.

Jeff, I have read Estes new book, most of it at least - it is indeed not an English translation of William's book done with Estes. Not having read William's book I can't really compare the two although I can say that there is certainly a variety of new information in the Estes' book, some of which will be pretty controversial. The book is also in stock and avaliable through Andy W at the Last Hurrah Bookshop. I hope to explore some of the material in advance of the November Lancer Conference and present on it there; given that his health permits it we also have a commitment from Billy Sol to be at the conference. Personally I find his personal insights into the Estes scanda and Marshall murder to be consistent and certainly accurate as compared to the independent information available. However the information he received from Carter and Wallace will elevate the controversy on Johnson's role and support. I also think the book would have profited from a good editor. Of course beyond the conspiracy elements which are only a part of the book, I'd also say that anything Estes writes about himself is always colorful and highly entertaining.

Hi David, if only it was that simple. Actually Sierra's support seems to have been all over the place. As part of his drive for legitimacy and because he did have some American Corporate support, he managed to get introductions and make contacts with a good number of the old line Cuban "establishment" that had been in sugar, ranching, mining and land in Cuba. That included companies ranging from King ranch in Texas to Freeport Sulphur in New Orleans. These are all folks who lost when Castro came in but it appears not the sort of people who gave up easily, including the old line sugar establishment in NYC. However although he got moral support, introductions and advice from these folks it didn't seem to stick once it became clear that he was having no more luck than anyone else really buidling a broad exile base. It also appears that as soon as he came on to the radar screen as a mover and shaker he began to get "offers" from the other old establishment in Cuba....via guys from the West Coast, from Vegas. Their standard investment type offer, just in case he made a go of it. Since the HSCA never got the books from the Junta it's hard to see where the money came from but it sure appears that the support and influence turned from the old line establishment to the high risk investors as his program began to run into trouble.

"What is interesting is that Oswald does appear to be giving the appearance that he was involved in a plot with the Cubans to kill JFK. I wonder why?" John, Peter Dale Scott explores all this in immense detail in Deep Politics II, I would recommend it highly. However I can give you a simple two part scenario as to "why". 1) Oswald was being used as a dangle against the Cubans and the pace had been stepped up considerably in Mexico City, he was carrying credentials including a reported Communist Party card (fake) which significantly enhanced his being a radical. He showed this material to Duran to try and establish himself. And he may well have been instructed to do wild things if they would not accept him....including cursing JFK and even talking about killing him. A good way to try and entrap the Cubans and test them. And of course the impersonator helped this whole pitch by mentioning to the Russians that Oswald didn't know where he was staying but the Cubans could tell them....creating a telephone intercept which someone of a suspicious mind might think implied Oswald was being housed by the Cubans, possibly even in a safe house. None of this is particulary out of the ordinary CI procedure and would have no implications or risk....until the assassination happened. 2) The bad guys know that Oswald is being dangled, is creating a Castro supporter legend for himself. They help it along with a few things like the Odio call back about Oswald being a wild man. And they prepare a variety of other pieces of information which will also make it look like Oswald may have been inspired by if not directly working for Fidel on November 22. ....and nobody wants to deal with that.....enter the Lone Nut..

Steve, I will have a good deal more information about Trull in my second edition including the introductions and backing Sierra received out of NYC. If you have my supplement you will find some of it in the Appendix "The Way of JMWAVE". Trull had a low level connection (entertainment) to people at the King Ranch who became connected to Sierra via their old establishment sugar industry connections in NYC. A number of the old like sugar, ranching and mining companies all were associated in this way and the connections were also utilized by David Phillips of the CIA. Trull was recommended as a sort of cut out to Sierra, not exactly a PR man but useful in public and with no obvious connections to any particular backers. It helped keep up the air of mysterous American support for the Junta. The documents supporting this are referenced in the supplement and in the second edition which is now targeted for this fall. You will also find some interviews with Trull about Sierra - and the related documents with my first edition.

Tim, I think its a good thing you are going to try to verify this story by finding corroboration in the NYC papers. Obviously if the plot was that well documented there should also be a variety of FBI reports and even White House documents pertaining to it. That sort of thing would not have escaped National Security briefings and should have been discussed by everyone from CIA to State. Its not the sort of thing that pops up in a newspaper report and goes away if its true. And it would be amazing that all the historical research on the Missile Crisis missed that sort of material. Another thing that makes me cautions is that I have a whole series of newspaper reports quoting FBI and DEA sources in 1963 talking about drug busts demonstrating that Castro was running in Chicom drugs in a huge plot against the U.S. Of course when you get into the details you find that none of the people arrested had any ties to anyone except crime figures and none to Castro. Over the years a good deal of info has emerged that shows (its documented well in Strength of the Wolf) that those drug busts had nothing to do with Castro and all involved knew it. The drugs were coming from SE Asia and through France and nobody wanted to talk about the new SE Asia connection replacing Turkey as a source. You also need to look at the books this bombing plot is being presented in and ask yourself whether there is an agenda going. I'd be the last person to think that Castro might not have had a retaliation strategy as Pat describes but that's another story entirely. Not that Castro shouldn't have been removed decades ago for crimes against humanity....its just too bad the U.S. handled things so poorly the Cubans didn't get a chance to do that themselves.

Thank you Ron, most helpful as always! On the surface of it both the primary articles seem to be from exiles and are written with an agenda. Which doesn't mean they are wrong but it true they are picking up some history totally outside normal historical sources and we would need to see some FBI documents and wtiness, news coverage etc. - something beyond what is in the articles and in what Ron turned up. We do have some fairly new historical sources that show us Castro browbeat the Soviet air defence commander into firing the SAM that brought down the U2 and almost triggered an American response - with the Soviets being none too happy about that. While I have no doubt Castro would have used nukes, could he get them, against an American invasion its another thing entirely to start the war knowing the result. Tim, I'd say if you are going to use this incident as a source then you probably need to go further back to try and find some corroboration as well. I'm certainly going to see if I can find those two books myself. -- Larry I did a web search on Santiestaban. Correct spelling is Santiesteban. I found these two articles about the Manhattan bombing plan: http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oaghf020.php http://www.sumeria.net/politics/pulverizer.html The first article cites no sources at all. The second article cites the following two sources for the portion of the article about the plot: plot to destroy Manhattan in Andrew Tully, White Tie and Dagger. New York: Pocket Books, 1968, 74-78 (Tully mistakenly believes the plot was a Soviet idea, but it was Castro's), also in Andres Oppenheimer, Castro's Final Hour. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992. I checked at Amazon.com on these two books. The Tully book is out of print. The Oppenheimer book is still in print, and you can do a search inside the book. I did a search and there is no reference in the book to Santiesteban or Santiestaban, Manhattan, or TNT. There is one reference to New York in the 1980s. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, could you please point out your source for the details in the 500 K TNT plot (including where and how the people named would get that much TNT). If it is in the url you posted I'm missing it completely. According to your post there was fully corroborated evidence that Castro was building a half megaton weapon for use against NYC... I don't think I'm the only one who has missed such a dramatic incident, it should have been in all the books about the missile crisis and seems like a rather huge item to be missing from the history books. Indeed if if it were true it seems pretty strange that SAC wasn't on its way to Cuba immediately afterwards. And not only didn't JFK dispatch SAC he began a covert dialog with Castro only months afterwards? If everybody else knows about this great but I'd like to see a source and some corroboration as it strikes me as a serious cold war history incident that needs some attention. -- Larry

Tim, two follow up observatins on Pat's remarks. First, Castro had been in ongoing backchannel communication with JFK all through 1963 and this channel was expanding in the fall of 1963 with the direct use of personal representatives just having been approved by JFK. I'd have to think that if Fidel felt cornored and at extreme risk he could easily have gotten that message directly to JFK... in fact there is no evidence it was even a point being brought up by Castro as an objection to or condition to the dialog. Nor was it brought up by Castro when he reached out to Johnson offering Johnson the out of staging some sort of attack against Cuba in order to ensure his victory in the next election. Second, nobody has ever accused Fidel of being bashful. I have to think that if he wanted to really communicate that he felt his back was against the wall he would have called a press conference in the middle of Havana and said it loudly and clearly. He would not have brought it up during a random dialog at the Brazilian consulate. Interestingly enough the Cubans have always challenged the articles that came from those remarks, claiming that Castro had actually said that the exiles were so dangerous they could as easily be a danger to JFK as to him. Considering that the reporter who did the story can be shown to be part of the Phillips media network and that virtually all the exile suspects were ready to pitch the article as supporting a Castro sponsored Oswald, I'd consider it just a little suspect. Even Roselli introduced it during his testimony..... its at least possible that it was spun as part of the Castro did it disinformation story line. -- Larry

Mel, I won't really be joining the debate but I suggest you might want to examine a few points about Brennan as a witness. There is no doubt he did have a view of the TSBD although several photo analyses show that his position and head movements don't correspond all that well with some of the detail he provided. The photos do show that he did see something up there that got his attention and that he stayed around the front of the TSBD trying to point it out to officials. However when you match his detailed description of facial expression, body positioning etc against the height of the window (which is unusally low, only slightly above floor level unlike most windows), against what you really can see through a dirty, closed TSBD window (many of us have conducted that experiment), and try to fit it all against the purported positioning of the snipers nest boxes and the very tight space available to move in front of them to the window it raises a lot of questions. Thre is also the fact that the DPD itself maintained that as of Saturday they had no witness to Oswald being in that window (which Currey maintained in his own book on the assassination and which Hoover told Johnson on Saturday morning)..... it may lead you to become open that Brennan became better witness for the FBI report and the WC than he was in the beginning and that his "positive identification" is open to some question. And his would not be the only witness statement that "improved" under FBI control and reporting. -- Larry

Mark, you raise a couple of very important points with the latter one illustrating why debates like this generally don't come off well. Much of the arguement for conspiracy begins with an examination of the cover-up, which is now very well documented on the medical side - not only by the work by Horne and others with the ARRB but in the recent research and book by William Law. More evidence of FBI evidence management and manipulation is being documented all the time...as in the recent article by Thompson and Aguilar. Beyond that is the matter that none of the investigating agencies including DPD or FBI gave any real consideration to the fact that some of the evidence may have been introduced as part of a frame of Lee Oswald. Frames are hard enough to proove when you investigate them, when you don't they tend to work. So if the non-conspiracy side is accepting the original WC evidence as fact and not open to the concept of managed or manufactured evidence a meaninful debate starts to grind to a halt pretty quickly. -- Larry

At the risk of sounding cynical I would say that Lorenz at least was being very consistent in maximizing her mystery and melodrama in order to continue being of value as a source to any and all parties. I doubt it was anything as structured as "disinformation" or even getting at Fonzi. Lorenz and Sturgis were made for each other, Fonzi's investigation and chapters on both of them should be read by everyone with an interest in this subject.

Call for Presentations/Papers The focus of this year’s JFK Lancer conference is “Evidence Not Considered”; Lancer’s goal continues to be to add to the body of available historical research documenting significant evidence of conspiracy and cover-up not properly considered by either the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations. See the following for conference details: http://www.jfklancer.com/dallas05/index.html New research, including work with documents, physical evidence and witnesses is invited. This can either be research on new material or new analysis of material previously available, including materials inaccurately or incompletely presented to prior official investigations. One of JFK Lancer’s primary goals is to serve as a resource for both primary materials as well as research. In line with that, paper submissions for the 2005 conference will be selected for publication in the first volume of a series under the conference theme. Priority will be given to conference presenters but all researchers who feel that they have serious contributions to this topic are invited to submit papers for publication. All papers should be footnoted and referenced including RIF numbers for documents if at all possible. In addition all papers published will be subject to a peer review process prior to publication. If you have a topic which fits the conference theme and are interested in presenting at the conference or in submission of a monograph for publication please contact me at larryjoe@westok.net - a synopsis of your topic with major sources identified is requested. -- thanks all, Larry

Thanks Mark, as to something coming of it, a few observations: 1. The first step would be to corroborate the information Estes says he was given by Cliff Carter, that could be done by his making the tapes available. An interim step would be for the three people who have supposedly heard portions of them to give legal affidavits....that would be particularly important for Kyle Brown. Brown has stated on video that he was present in meetings with Carter and Wallace but has not given any details independently of Estes. 2. The next step would be to somehow determine if Malcolm Wallace was away from work and from his family frequently enough in the fall of 1963 to organized that attack and make the Oswald connection as Estes describes. The problem there is that Glen Sample did make a serious effort to dig into that and he presents all he could find in his book; anything further would require legal authority and some sort of official investigation which seems hard to imagine...although step 1 above would be the first hurdle there I think. .... one of the real open issues in both Barr's work and Estes story to date is how Malcolm Wallace could have connected with Oswald and the assumption that Oswald was brought in as basically a hired shooter. That's pretty hard for me to buy personally as it seems very inconsistent with Oswald - that's probably the least developed of anything I've seen in the Estes scenario to date. 3. Fingerprint analysis would not rule out the story....Wallace seems to have been terribly sloppy but absense of a Wallace print doesn't mean Estes is wrong. However given the fact that the Houston police are stonewalling any access to the only known primary prints again presumes legal authority for any breakthrough. I don't want to be too negative, there are certainly areas on both Carter and Wallace that could be worked for further corroboration but it would require some intense primary research and I don't know how that would happen at this point?

Hi Jeff, let's see if I can tackle your questions and not miss any. 1) As to Hoover's remark, I think researchers have amassed plenty of evidence to show that Hoover himself believed that Oswald had at a minimum been influenced and associated with others. Hoover implied that to Johnson when he told him Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City. In addition, people studying the transcripts of various Hoover- Johnson calls have come up with solid indications that portions of their conversations are missing....the transcripts are way to short to match the tape times. Beyond that we know Hoover asked to leave the issue of conspiracy open in the FBI report and Johnson stonewalled him. And beyond that there is plenty of evidence emerging that the FBI managed and manipulated its forensics evidence. That is going to be an important part of the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas this November; the theme of the conference is "Evidence Not Considered". Bottom line, Hoover knew there was more to it than Oswald and knew that Johnson had ordered a cover-up. Knowing that a President had covered up a conspiracy in the death of the man he succeeded would certainly explain Hoover's remark. 2) Actually I spent a lot of time on Johnson's activities prior to November, including day by day study of his Diary, call logs etc. However in truth I really could not find anything I considered suspicious until getting to the events that I relate in October. Not that I haven't missed something but as you have probably noticed, I'm pretty conservative about conspiracy, especially when I'm putting things in print. On the other hand, his behavior in the timeframe of October through January is extremely suggestive and to me it at least implies some level of prior knowledge and some degree of self guilt. 3) Two groups and a connection.....yes, my speculation is that is what happened. I know that Estes says Carter told him differently but I just can't bring myself that Cliff Carter had the skills and contacts to organize a Presidential assassination any more than I can belive Barr M. that Johnson called on a lawyer to do that. And given Malcolm Wallace's horrendously poor track record in one and probably more deaths I can't see Johnson putting his life in Wallace's hands. Which leads me to belive that some people with a lot more expertise and a lot better track record organized the assassination and brought Johnson (blackmailed Johnson) into some level of involvement to ensure they were covered and to ensure that he wouldn't turn on them. I feel the very sloppy and very much thrown together cover-up (including Johnson's iterative legal strategy - I mean after all, even the Texas AG was suspcious when Johnson's private lawyer turns up in Texas and says the is the President's assassination coordinator) .....Larry

Jeff, it is my understanding that Billy Sol has sold some limited quantities of a new book in recent months that it has most recently been out of stock. I've seen at least one post from someone who has read it and apparently he does name some additional details and specifically some names of those involved or with knowledge. I don't have a copy of the book myself at this point. It is not being distributed or promoted by a major publisher as far as I can tell. Larry

Steve, both Peter Dale Scott - in Deep Politics III - and John Newman - in a series on Mexico City available on the JFK Lancer WEB site - have studied this exchange and all the MC events in detail. I'd recommend both for the huge amount of background required to deal with this exchange. There is speculation that the address in question is where to contact Oswald in MC, and further that the Cubans are actually housing him somewhere which is why they have the address......that line of thinking relates to the call being an impersonation and setting up Oswald as having some deep ties to the the Cubans. Other issues are whether or not the call was from an impersonator and whether that implies both the man and woman were impersonators ....speculation on that ranges from whether its part of an effort to connect Oswald to the Cubans or perhaps a legitimate CIA ploy to probe the Russian embassy about Oswald's visit and to evaluate their interest in him. Not that PDS and Newman resolve all this but they do provide the background to at least try...

Gary, it's pretty clear that QK/Enchant was a Domestic Contacts program to obtain foreign intelligence. I just ran across yet another individual who had been investigated for the program and that was the terminology used. It appears to have been a project to identify and obtain information from individuals who had contact with international business people and possibly scientists. Basic data collection within the U.S. on foreign intelligence. When I say Domestic Contacts, that would have been the CIA office with such interests circa 1963 but there were precursor departments with different names who had the same interest and responsiblity for the project. Which explains why both Clay Shaw and the L.A. International trade mart fellow (whose name escapes me) were used as sources. -- Larry Does this paragraph make sense? Is there a sentence missing? Broken down it says he met with them and told them his firm does not reflect the outcome of the DCS' interests. If it means he told them his firm is not to co-operate with the DCS, why not just say so? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oops! It does look like there is a missing sentence there. I will try to dig up the document and post a correction. I have been trying to figure out just what QK/Enchant was. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David, Robinson filed a report with the FBI relating to his observation of seeing a light colored Rambler stop on Elm and a man come down the grass incline and enter it before it drove away. In addition, Robinson's boss, Roy Cooper also filed a statement that he had been driving behind Robinson (they had both been at a meeting together) and he observed a white male 20-30 years of age wave down a Rambler as it pulled away from the cornor of Elm and Houston. The man jumped into the Rambler which pulled out from the curb so quickly that Robinson had almost rear ended it. The fact that Craig's remarks about observing the person flagging down the Rambler, the driver being dark complected and his telling his Chief all that - which were confirmed by news remarks about the report of a dark male driving away with the suspect - are confirmed by photos as well as two eye witnesses pretty well suggestthis part of Craig's remarks whatever one things about the rest.

John, it seems unlikely since it had showered in the early morning before the motorcade; indeed Sam Holland speaks of observing footprints in the wet dirt behind the fence and mud on the bumper of the adjacent car as if the person had stood up on it. Seems like unlikely conditions for dust to be an explanation?

Robin, on page 102 of That Day in Dallas, Trask has a photo of Hill leaning out the window and time stamps the photo as "shortly afer 1:00 pm". My recollection of talking to Alyea is that they reached the snipers nest area and he starting filiming there about 1 o'clock so that seems to fit. My impression is that officers would have reached the windows on the sixth floor perhaps around 12:55 but I don't think they would have changed the positioning of any of them until afer 1pm.