Larry Hancock

I'm pretty sure that some checking will show there were no officers searching or at the windows on the fifth or sixth floors up to ten minutes after the shooting. The only officer that far up the building was Baker and he was by the stairs and elevators. One other option for the fifth floor were the three men there who stated they ran to the west side of the 5th floor to watch what was happeing on the knoll/fence. Sort of strange behavior given their later statements about being aware of a shooter above them on the sixth floor....common sense would suggest going into hiding....not rushing to the far end of the building and possibly being seen by the exiting gunman. In any event, if anything - given their remarks - they would have been opening windows on the west end of the fifth floor for a better view. P.S. one time reference for when officers might have been first opening windows is in POTP - it shows a senior DPD officer leaning out a window and yelling down that they have found something in the "snipers nest" area just to his left.

And if memory serves did not the ACLU send a representative to offer defense services to Oswald - after he had issued a public call for help - only to be told he was not interested at that point? Charged with killing the President, no luck in contacting Abt (sp?) and Oswald turns down legal assistance from an organization he has just joined? Given his normal responses to authority I'd have thought he would have jumped at the chance to "engage" the legal process? Then again, he had asked Ruth Paine, supposedly a pure liberal, ACLU member, for help in obtaining legal support and she apparently just decided to ignore him period. No call from her to the ACLU ....or am I missing something here?

It's a tempting scenario and one that seems to fit Hunt's personality which makes it an even easier sell - especially considering that Hunt was involved both with Domestic Operations as Covert Ops chief and with the Artime project in 1963. A couple of things jump out at me though. First off, we have what would have been a pretty simple plan e.g. get Oswald to stand in a window and fire a shot in the air and claim Castro sponsorship. Nice, neat, doesn't require a lot of support. So why bring all sorts of different agencies into it and risk the confidentiality of the whole thing? Heck, Hunt or even Phillips could decide to do something like that all on their own. The more people you tell the bigger the risk of somebody not approving it or of blabbing. If Oswald asks you tell him everybody approved including JFK himself. Second, if somebody was compelled to surface the truth, what a risky way to do it. Of course anybody knowing the intimate details would be under surveillance from Friday afternoon on. And warned that they would be....at minimum. Third and worse, we have the traditional "thick manila envelope, sealed with wax with a thumbprint on it, that contained the documents John said would prove his story." Do we really think somebody documents a project like this with enough paper trail for a think manilla envelope. Or that if you did John would have been able to walk off with copies and keep them aferwards....back to the warning, surveillance and of course retrieval of any documents he had. Or does anybody think Hunt is/was to moral and ethical to cover his rear if this were true? If you give your plotters the will and skill to do this sort of thing you pretty much have to give them the ability to do whatever it takes to cover it up. ...not to mention that reportedly Estes is now saying that one of the main players in the Johnson plot was none other than our good Sheriff Decker.....so perhaps this is all Decker disinformation? All in all its still tempting and maybe true, fellows like Morales and Roselli could easily hijack such a plan. But I just wish that manila envelope complete with thumbprint wasn't in it. And I still keep thinking John would never have been on a long enough leash to carry it as far as the story relates?

Pat, right on target. When you look a little further at Twiford's Merchant Marine background and add in the interviews by a researcher who has found Oswald apparently spent a good deal of time down by the docks in NO talking to seaman coming in and hanging around the boats....well you could get the idea that one of his minor assignments was to poke around looking for ways for people to get in or out to Cuba....something the FBI and even MI was extremely sensitive aobut in 1963. That was part of their FPCC crackdown. Then consider his appearance at McKewons, trying to trap him into another gun dealing rap....and McKewon's background was with Castro. When you look at the things Oswald was doing - well if he wasn't a dangle they should have been watching him like a hawk anyway. And then there is the thing Oswald didn't do (in tribute to Holmes). Oswald, the outspoken, always ready to debate, supposed Marxist political student....didn't ever hunt up any actual Socialists or Marxists.....even in the Soviet Union he appears to have avoided personally entering into any of the available political forums. He would write (think paper trail) to the organizations at length but as far as contacting them in person no dice......and we know he wasn't bashful. You might almost think it was the "game" that interested him, not the politics per se.

It's important for historical accuracy to recall that all three intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI and the regional MI groups like the 111th and 112th) had very active programs underway in 1963 against both sides of the Cuban conflict. All three groups, with the lead by the FBI and CIA were actively penetrating, bugging, monitoring and performing psych ops and more overt disruption against the FPCC not to mention Counter Intelligence against Cuban intelligence. All three groups were monitoring targeted exile groups who might engage in missions against Cuba from U.S. soil and all were active in trying to identify and disrupt individuals involved in organizing and supporting such actions. An example of that can be seen in the sting run against Masen by a combination of MI and FBI (with Ellsworth and ATF totally out of the loop) with the objective of finding out more about the Cubans talking about a new military action against Cuba. If you belive Oswald was being used by U.S. intelligence as a "dangle" as I do, then standard practice would be to have him associate with any Cubans of whichever stripe and change his tune to match the circumstances. That gives maximum "production" and the agencies watching him would be interested in anybody who approached him from either direction.

To save everyone time, the officer in question is J.D. Foster. Foster was one of the to officers stationed on top of the overpass and ran down from that position onto the "infield" between the two streets. Foster did report on what was observed down in that area and describes calling for the CSI unit to make a check. The unit apparently did as there is at least one surviving photo from that area showing a view back twoards the TSBD with what appears to be a forensics kit in the foreground, however I don't know of anyone who has managed to trace any report on their findings or observations (makes one recal the list made of the individuals in the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's capture). I put the photo on page 506 of November Patriots. Those interested should check Fosters statements plus those of the Hartman's, a married couple who described a track through the ground/grass. I talked with Mr. Hartman's son a few years ago and he related that his father was totally convinced that there had been a bullet strike in the area.

Tim, this is pure speculation of course, but I'm not sure the thought at that point would have been to associate JURE with the assassination. It could have been as simple as associating JURE with a Castro advocate and Russian defector like Oswald. That sort of political ploy would have worked well against Rey and JURE even short of an assassination, say if Oswald had agreed to participate in some sort of demonstration or incident like the one that may well have been planned for the D.C. area (keep in mind his burst of letters just before leaving New Oreleans - all about moving somewhere in the NorthEast, possibly Baltimore). Nobody has ever really explained that and it has to be considered in any theory of the overall conspiracy that used him. If my scenario is correct, the initial goal could have been as simple as a political stroke against Rey. Its important that the political in-fighting among the exiles was just about as animated as their efforts against Castro. The ongoing line against Rey - used by virtually all the right wing parties - was that Rey was putting on a front and was to be distrusted as much as Castro, he would turn Commie after getting in power just like Castro had. At this distance being able to separate short term / political objectives from things related to the actually conspiracy that played out on Nov. 22 is a real challenge. Hemming has reminded us all before that there were lots of players and lots of agendas, viewing them all against Nov. 22 os always tempting but probably not accurate.

It may be worthwhile to consider that the first objective of the visit was to persuade Sylvia to wrote some fund raising leaders for her visitors. And the visitors represented themselves as JURE connected. And they had gone to some trouble to get background info on her father including his closely kept war name. If the letters were the primary objective, the phone call back to Sylvia may have been a fall back developed after they failed to get letters from her. In that case, the main goal would have been letters referencing JURE and signed by a JURE member with high level ties to Rey. If such letters were planted along with a patsy after either an attempt or an actual assassination of JFK they could have been used to associate a Cuban sponsored assassin with JURE...many right wing exiles were constantly painting JURE with a pink brush anyway. Net result, get rid of Castro, get back into Cuba, eliminate JURE and Rey as a contender for power in a "free" Cuba. Nice neat package. ...except Sylvia didn't buy it....she thought the vistiors were suspicious, maybe even Castro agents.....which with the phone call afterwards would still have served to tie Oswald with possible Cuban agents if Sylvia had gone to the FBI or Police the afternoon of Nov. 22. Just think what a report like that from Odio would have done when combined with the Kostikov and Cuban embassy visit in Mexico City...and then Gilberto Alvardo shows up to close the loop.....still a nice package. ....excpept Sylvia didn't report it....by the time her information got in the loop the fix was in....no conspiracy, Lone Nut.

Robert, I'm glad you detailed out the Parrot Jungle incident, I view it as extremely key in lining out the real source of the conspiracy - perhaps even more key than the Odio visit. It's way too long to go into detail here, but my Lancer 04 presentation dealt with what I feel to be a common link between the Parrot Jungle leak, the leak (gossip) that Echevarria heard in Chicago and very possibly the same source as related to the Kirknewton intercept incident and (remotely possible at least) the Dinkin rumor. At this point in time I'm putting forth the premise that Victor Hernandez may well have been the common source for all this gossip.

Tim, I'm afraid this is one case where Sons and Brothers is repeating a piece of information which may have some problems. I suggest you closely read Ayears book and look at the timing of his visits to Point Mary and do some work with the calandar and map. I did that and although I wouldn't question the basic observations he may be simply repeating gossip about some of Roselli's earlier involvement with these folks. If you check the timing against Roselli's FBI surveillance logs its pretty clear that Roselli was spending his time in LA and Vegas by the time Ayears was making his first camp visits in 1963. Certainly Roselli may have slid in for a couple of visits - we can't know that since all the FBI surveillance out of Miami seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the record. However this is another case of where things that may have been true earlier had changed by the time you get to the summer of 1963. Roselli's official connection to JMWAVE was over by several months at that point - of course the real question is is possible ongoing relationship with both William Harvey and David Morales.

About all I can do is pitch in a couple of observations. First, Martino knew some of the Embassy staff in Havana quite well as they totally abandoned him during his imprisonment. He certainly names names; however he does not describe any contact with Morales in that context and indeed would have had little reason or opportunity to contact Morales who was wearing a State Department cover at the time. Nor would Martino have the history that we have to guess that a State Department official would be a cover CIA officer. All in all no particular reason to connect Morales in his official capacity to Martino in Havana. On the other hand, plenty to connect him to JMWAVE starting about June and some to connect him before hand in that Rip Robertson seems to have frequented the Martino home over some period of time according to Martino's wife. On to Vidal, so how did Martino get to be so tight with one of the more low profile and covert exile types, not a man would would show up in press conferences, speaking engagements or radio shows. After all, Martino only arrived in Miami back from prison at the very end of 1962, spent much time recovering and doing publicity activities, then into the book thing and then into Project Tilt... none of which obviously involve Vidal. Sturgis yes, Vidal no. So how and where did the two meet and become close enough so that Martino would name Sturgis and Vidal as friends to the FBI? Would be interesting to know who made the introduction. -- Larry

James, an interesting thought - I think that something like that would require that Morales somehow had an introduction to Martino from someone within the Casino crowd in Havana though. Martino was not that "visible", doing most of his work initially during construction of the Casinos and later as new equipment was put in. His specialities had to do with gambling equipment installation as well as equipment related to racing and the wires. Which meant that he didn't work during the public hours or in public areas. In addition, during most of '59 he was making a number of trips back and fourth to Miami, acting as a courier (transporting exactly what is unclear but its unlikely it was bulky long range radio eqipment) - which raises a good question as to where Morales was getting the long range sets he was planting, I'd bet he was using some "naval" assets to smuggle them in, not Cuban Navy of couse but perhaps the "smugglers route". Of course there is a secondary implication in all this, when the Martino book was written early in 1963 it would appear that Martino had no concerns about listing Morales very visibly as someone he knew and to a certain extent blowing Morales identity as CIA.

John, I don't have a transcript and doing one would be a pretty considerable effort. I've not even listened to all of it myself; the portions I have are similar to what you will find in Martino's book. Which I probably should point out again - because it doesn't get much discussion - contains the true name of one David Morales, identifyed as filling a CIA slot in Havana. Of course how Martino would know Morales and know that he was CIA - especially when Morales was gone from Havana by the time Martino went into prison there - is worth a lot of thought.

Actually John Martino did record personal comments on his experience in Cuban prison and it was published as a record. It's fascinating material and I have a copy of it on CD. At one point we had thought about bringing it out for sale to those interested but due to some copyright questions and a lack of any obvious demand that project has not really gone anywhere in the last year or so. It is educational to hear Martino describe his experience and give his opinions in his own words.... strong stuff. -- Larry

I'd go even further than that Tim, the essential problem is that none of the staff of the WC were experienced in criminal investigation. And certainly the same can be said of the "management" of the process. However, its important to recall that their charter was simply to accept the FBI report which should have been a criminal investigation. The WC members themselves frequently commented that they had few options and little resource to do anything except accept what was given to them by the FBI. Of course the counter to that is that the FBI is such an investigative unit - when lead by experienced Justice Department prosecuting attorneys. Unfortunately that did not occur in this case and after 40 some years we have ample evidence that the FBI itself is subject to political pressure as well as the standard pressure to produce quick victories in national crimes - the Atlanta Olympic bombing and the Anthrax case are two rather obvious examples but there are much worse if you get into studides of the FBI and especially of its crime lab work. I won't even go to the OKC bombing. The HSCA started out on a different track - but its experienced criminal leadership was neutered and removed pretty quickly. And there is no particular sign that the HSCA's staff attorney's in general did any better job with their interviews even if they did at least have a few aggressive field investigators. Fonzi's book contains an excellant example of his being called back from using real criminal investigation tactics. -- Larry

Wade, the documents and mention of the film are brand new to me - the only link I can think of is that this would relate to a story which was circulated that the assassination was carried out as a revenge for the crew of the Thresher submarine. I think the JFCOTT stands for Justice For the Crew of the Thresher. Just a guess, a google search on that subject should get you some further detail. Its hard to belive such a film was ever shown anywhere, anytime without any rumor of it.... perhaps someone else can help on this.

Very good Pat, I'm glad you've seen Mortal Error, just one of those books I've had to purge from my library over time (and apparently my memory as well). I did think it interesting that he seemed to have some pretty strong institutional support for his conclusions on the the fragment path and distribution. I would agree with Al that some of the CIA's choices in weapons are a bit far out but I can also see a lot of sense in the handbooks choice of .22's where some of their local assets may have been less than skilled or exceptionally well trained. And frankly I was just as interested in some of the points the manuel makes about picking and managing different types of patsies and the procedures for conducting"frames", particularly frames of in country "Communists". Since most of their assassinations were being associated with political overthrows it gives them a different context and MO than simply taking out a target in military fashion. It wasn't enough for them just to get the kill since in most cases the actual sponsors/killers didn't just need to escape, they had to divert suspicion and blame to some other party. And I see that very relevant to November in Dallas.

Pat, your post should certainly give everyone a lot to think about and there's not much I can offer to go along with it - except two misc. "factoids" 1) One of the expert civilian markesmen who participated in the attempts to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting performance eventually wrote a book in which he put forth the thory that one of the SS agents accidentally shot JFK when he picked up an AR-15 (as I understand it, a similar weapon to the M-16). He felt that Oswald had taken a shot but that the SS man actually killed JFK by accident in picking up the weapon and accidentally loosing a round. There are lots of things wrong with that, he got sued and lost etc. However one of the things that convinced him was the similiarty of the fragment pattern and X-Rays to that produced by AR-15 ammunition. You might pick up a copy of his book just for that as he goes into great detail and certainly had professional credentials in that area. 2) Interesting that you mention "That Castillo-Armas was in the process of throwing the gambling interests ouf of Guatemala when he was killed, and that he was killed in a manner that would implicate the communists, along the lines of a CIA plan to kill his predecessor". Roselli's biographers spend a chapter on his work in Guatamala at that particular time, probably connected to gambling interests but also apparently doing some "consulting" work for one of the Fruit companies (perhaps with an intro. from Marcello) which involved rebel raids and activities which ended up hurting the competing Fruit Company. -- Larry

Tim, a number of Marcello's remarks in this context have been discussed for a very long time; I presented one of your examples in November Patriots several years ago. However, the one FBI report is indeed new. Of course there is also Thomas Beckham's detailed HSCA interview directly identifying Marcello as the sponsor - lots of resons to question that one but it was amazing Blakey didn't put it to any use. If one were strictly looking for motive, Marcello would probably have to tower above everyone else. Not only because of his personal vendetta against RFK but because the Kennedy's in 1963 were threatening his financial empire in several ways, including initiatives against both his drug operations and against his much less well known but massive sports gambling revenues. Its also possible to demonstrate that Marcello had been "in business" with John Roselli over a number of years and used him for some very successful projects. Its even more fascinating when you dig into Marcello position in the Mafia that his particular family and he were very unique; in fact Marcello was probably the only senior mob figure that could have unilaterally acting against JFK with no permission nor risk from the Mafia itself.

John, I think if you read back through my chapter on this and on Gaeton's book you will find Veciana staunchly denied that Biship was CIA, indeed he and Alpha 66 wanted nothing to do with the CIA rather than taking supplies if they could get them (or steal them). They were much more interested in dealing with Army Intelligence and Veciana was an Army Intel informant.. the documents are on the CD. If you can dig up any trace of evidence that Veciana was acquainted with Esterline it will be most interesting. Also, you may also remember that Veciana said that Bishop contacted him one other time about Oswald, to see if Veciana's cousin who worked in the Cuban embassy could go on record that Oswald was in the Embassy.... On a side note, I have just received a document that places Phillips in Mexico City on November 22/23rd. It's a JMWAVE document and describes the fact that Phillips was supposed to receive a pouch from someone coming out of Cuba, the pouch contained key information for the exfiltration of a very highly placed HQ asset to be taken out of Cuba. In any event, I'll await something further that connects Easterline to Veciana or to Oswald, in the meantime I'm staying with Phillips as the primary suspect for being in contact with Oswald in regard to his trip to Mexico City. Now if GPH had said Joinnedes (sp) rather than Esterline it might have been more of a teaser for me...

John, as I recall, Veciana volunteered the Dallas incident to Fonzi and did so well into their relationship. If Veciana were somehow close to Easterline and wanted to protect him I wonder why he would even volunteer such an incident at all - especially since its the only solid thing he really gave Fonzi relating to a possible conspiracy. Personally I'm not aware of any particular relationship between Veciana and Easterline but perhaps you will turn something up - Veciana's long time relationship to Bishop/Phillips is well documented. I'd have to know how Gerry came to know such a thing to have any further opinion; it would suggest either a very close connection to Veciana that we've not heard about or of course some knowledge by Hemming of the actual meeting in Dallas - which would be interesting in itself.

James, Greer was definitely the lead driver for the White House detail in 1963 although not the only driver available. However his report and testimony make it clear that he was a primary driver. On a side note, he had been scheduled to drive on the abortive Chicago trip as well, he mentions that. However its also clear that he had no special training and that his job was literally driving....when asked about his knowledge of the route his reply was basically that he was doing what he always did, following the car in front of him. I don't recall if he had driven on the other cities involved in the Texas trip before Dallas but I suspect he had....perhaps someone will jump in and confirm that. Also, if memory serves, he was not part of the late night club visit the evening before.

Mark screened the film for us at the Lancer conference in Dallas last November and its a wonderful work - and yes it is on the Warren Commission. Lots of very skilled and wll known actors, I found it more compelling than the Stone film although it is not "action" oriented and most likely would not do as well with a large commercial audiance. What it does do is highlight the internal conflicts and ironies of the WC is a point by point and captivating manner. I can't imagine anyone watching it and not demanding a new investigation. I suspect that it will do very well at festivals but with no sex, explosions, special effects etc its hard for me seeing it go into theatres. Perhaps onto cable spots though. Its the sort of thing you used to see on Hallmark Theatre.

Not exactly sure what to make of it but in the days and weeks after the assassination the FBI received reports of Oswald associating with individuals in the vacinity of the Cuban embassy - talking with, walking with, taking money from. The FBI did show some interest in the reports although in the end it dismissed all of them. It was in regard to one of them that Phillips wrote a memo to the FBI stating that the CIA had evidence which would counter the report - because the CIA still had in its possession (as of Feb 1964) the full photo records for the entire months of September and October and could verify that the man had not entered the Cuban embassy - because they had photos of everyone who had. Which of course leaves begging why they would not still have multiple Oswald photos from his multiple entries and exits. And why those photos had not been provided to the WC. Not that the FBI asked that question of course. But it also makes me wonder if the CIA was becoming a bit sensitive to reports that Oswald was indeed in the company of others. And of course Jim Hosty still swears that he was told by his former FBI friends working in Mexico City that there was active survellance including photography surveillance on Oswald during his full stay in Mexico City.

As usual, I'll back James point about cutting to the chase on any real investigation. There are multiple witnesses out of both New Orleans and Dallas who reported observing Lee Oswald in association with mysterous latins (call them Mexicans, call them Cubans) who were not known to the observers. And the individuals in question were clearly not people well known in either exile community. The WC was only made aware of one of those incidents, the Odio incident, and took it seriously enough to demand an explanation from the FBI. The FBI cooked up a bogus explanation and fed that to the WC, at the same time its own internal documents now clearly show that the FBI kew their response to the WC to be false since both Sylvia and her sister were shown photos of the men whose names were given to the WC and stated they were not the visitors. Its always reasonable to be skeptical about confessions but if you just literally make a stack of individuals reported (and reported prior to the issuance of the WC report itself) to be seen in association with with Oswald in the three months prior to the assaination it is going to paint a very clear picture of the direction a serious and open endedl criminal investigation should have gone. -- Larr