Larry Hancock

John, as a little bit more background on Phillips and Veciana, the following is from the upcoming fourth version of my updated errata and news on the book: Page 114 New information suggests that Phillips would not have had to identify Veciana as contact on his own. In early 1960, Veciana had approached the CIA (contact crypt Olien) with a proposal for a plot to “wipe out” Prime Minister Castro and his top aides. The memo disclosing this information also references that Viciana worked for Julian Lobo’s bank and we now know that Lobo, his New York connections and his contact to Alberto Fernandez and Unidad were all key connections for the CIA into the early counter-revolutionary activities against Castro. This information suggests that Phillips may have been targeted on Veciana. (Reference RIF 104-10315-10038, Havana to JMWAVE, subject “Viciana Report on plot to wipe out Cuban PM and Top Aids). -- Larry

Yes, there were people in the Archives the following Monday after this was discussed widely online. The archivists had been previously contacted and'were already searching for the document. The net result is that the RIF number thought to be associated with the document in question does not relate to it, it has to do with something totally different. After several weeks of searching there appears to be no such document in the Treasury file series that relates to the internal document number series present on the first page of the memo. Althought it is impossible to say that the document is not at NARA or was ever transferred there, we can say that it was not recently located there nor is there anything that veriefies that it is there. The initial source seems to have been a mysterious FBI man who gave a paper copy to a JFK conspiracy writer quite a while ago, the contents were described in a tabloid article and also in Dick Russell's first edition of The Man Who Knew Too Much back in the early 90's. At this point it seems unlikely we will ever know the true source and circumstances under which it originated but it is unlikely that it will ever be traced back and verified as an official document in the Treasury Department Headquarters files or a document that can be shown to be in the NARA collection. -- Larry

Gary, almost immediately after the assassination Richard went to the local Chicago FBI office with information he requested they share with the CIA. He became very frustrated because they refused to do anything with it. His information was the Oswald had come to Chicago in early 1963 to meet with a chapter of the FPCC there which had fallen under control of Chinese Communist followers. While in Chicago Oswald obtained the rifle used in the assassination. This was a pretty interesting spin among the small group of people who were going to the FBI with Communist sponsorship stories. It is also what appears to have started the JFK myth that Richard Cain was involved in locating where Oswald obtained the rifle used in the shooting. -- Larry

Greg, I'm pretty sure the call was longer than that, three or four minutes at a minimum. Also there is some other commentary somewhere on that call, perhaps in his polygraphy test but certainly somewhere in which he expounds a bit more and says that one of the reasons for the call was that he was thinking of sending Gruber one of his dogs. Also: He happened to come through a couple of nights prior to that to try to interest me, or 4 or 5 days prior to that, to interest me in a new kind--you follow the story as I tell it? Chief Justice WARREN. Yes. Mr. RUBY. It is important, very important ....once again he telegraphs to Warren that this call to Gruber is "important, very important" yet covers it up with reference to a new machine for a waxxxxeria. Somehow it seems a little strange to be telling a Chief Justice during an investigation of the murder of a President that a new device for a waxxxxeria is "very, very important." Actually I don't think they were following Ruby's real story very well at all. -- Larry

It seems clear that Jack and his brother both knew Mike Shore and that the connection was not one that anybody wanted to discuss (Irwin Weiner being an excellant example). The following is from a quick google search: "Mike Shore, a Californian involved in the entertainment field (2267) also attended school with Weiner and Earl Ruby,(2268) and he and Weiner had been involved in a number of business transactions. (2269) Jack Ruby also called Shore numerous times in 1963 to seek help with his labor problems,(2270) including calls in the days before and after the October 26 call to Weiner. Weiner stated that Shore never mentioned to him the calls from Ruby.(2271) Shore may have prompted Ruby's call to Weiner, however, by mentioning the latter's name in one of' his 1963 telephone conversations with Ruby. "Ruby asked if he should call Weiner about the trouble he was havingwith AGVA but Shore replied, 'What can he do ?.' Shore did not know if Ruby did call Weiner."(2272) (Earl Ruby worked with Shore following the Oswald shooting to raise defense funds and to secure an attorney.)(2273)"(a) Seems like Shore might be a good candidate for an introduction to Jack Ruby for Dorothy...we need to know more about his entertainment activities. (a) courtesy of none other than McAdams' WEB site....grin, Larry

Greg, on a side note, Belli's law partner has described receiving a call from the Desert Inn, from a fellow he had known in Havana, right after Ruby shot Oswald. The call was for Belli and the caller wanted him to defend Ruby but under the condition that all payments would be represeted as coming from Ruby's brother. The caller was most likely Roselli. Hinckle and Turner identify Gruber as having associated with Roselli in L.A. Peter Dale Scott identifies Grumer as a long time associate of Cohen. Also, on November 12th, Ruby phoned Candy Barr and talked to her for 14 min. She had been Cohen's favorite girl for awhile and there is good reason to supposed Cohen and several L.A. folks knew of Ruby through her, Ruby tried to intervene when she was sent up for drugs. There was supposed to be a dynamite book on her a couple of years ago but supposedly it got pulled before publication. I suggest somebody check Ruby's testimony on the Gruber call about this because I'm virtually certain he says he called Gruber about his media or film connections and that might indeed give a tie -- and that is something Kilgalen might have dug up and used as an introduction. Hck, Jack may have still had an idea he might end up in a book himself...hers. -- Larry

Folks, this is a stretch but was Gruber a friend of Mike Shore? I seem to recall that Ruby's alibi for calling Gruber immiediately after the assasination was that he wanted to get some connections which might help him promote a story/book/movie about the assassination - well that and that he was discussing sending one of his dogs to Gruber (not likely). I think this is in Seth Kantor's book ....or something similar at least. -- Larry

Greg, Rose gave the ships name phonetically as "Mary Etta", the ship found to match the port and time was the SS Maturata, British registry docking in Galveston. The seaman's name was given as "Luther", initials L.J. last name unknown. Delivery was to be made to Leo Parker (alias), true name Poreurillo (the spelling is hard to read on this, poor type quality or altered, hard to say on my copy). Parker was to take delivery in Dallas. Other names given were Pete Vallone and the Tamborrello family. Police records were checked and confirmed that the Vallone and Tamborello families were heavily invovled in narcotics, white slavery and other criminal activity. Given the number of details which appeared to check out it is rather significant that the investigation was dropped simply because Rose had a record with the Houston police and they apparently told the agents that her allegations were untrue. Which is very strange given her actual record which clearly demonstrates that she had been very active as both a prostitute (white slavery) and a drug courier and there is no detail given as to how they could have checked her story prior to the arrival of the ship? Fruge himself said that he and the agents did verify a Luther on the ship but failed to intercept him and were ordered back given the decision by higher level customs officers to drop it based - it seems - simply on a lack of interest by Houston police. -- Larry

Pat, that looks like great legwork and a fine analysis to me. And logically, if a new Domestic Operations Division is being established logically (and from an internal politics standpoint) Domestic Contacts would seem like something that would almost have to go into it unless it had a real power based to keep itself separate and there is little sign of that. In fact it is so logical that it seems all the effort to make DCS and DOD mysterious is even worse than normal CIA internal security. Certainly it could be explained if their had been a paper trail or even personnel within that organization who had contact with Oswald in 1963. It might be worth taking another look at the documents in Newman's book to see if DCS or DOD is ever referenced on the distribution list for any Oswald documents. Doubtful though, if anything that would probably have been in his "soft file" which the CIA managed to keep hidden during all the investigations and when identified by the ARRB and requested, was still never provided as far as I know. Probably with good reason if it had been in Barnes' file cabinent...grin. -- Larry

Greg, not that it solves anything, but a couple of observations... First, in Col. Jones interview he makes it clear that the 112th records do not list Hidel as an actual alias for Oswald. There is discussion that the files contain information that Lee Oswald was in possession of an FPCC membership card signed by A.J. Hidell and of a statement made by Oswald to the FBI that Hidel had recruited Oswald in August asking him to distruibute literature. ...which I suppose explains why Oswald was not immediately felt to be using an alias in New Orleans, as I recall Hosty goes into length on this point in his book developing why it took the New Orelans agents some two months or so to come to the conclusion that there was no real AJ Hidell and that it the FPCC in N.O. was a one man game. Jones goes on to say that on Nov. 22 he received information from Dallas that an individual had been arrested carrying identification with both the names A.J. Hidell (Selective Service Card) and Oswald. Jones seemed proud of the fact that a quick check of their files allowed him to reply to Dallas that the individual was Lee Oswald and that the name Hidell had been used before in association with Oswald. It's pretty apparent that he feels he figured out Hidell was Oswald - which does make him considerably faster than the FBI in New Orleans. It is sort of humorus that in his testimony, Jones still qualifies though ans says that "I am of the opinion that A.J. Hidell and Lee Harvey Oswald are one and the same"....because he is being questioned on whether it was at all possible there was a real A.J. Hidell. -- Larry

I'll try to reply to both Bill and James with this post. Bill, the sessions on Rose would be available in the Lancer video tapes of last years conference which may be found via www.jfklancer.com James, yes those are the ID's made by Garrison's investigators but I have seen a memo from him that expresses his concern that his investigators may have been pushing too hard for the ID's. There is nothing to connect the two men at all although there is a rough connection between Santana and some of the other pre-assassination gossip, primarily because he had indeed served as a JMWAVE boat guide and taken in at least one mission in 1963 - he also seems to have had some connections to some smugglers or other criminals of some sort during that time frame and as I recall he did have an arrest record. Other than that about the only thing you can say is that Arcacha Smith had been in Florida, Tampa area in early 63 and moved back to Texas taking a job in Houston and then doing some business in Dallas I think. However his boss was interviewed and accounted for his presence during the time of the incident with Rose....if that can be trusted. All in all it seems to me very possible that Rose heard some of the general gossip that was very prevalent in Florida, Chicago and even in Dallas - byond that it seems hard to take it anywhere concrete. Certainly there were a number of folks making remarks about a general threat against JFK in November. -- Larry

Bill, we have a couple of presentations of new material on Rose at the 2003 November in Dallas conference. Jim Olivier presented on two new witnesses including another La. police officer that had been involved with her arrests and who Fruge talked to in regard to this incident as well as a police secretary who was familiar with the November arrest and had also done some interview work in Clinton on the Oswald appearance there. Bob Dorff presented information including his interview with one of the Doctors who worked at the hospital and this clarified who was on duty and who had talked with her. I've just been reading a new Customs document on the trip Fruge made down with her to intercept the drug smuggling courier on the ship and she certainly did have the correct information about the ship and the crewman. It's very unclear why they decided to drop the whole thing but the excuse given was that because of her past history they did not consider her a viable informant although in this particular instance three different sources are cited as saying her preliminary information all checked out. Certainly everything in the new information presented seems to corroborate the basic story in terms of whatever rumor or gossip she had heard....unfortunately none of it can take us much further given that the matter was simply not pursued prior to her death. -- Larry

John, this weekend the host which operated the server for the Lancer forum suffered a total disk crash on their primary server. Debra will have to find a new host company and it will take some time to move across the forum software and load the backup messages. Due to the nature of the disk crash the last backup may have been lost - an effort is being made to obtain the actual disk and recover some of it but that is problematic. If so posts will be restored to the previous backup in May. It will likely be one to two weeks at best before the forum could be operational again. I should point out that the JFK Lancer WEB site is still fully operational and tha is where the actual Lancer research resoure files and documents reside. They are safe and remain available as one of the main data sources on the WEB. It is strictly the online forum which was affected by the disk crash....and the need to move to another host company. In the interim I would encourage folks to investigate the resources available at the main Lancer site. -- Larry

Pat, a comment on your rhetorical question: "It remains to be seen whether the CIA EVER really believed their stated plan would work. Does the IG report go into this? I'm gonna try and find out." It strikes me that the first IG report essentially concluded that the CIA did not have the expertise to run a large scale military operation....which the Zapata project turned out to be.....and the first report highlighted all sorts of issues with the command structure, decision making and logistics. Barnes reply to all of that was basically that it was nit picking and they got the Brigade organized, transported, supplied and on the beach (well off shore at least) and the plan only failed due to the lack of air superiority which had been an assumption. Basically his out was that they may not have done a neat job but it would have worked if JFK had not abandoned them. A more recent CIA analysis of the BOP raises two major issues. The first is that there was no real plan beyond getting the troops on the beach, no options, no fall back etc. Of course it's pretty clear that Barnes and Bissell expected to get the troops on the beach, supplied for a few days, declare a new government and then get full scale US military commitment....or force JFK into it. And they expected Castro to be dead. This second major issue raised is that Barnes and Bissell assumed way to much in regard to Castro's assassination when they really had no direct involvement with that activity nor really any way to know how well it was or was not going. I know some people assume that the whole project was set up to fail because nobody could be as inept and overconfident as Barnes and Bissell seem to have been. Personally I tend to go along with the more recent CIA analysis which states that Barnes was uniquely qualified to know plan adequately based on the Guatamala project - but that he simply failed miserably. Possibly because the Cuba Project grew into something much larger and much more military than anything in his experience. And I can't help but feel that it also represented a hughe amount of wishful thinking on the part of the CIA who totally mis-evaluated the depth and breadth of actual popular support for Castro after the revolution. Of course given how poorly it managed to coordinate with in country exile factions like Unidad (and how CIA miscues literally allowed Castro to roll them all up immediately before the invastion) perhaps it was as much a failure of execution as of evaluation? Bottom line, it just flat looks like an all around failure to me. Larry

Boy that's a long list John, and overall it seems to suggest there were a couple of sore spots RFK was still interested in covering up in terms of his brother's image. 1) There is no doubt that their was discussion of ways in which both Diem and Truijillo would be ousted. There is no good evidence that assassination was discussed at the level of JFK; however it is clear that the CIA was involved in both ousters and that Barnes in particular was backing armed attacks on Trujillo. JFK was very upset over Diems death. As to Johnson, he came up with several candidates for a conspiracy which killed JFK, Diem's associates were first and he later seemed to focus on Castro. 2) Of course there was discussion of dumping Johnson, that's politics. However it would have taken something truly explosive to force out a sitting VP from the ticket, of course LBJ's scandals made that an ongoing possiblity. 3) I would say that's pretty historically correct. Now if RFK had known about a good deal of other similar activities out of JMWAVE in 1963 - Harvey would have had plenty of company as he packed. 4) That is simply false, we know he was told of the initial Roselli plots and it's pretty clear that he knew the exiles he was backing in 1963 had eliminating Castro as one of the action items in their planned coup. 5) I've seen names offered for some of the officers but don't recall specifics, some may have been military advisors not CIA per se. I think Lynch even mentions this subject in his book. 6) He's got it right there, more and more evidence is surfacting for CIA officer actions that directly opposed Administration policy and directives. The new JMWAVE operations reports are a good source on that for Cuba. 7) I don't know of anyone who has really gone into this area in detail other than as it pertains to Cuba, something might be done by digging into State Department history documents. It's pretty clear that keeping it from CIA was virtually impossible. 8) The Viet Nam stance seems totally bogus to me and I'm not sure why he would say that at all? 9) I'd say that was a very accurate statement on the Johnson scandals; they were pure Johnson, nothing to do with the Administration per se.

Pat, as far as the media goes, to a certain extent they are in the same boat the CIA, FBI etc. Do you want to be the long time investigative reporter and industry name who stands up and says....uh, well we missed that JFK conspiracy but we do everything else right so trust me, trust my network, trust my publishing house. Even if you have a stroke of conscious your media ownership group is not going to be excited. Certainly easier for the media establishment in general to say - as I have heard DPD and FBI people say, hey, we got our man, you guys are just wasting your time. Or do you want to be the new CIA Director that admits that former Directors lied and covered up and consciously chose not to investigate.... but that we should all trust you and your Agency now. Or the FBI Director that fesses up to what they really knew about Oswald...heck, they won't admit what they really know about the OKC bombing and how they let that slide into 911. But that's another story. Never understimage the power of CYA... Or the pain of admitting you screwed up....especially if it's not just you but a Corporation or government agency - or administration. As to those documents....well my advise would be to rely on History Matters.... I know Rex doesn't have a position to defend, McAdams truly does. Then again, so do I, which is why try to get people to read primary sources whenever possible. -- Larry

Jack and William, first no worries. It just so happens I'm paranoid in general and was watching over my shoulder well before I got hooked on JFK research - not only do strangers not get in but I have a clear 360 field of fire. My comments were largely directed towards current day researchers and perhaps more obviously frequent online posters - in my expereince many of the very best researchers are extremely low profile and you don't see their names on the internet. And they do share research - once they have vetted you. Of course here is no doubt that there was active agency interferance, monitoring of researchers and penetration by agency assets not to mention official counter conspiracy campaigns during the 60's and 70's. And I'm personally convinced that some folks (who get publishers) have been at best maneuvered - I'd put 'they call me Gus over at the CIA' in that category but that's just an opinion. I have a nice document with Helms signature describing how they convinced one big name reporter that Oswald was not filing reports on his Russian trip and a note at the bottom expresses the hope that they can keep him convinced at least until the program in question airs. Others most likely have their own agendas from the start - some make careers out of defending the party line and become official media historians (like Posner who has no history credentials at all and gets called as a talking head all the time; someone like Newman who does have credentials is obviously not nearly as high up on the media call lists). Some just do hit and run, collecting everything they can get and publishing and then on to something else. I do think there is a big difference between obstruction by agencies....some of which is clealy just traditional CYA and some of which may be more personal (after all folks, our new CIA Director to be worked at JMWAVE during the secret war, it's not like some of this stuff is ancient history) and the current activities of researchers. But then I've been accused of being an asset for somebody myself because I tend not to belive in grand, long term conspiracies..... ....Larry (if somebody is paying me the mail intercept program must be getting the checks).

Hey Bill, what can I say. Some folks take photos that make them look younger, some look older and some take photos that pretty much prove that they just shouldn't take photos. Explaining my previous position on not having photos myself... Anyway, I've seen Bill and I've seen Jack and I'll volunteer to ID either of them in a line up.....although no T-shirts please, that would really throw me off. -- Larry

Pat, a fascinating question. Part of it obviously has to do with the fact that evidence and testimony has clearly been managed, Agency officers have destroyed or concealed evidence and in some cases committed obfuscation in testimony and in other cases given either disinformation or outright lies (depending on your interpretation) - an example being Helms denial that Sturgis was associated with the CIA or that Martinez was anything more than a casual contract employee. When you start with that baseline it makes you certainly creates a healthy skepticism...which can easily extend to other researchers. Another part has to do with the fact that most long term CT folks develop pretty strong opininons and some of those beliefs are are very much based in larger scale political or social beliefs which for many involve a certain lack of confidence or mistrust of government in general and a healthy concern that it has its feelers out in anything having to do with challenging official/establishment story lines. It's not hard to go from worry about instrusive government agencies a suspicion of "forward leaning" activities, as some of our CIA folks used to call it. I think another thing which feeds paranoia (I know it does for me occasionally) is the number of die hard LN folks who seem to spend an awesome amount of time and energy challenging conspiracy data - after a time you sort of wonder why they just don't let us obviously misguided CT folks wonder off by ourselves - since it's unlikely we are going to harm anyone or change any textbooks - and not waste their time on us. After all, are there similar efforts to counter folks in the flat earth society? So after awhile there is a tendencey to go - hmmm, somebody must be paying them for that, its so tiresome and such a waste of time they can't be doing it for entertainment. However, it's important to keep in mind that there is a large international skeptics organization filled with folks who apparently enjoy doing just that sort of thing so perhaps it's not that mysterous. Oh, did I mention all those opened letters and packages, the beeps on the telephone lines, the undelivered and delayed emails, the researchers who take out their wallets and their FBI ID drops out on the table, you know that stuff.....grin. -- Larry

Folks, I can certainly say that the photo looks like the Bill Miller who I talked to in Dallas and who presented at the Lancer Conference that year....perhaps just a tad bit younger in the photo but that's him. Or at least the Bill that I talked to in between his taking folks over to the window to look at the pictures and negatives of the windows in the TSBD. And his voice sounded like the Bill who calls me occasionally as well. -- Larry That would be Larry who has no electronic photo to post and no particular plans to get one but who you can see in person in Dallas most every November....just in case anybody was wondering...grin.

John, my thoughts on the tramps are the same as my thoughts on many of the other details of DP on November 22 i.e. the investigation was so poor, there are so many pieces missing and the questioning of the witnesses by both the FBI and WC staff was so horrendous that we will be left debating things like the tramps forever. Which is one of the things that after a decade or so let away from such debates and into a different tack entirely. Of course I've spent time on the tramps as everyone has, and it's clear to me that at least two sets of tramps and possibly some singletons were taken into custody - but never really seriously investigated or booked in regard to the JFK murder. You can find traces of both sets in the DPD tapes and police reports including tramps over by the postal annex and the tramps Bowers fingered for the DPD. The ones Bowers saw were in a train moving back through DP from the East with the engine down by the overpass, indicating they would have boarded outside the Plaza itself. And he clearly saw a man in a gondola which let him to stop the train, nothing about men in a boxcar. It bothers me a good deal though that Bowers does not mention the incident in his first day statement (for all he knew at the time he had just personally fingered the President's murderers?) nor does he mention it in any following testimony. It should have been pretty dramatic, lots of armed police pulling several men out of a railroad car - but there's nothing on the record. Also, although I have some problems with certain of Holt's details about his activities on Nov. 22 I personally feel that he is one of the open issues that deserves a lot of serious investigation he has not received. His daughter shared a great amount of detail about names for front companies he had named and people he had known and I do not know of anyone that has truly researched that yet; it gets repeated but research is what's needed. And his story about the ID (although it seems a bit incredible that it would be brought into DP and distributed on site the morning of the assassination) is especially interesting given the independent FBI report of Hargraves being seen with SS ID and Hargraves own admission that he carried SS ID. All in all, I've pretty much given up on the issue of the tramps themselves but I'd like to see some serious research into some of the other information provided by Holt - what I'd really like to see is one single piece of evidence confirming that one of the names that he was given was indeed one of Tracy Barnes Domestic Ops front companies.... then the game would indeed be in play. -- Larry

John, Lancer should have it in stock and you can certainly order there. If for some reason you have problems with that it is also in stock with Andy at the Last Hurrah Bookshop and it's on Amazon as well. -- Larry

John, feel free to email me direct once you begin reading the book; I'll make sure you get the most current errata/news sheet version. I think one of the most interesting things about the people that did talk, especially the "leaks" in advance of the assassination, is that it is possible to trace the leaks back to some very specific sources, which gives us a very good sense of direction back towards the origins of the conspiracy. -- Larry

John, there are lots of old newspaper articles, out of print magazine articles etc. Gordon Winslows WEB site on Cuban exiles also has some information on various Interpen associates. Probably the books that would give you the most detail would be Bloody Treason by Twyman which contains the most extensive set of interviews given by Hemming himself as well as my book Someone Would Have Talked which as a good amount of information on associates as well as a follow on interview that Twyman did with Roy Hargraves. You would also find some good information in Deadly Secrets by Hinckle and Turner. In addition, JFK Lancer offers a CD on Hemming which has his conference address from several years ago and a good number of documents pertaining to him.

John, I very much doubt that Barnes would have been directly involved in the tactical elements of the assassination. He had no experience or expertise in that area and apparently was not generally well respected either for either tradecraft or security consciousness. Equally importantly, he had no close personal relationship nor trust established with the exiles. Those criteria point you towards people like David Morales and Rip Robertson. However Barnes was in a very key position to do two things which related to the conspiracy, first, a case can be made that it was his position and personal dialogs which led many officers and many exiles to belive the story that JFK was solely responsible for the failure of the BOP invasion - Barnes can be shown to have aggressively taken that stand inside the CIA even in the face of it's own internal investigation. The "legend" that JFK was a traitor very likley started with Barnes and continuted to be reinforced by him. Secondly, Barnes was in a key position as a senior agency old boy to know and pass on the 1963 word about JFK's opening negotiations with Castro; as in a more minor way was Morales who had inklings of the new strategy from the SG meetings. Hemming has said - among many things - that it was the "patriots" who orchestrated the assassination and that the mechanism was a matter of inciting key exiles to action, he refers to "baiting" them. I might have called it incitement instead. That of course would be done by the personnel who had direct credibility and confidence with them, not Barnes. Vidal described how CIA officers carried that message to key exiles in Miami in the summer of 1963 and that it had the impact of setting off a bomb among them. I tend to belive that in this case Hemming is telling us exactly what did happen. I also think it is at least probable that information about Oswald and certain of Oswalds actions - including his vulnerability as a patsy - may have been passed on by Barnes due to his oversight with the new Domestic Operations division; it's a question of whether or not DO was directly involved with the FPCC project which was carried out in 1963. I will be adding a sizable appendix on Barnes to my upcoming second edition, thanks to a lot of literature searching by Pat and a bit of work of my own. It would definitely be interesting to have some factual evidence of where Barnes was on December 22, 1963 though. If this all was as personal for him as it might have been - it could explain a reather interesting photo that James Richards has previously posted of individuals clustered at the corner of Main and Elm in Dallas? -- Larry