Larry Hancock

Ron, you've got the location correct I think....I recall seeing pictures

and I'm sure it was at least two story. Whether or not it had a good

view of Stemmens is a fascinating question....I bet someone on the Lancer

Forum would know.

And Lee, there should be a high enough quality photo of that vehicle

off Stemmens to answer your question, I had always thought it was

a semi Tractor but now that you mention it I'm no longer sure.

Whatever it is it certainly is in a fine position. Larry

Greg, to the best of my knowledge nobody has really spent any time with Larry Jones, Dick Russell gives a fair amount of attention too the CUSA guys in his book The Man Who Knew Too Much and you might want to take a look at that. Dick also mentions that Look magazine interviewed Schmidt pretty extensively about their whole CUSA plan, who was involved, strategy etc. so you might check the Look back issues.

Dave may be able to tell you more but of course our usual problem is that nobody not directly associated with Oswald was considered a suspect for criminal investigation - not even employees in the TSBD....or somebody like Jack Lawrence. Which means if a researcher has't pursued it there's nothing in the record from a criminal investigation perspective (which the WC obviously was not...not a DA or practicing prosecuting criminal lawyer in the crowd as I recall). Sorry I can't be of help.

-- Larry

Thanks Bernice, indeed the roadway right beyond the overpass is clear

of everything but people....certainly no security in that long stretch there

though. But more importantly as you show, once the limo moved on to

Stemmens itself there were cars right beside the roadway.

A shaped charge in one or more of those vehicles would have been

terribly effective if operted by radio and there could even have been more than one -- the motorcade cars would have still been going relatively slowly at that point. Hemming has always said the car bomb was just

beyond the overpass but of course that could describe the ramp or

right on Stemmens itself.

P.S. the AR15 you described was the only weapon beyond a pistol

in the whole motorcade and as I recall it was set for single shot not

even semi-automatic. Interestingly enough that weapon is the subject of one of the major problems with Cliff Carter's testimony - he claims to have seen the SS man holding it up immediately after the first shot and scanning the TSBD, claims Hickey simply could not get a clear shot at Oswald. All of which is patently untrue and proven so by many photographs....

... Larry

Hi Antti, I'd agree that there are certainly no cars parked under or

immediately beyond the overpass....although it's interesting to note that

there was a "stalled" pickup on Elm just inside DP until only a short while

before the motorcade arrived, the DPD did monitor it and the owners

got it towed away - probably just a coincidence but if the DPD had let it stay

there it would have been in a perfect position.

There are photos looking back from Stimmins to the underpass as the

motorcade is emerging and those should be checked throughly - I have not

yet seen a car parked immediately beyond the underpass though.

I suspect that the most interesting areas to examine would be the

Stemmins freeway access ramp and then the areas immediately

adjacent to Stemmins. There are also local press and newspaper

photos of some of that area, I don't know that anyone has done a good

job of searching that out but I think you will find some cars parked adjacent to the freeway with people waiting for the motorcade. Another possiblity would have been the road leading into the trade center, off Stemmins. I doubt there are

any photos of that exit ramp or of the Trade Center entrance but that

would have been a back up in case the entire DP attack had to abort.

And nobody had ever really researched the train coming over

the overpass a few minutes after the motorcade passed - that is an option

albeit a tricky one due to timing but susipicious in that there were concrete orders from the SS to stop all train traffic over bridges on the route for 30 min before and 30 min after the planned transit time. Finally, one area that is totally open to

speculation is the road beneath the overpass itself. There were sidewalks

passing under there but very little foot traffic. A bomb concealed under there

would have been terribly effective....interestingly it appears that the dark complected man walked on down that way after the attack and may have gone

down that sidewalk. Unfortunately it's about 39 years too late to really

investigate the backup I'm afraid, which leaves it pure speculation.

P.S. Which leaves us also the report from Love field that a group of men with guns were seen there after the assassination - nothing more and no follow up radio traffic, as big a loose end as the man walking west down the railroad track with a gun, the suspicious car found out that direction and towed etc.

-- Larry

Lee, as per a "last ditch" plan the only evidence we have is anocdotal plus the fact that we do know that car bombs were a common MO for later attacks against Castro in Latin America - as described by Veciana. By anocdotal I mean Hargraves remarks, Hemmings remarks and general third party gossip. However another alternative used by some of these folks were bazookas and in one case in Latin America they even equipped a DC3 with heavy weapons for an attack on Castro at an airport.

As to what it would have/could have been in Dallas. Pure speculation but I'm inclined to think car bomb, I don't know that we have any photos showing cars parked immediately beyond the overpass but I think there are pictures showing cars pulled off Stemmins further on. The guys in DP might simply have used a radio to let the back up team be ready with the car bomb if JFK was not clearly killed by the rifle attack. Given the lack of preparation and training for the SS at the time it probably would have worked.

Your point on the acceleration of the limo, I think that occured where Greer slowed or stopped to have an exchange with the DPD car and then hit the gas afterwards taking the lead.

--Larry

John, in regard to the actions of Shaw and Bannister, in general I think both acted out of sheer panic. Both had known Oswald, both had been seen in his company by small numbers of individuals, both had probably said things about JFK in the company of said individuals that sounded really serious on the evening of November 22. Bannister got drunk and did something stupid and Shaw just did something stupider - trying to get Oswald a lawyer might have been his only shot at trying to make sure Oswald did not talk at all on the stand (lawyers are very good at that, note how well it worked in the Wallace and Estes cases). The fact that Shaw also made a totally unscheduled leg from SF to Washington state has always suggested to me that he was so upset that he may have been positioning himself to flee the country depending on what Oswald started saying or what a quick investigation would turn up in New Orleans... a quick, serious investigation that is.

Garrison certainly did not start with Shaw, his initial investigation started with mysterious people associated with Oswald in New Orleans...primarily Cubans. His first major investigation was in Miami where he eventually ended up using de Torres as an investigator and de Torres early press statements really helped blow that part of the investigation. You'll find the clippings on that on the book CD. It was only after this phase I of Cubans and CIA connected individuals like Santana blew apart that he stared shifting - although the major direct which got him hung up on the West Coast right wing came from Howard who was even more helpful in working with Garrison than Hemming, Hargraves and de Torres. Isn't it amazing that all four folks from Miami inserted themselves early on into the Garrison investigation?

Of course both CIA and FBI had their own concerns, FBI probably more so due to their association with Oswald himself....just look at the missing Oswald files in New Orleans and the Presidendial orders relieving de Burys from having to testify fully. And it was clearly Justice and the FBI that provided direct aid and support to Shaw's defense team. Of course they had another motiviation as well, a really through investigation of Bannister might have turned up the MO of the FBI using "retired agents" security companies for most of their counter intelligence projects....a methodology probably more effective than CIA front companies.

Anyway, enough rambling, hopefully some of that got close to your questions.

-- Larry

Lee, thank you very much for the comments. Now I'll try to respond on your

questions/points as best I can:

1) I belive there is a case for Johnson's pre-knowledge as an "accessory" with pre-knowledge. I've written six chapters detailing that case which is contingent upon three or four specific pieces of evidence. However I'm waiting for some further shake out on certain of those pieces before publishing it and hoping that occurs. It all boils down to the Estes tapes, Kyle Brown's statements about the Cliff Carter meeting, the Wallace fingerprint and any one of the three validating Loy Factor.

2) Honestly in regards to the Minox film, the situation is so confused over the cameras, the films, the photos etc that I'm not sure it's ever been resolved; if the WC or HSCA published any detailing of those films which proved who took each photo, where and when I've not seen it. Clearly they tried to imply that many of them were taken by Michael Paine while he was overseas in the military while others were taken by Oswald on his assignments in the Far East. But then again FBI would like us to think he didn't own a Minox? Anyway, I'd love to have someone educate me on that....no answer from me.

3) I'm not sure the big issue on the LBJ tape is reconstruction or whether it is interpretation. There are some serious challenges that some of the material in the published transcripts are either inaccurate or not very good transcription - that was a big bone of contention which surfaced last year. Thanks to Rex Jackson we do however know of one very precise tape erasure very similar to Watergate and in that case the LBJ library has supposedly explored restoration or at least was considering it. Check Rex's site at historymatters for a fascinating article on that.

4) There is more to Haiti but whether it involves gambling concessions or something more convoluted is a mystery....if we knew why George D, Haiti and Martin Marrietta are in Howard Burris' date book we might understand it. Right now the subject could be another book all by itself but not one I'm young enough to tackle...grin.

5) The prominent Texans going to DC for the funeral are listed; we have their

names and they were all State officials who went on behalf of the gov - not private citizens as I recall and certainly not "those" citizens.

6) The uniformed officer who approached Mabra was recognized by Mabra as DPD which raises the issue of an actual DPD officer having been hired or blackmailed into providing cover on the knoll. Mabra actually stopped talking to researchers when it became clear that no officer was officially assigned back of the fence in the rail yard.

7) Hargraves reaction appears more likely to the fact that it was unknown to him that Martino had indeed confessed a minor role in the conspiracy and any elements of it; he was the first to do so and I think that shook Hargraves a good bit. Hargraves and Robert Hemming - Gerry's brother - broke off for a call back to Gerry at that point. You will notice that from that point they divert Noel from any further elaboration of Martino's comments.

8) The Raoul thing would seem to be an issue of whether or not one of the Cuban exiles involved in Dallas might have gone off to do some free lancing. We know they were all extremely anti-Communist and it may well be that given MLK's positions on Viet Nam and his association with JFK and RFK, it represented another

opportunity for what was seen to be an anti-communist action.....but that's another story entirely, as would be a connection to RFK's murder.

9) In regard to the train, radios etc. This is sheer speculation but when you

look at some of the blow ups of the "Cuban" on elm it is rather clear that

he has something stuffed in his jacket and somethin in his back pocket as well.

Could it be a radio...or a radio transmitter for a bomb in a car, a train, planted

in the overpass? Sheer speculation...

10) The reference to men in DP found dead with guns in their hands may be to the fact that the shooters were selected in a manner that any of them who might have been killed or captured would have had a believable cover-story that they were either deep cover Castro agents (such plants were wll known) or simply a well paid Castro shooter. This scenario extends to the car buying incident you mentioned where the Oswald impersonator is clearly setting Oswald up not as some Castro political activist but rather as somebody who is expecting big money for doing a job.

11) On the research and follow up - that is certainly a good suggestion. You will find that much of the material in my errata/news sheets is specifically related to further research on points called out in the book...like the Red Bird DC3 incident...and there have been a few very aggressive volunteers who have stepped up to work some of the points. I'd love to have something more formal but just have not had a venu or sufficent interest yet.

-- let me know what I missed in the reply, Larry

Boy you are quick James, yes that's exactly what I ended up with...looks

like either lamb chop or more possibly a bunny.

However if you get Tasks much higher quality images you see with no

doubt that it's a white flower boquet.

-- Larry

The "lamb chop" footage is the footage from Love field that I was talking

about having still framed myself. It is black and white and not great quality and

I was as convinced as Wallace that it was a toy - until I saw the high

quality photo that I described.

It truly does look like a doll in the news footage but that's because

of the quality. I don't know if Wallace ever got the other photos or not.

About all I can do is suggest that you take a look at the book and I think

you will be persuaded we are talking about Jacke holding a boquet of

white flowers and not "lamb chop", although that would have been a neat

solution.

In any event, Jean certainly did not make up the white object.

-- Larry

John, as far as I know that "white stuffed animal" was never actually verified and indeed it is probably a mistake. For a time I bought in to it myself and did some

photo enhancement from the news movie footage that seems to show

a white bunny rabbit toy. However that was from a very poor quality

copy of the footage and Richard Trask resolved the whole issue in his second

book, That Day In Dallas.

On page 29 of that book you will see that while passing off the plane Jackie must have been given a small boquet of white flowers - which she is holding under

the red roses she was given immediately upon debarking.

She appears to have taken both the large rose boquet and the smaller white flower boquet to the limo and it is very likely the sort of "clumpy" white flowers that Jean saw in the car....at a distance it does look sort of like one of those "rag" toys, a dog or bunny. I'm petty sure that's what Jean saw...it would really stand out in the car due to being bright white and actually gives some support to her being a good witness for detail even if she could not be sure in a quick glance exactly what it was.

-- Larry

Unfortunately I can't cite the specific articles - I think one was in Probe - but there has been much work done on this issue. The best I can give you is the following scenario:

After WWII, when the Russians were exercising huge political pressure in essentially taking over the Balkan states as clients, the US was covertly opposing them. The Communists began civil wars in Bulgaria, Greece etc. The U.S. wished to supply arms to the opposition but in part of a grand tradition, CIA was asked to do it with deniablity. Which meant they had to find a large stock of non U.S. basic infantry rifles quick. Several of the CIA ex OSS folks had very good ties into Italy and due to the course of WWII it just so happened that Italy had huge stocks of unused MC rifles available for use in these projects in the Balkans. However they did not have nearly enough usable ammuniton. So according to the Covert Ops that Fletcher Prouty describes so well in his book on same, it appears the Marines were used as a cut out to order a large ammo build and then transfer it off their books to go to the Balkans. But by the time all this came together the need/opportunity for all the weapons and ammo had passed and it seems that a lot of both ammo and rifles got dumped into the US mail order market and to independent gun dealers. Which is why the FBI was able to find two dealers in Dallas stocking MC ammo - although they could never trace it's sales to Oswald.

Actually I always wondered why more MC rifles and ammo didn't end up in the BOP operation but that's just curiosity.

In any event, that's one seemingly credible scenario to explain the document for what it's worth.

-- Larry

Hello Nathaniel, thank you for the insights - on a side note, I'm curious as to whether or not you knew about the Life Magazine participation and coverage at the time and if you knew Dick Billings was along.

If so did you think it was curious that the CIA was letting Life Magazine cover a secret mission involving such a well know figure ad Mr. Pawley?

-- thank you again, Larry

Lee, in regard to your "count" behind the fence, Edd Hoffman's count is pretty specific and would seem to include what Bowers saw. In "Eye Witness" Ed describes:

1) A man in a bule suit near the stockade fence, wearing a hat. This man walked around a good deal before the motorcade showed up, and at one point before the motorcade arrived was briefly joined by a man in a plaid shirt who had come around the north leg of the stockade fence. They were together only briefly and the "shirt" man went back behind the north leg - passing a uniformed police officer who was in that area and who followed him back on the north side of the fence. The "puff of smoke" Ed observed was in the area of the Hat man.

There is absolute photographic evidence of a man in a hat - well at least the hat - behind the fence at approximately the point Ed identifies, that was first brought out in Josia Thompson's six seconds. In addition there are multiple witnesses to the "puff" of smoke including Sam Holland. And of course Lee Bowers tried to talk about something like a flash or puff of smoke in the location of where he had seen two men together. It's possible to argue about that for a long time - and of course the WC did not take the time to have Bosers mark up a map as to the location of anything that he was describing in his testimony.

2) Ed describes the Hat man going down the fence line and pitching the rifle to a tall slender man in work clothes who ended up walking or running north through the rail yard where Ed lost sight of him behind the parked railroad cars. There is at least one other witness who describes a man running out to the north in the railroad yard.

Ed describes the hat man walking slowly around the north end of the fence after the shooting and encountering a policeman who confronted him.

So at the time of the shooting that places only two people behind the fence, the policeman who appears to have been playing a covering role was behind the north leg of the fence, possibly behind the pergola - in an idea position for blocking any last minute passers by who seemed inclined to go behind the fence.

Now having said all this I would still feel better about Ed's story if he had mentioned all the parked cards pulled up behind the fence which clearly show in photos of the day and said something about the cars blocking his view of the man when he was at the fence or made some mention of them at least.

In any event, as far as your count goes, based on Ed and Bowers statement I would put it at no more than two people behind the fence at the time of the shooting - of course that does not mean there could not have been people in vehicles or people concealed behind parked cars, etc. The Paschell film actually seems to show motion of someone moving behind the north leg of the fence, just west of the corner, only a short time after the limo has gone under the overpass.

-- Larry

Ron, I don't know this for certain but I suspect that that the Rita Wilson mentioned is Steve Wilson's daughter - I'm pretty sure she had photos from the camps.

Steve Wilson is one of the best candidates for being an Oswald impersonator; he and Seymour both may have done so but Wilson is a very close look alike to Oswald in some photos that I've seen from the camps.

-- Larry

Hi Ron, sorry to say I can't be of any real help - those notes of Hemming about Johnson are part of Noel's extensive interviews and much of it didn't make it into Noel's book as he points out. I suspect this is the same Johnson as described in Deadly Secrets and I'll make a few inquires to see if I can gather more.

One of the problems is that there is a whole different track of research that one could lose themselves in on the Haiti thing, comlete with lots of CIA documents from the segregated collection. And then there is the whole track going back to Hemming and Hargraves where Hemming speculates about people that were recruited for the MLK assassination and then later while he and Hargraves were in L.A. doing strange things there is the RFK murder. Hemming, Howard, Hargraves have all pointed fingers in regard to Sirhan and some involvement by some of the same characters.

Frankly I have managed in most cases to stop myself from going off there, trying to stay focused on 1963 and JFK. There is much still to develop there and if you get sucked off with Hemming and Hargraves into all the other avenues you can easily go on forever in other directions.

I'll post anything that I can find about Bob Johnson.

-- Larry

John, I am reluctant to make a solid statement that Johnson was involved in the plot per se although I certainly feel that he may have been an accessory - to the extent of having some level of pre-knowledge. There is a case to be made that he may have been more than a passive accessory, either willingly or subject to blackmail. It is rather dramatic coincidence that Roselli's best friend, Fred Black was in a posiiton to destroy Johnson's career merely by telling the truth if called to testify before a congressional committee or grand jury.

I'm not trying to ignore Johnson, as you and a few others know I've actually drafted a separate work presenting the case for Johnson's role as an accessory. The problem is that case rests on a foundation of the following:

1) The purported Estes tapes of calls from Cliff Carter admitting Johnson's involvement (and his own), said tapes supposedly having been heard by two other individuals willing to swear to them but the tapes themselves still being held by Estes.

2) Kyle's Browns statements about being in a personal meeting between Carter and Estes and hearing Carter describe this involvement.

3) An unidentified fingerprint from the "snipers window" being identified by at least one fingerprint expert as belonging to Malcolm Wallace.

4) Independent statements by Loy Factor placing Wallace in the TSBD with a weapon.

And at this point I am unaware of any concrete work being done to further

explore or validate this foundation; I hope it's happening but that's just a hope

at present.

The relationship between Malcolm Wallace and Johnson can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; if either the Carter dialogs or the Wallace fingerprint were to be validated then there is no doubt that Johnson, for whatever reason, exposed himself dramatically by having a known killer who could be directly tied to Johnson and his sister being in a terribly exposed position on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22, 1963.

As a side note to this, I think probably many researchers may not be aware of some of Johnson's rather bizarre behavor in the days immediately following the assassination. As time went on he repeatedly made remarks indicating that he belived in one conspiracy or the other, most likely Castro being behind Oswald. However in the very beginning, he made remarks to the effect that JFK's death was actually some sort of retribution or act of fate in response to Kennedy's allowing Diem to be killed in a coup.

....Larry

It's a busy day but these documents are looking more and more valid and

internally they seem to be very consistent. It's totally understandable

that an AF MSGT would turn over any such letter to OSI and that OSI would investigate. That file would be really interesting.

And as William pointed out it looks like somebody at Kirknewton could

indeed have pulled up a commercial link and hit a name on a Watch List,

the Watch Lists are key, we know they included lists targeted US citizens

as well as others and major crime figures could indeed have been on the list.

Interestingly it sounds from the letter like the writers military supervisor did not allow that particular intercept to be reported up to NSA or perhaps just not highlighted in the routine message traffic. Which means NSA may never have had a record.

Of course the ex-serviceman in Wyoming clearly was trying to scam some disability to a certain extent, how reliable was he? Hard to say, if only we could get unredacted copies of those documents or somebody could try a little graphic work on the mark outs to see if anything is legible.

In any event, this one is certainly new and pretty interesting at this point..thanks William.

-- Larry

Hi Lee, first on your questions:

1) I absolutely agree on Hoover and the lack of FBI involvement in planning, organizing or execution in a conspiracy. Not only did he keep looking for a conspiracy (especially one involving Commies (he loved the Pedro Charles letters and really hated being pressured to at least not leave a small window for something conspiratorial involvoving Oswald in the FBI report) but he also generated a lot of memos and calls in the first day or so that look terribly stupid and uniformed (Hoover would have really hated not being in the know, witness his letter annotation later about not trusting the CIA due to what had been witheld from the FBI about Mexico City and other things).

On the other hand Hoover certainly played a role in the cover-up, part due to pressure from Johnson and part due to the things the FBI needed to do for CYA. Hoover's preoccupation with FBI PR drove him not only to "not reveal" certain things (note the lack of mention of the Oswald-Kostikov incident in any memos or calls from Hoover in the first 48 hours) but to actively cover up the extent to which the FBI was monitoring Oswald and using him as both a witting and unwitting informant.

2) Ah yes, network maps or social diagrams, you bet, I have file folders full of pencil and pen versions and used them as tools throughout the preparation of the book. Noel did a great job with diagrams in his book and I should have taken the time to put something like that together for print, sorry about that. I'll consider that strongly for a second edition if we make it to that.

3) On your segmentation, I absolutely agree with the strategy however as you get to the end of the book my conclusion is that the cover-up was indeed largely "decoupled" from the conspiracy and that you see a very large number of very honest people simply doing their jobs and following orders - and when those orders come from the President, his cabinent officers and agency directors under National Secuity seal it explains why it took 30 plus years for some things to be revealed and why a good deal may never be. Security directives and oaths do not go away and many of the people in governement then remained in government, some still are in high positions. I also agree with Jame's comment, I don't think the numbers or the scope are nearly as high/broad as you might think - specifically for the Dallas conspiracy, not including other discussions, other plans or other plots that did not pertain to tactical matters in Dallas on Nov. 22. But of course that's just my opinion.

-- Regards, Larry

William, I am attempting to determine something about the NSA documents you have posted. To date the results are minimal but I can confirm that they would be consistent with a box of NSA files released in 1998 to NARA due to the work of the ARRB. Two problems, first I have a friend who went through that whole release and certainly would have been struck by such documents, he recalls nothing like these. Second these do not have the declassification and release stamps that should be routinely found on such documents.

If they truly released NSA documents they should be found at NARA and I encourage serious researchers to try and locate them, I'll do what I can.

There are still a host of "missing" NSA documents, some still classified from the WC period, many still classified from the Church committee and some - primarily interviews with Watch list personnel - just flat missing. Without doubt the most sensitive (and missing) ones seem to have to do with possible monitoring of Oswald's calls from Russia. Everyone should be on the lookout for this stuff - one reason for keeping it off the record is clear - if NSA was monitoring Oswald overseas it would have been really hard to explain the lack of any interview or official contact after his return.

Anyway these particular documents deserve some real work and I will post anything I find, would love to hear more about them. Knowing exactly when Files received them and how he knew they were declassified would be of real help.

-- Larry

Lee, I've seen Ed serveral times over the years and he was never wearing

glasses, could have contacts I suppose. I'll see if I can find out.

On Ed's question, the man handling the weapon passed off the weapon

and the second man "broke" it into two separate sections to carry in something

appearing to Ed to look like a tool box. Again, given the distance Ed may

simply have seen the man kneel and do something with the weapon, I still

have a hard time with details at the distance he was viewing. I would

encourage someone to recreate his observations and get a sample

of observers to do controlled descriptions of what they can see. That would

require totally neutral observers in addition to people who have heard

Ed's story.

A little science could go a long way to clairifying this issue, same with the Carr

story about the man with glasses on the sixth floor.

-- Larry

Lee, Ed's pastor and sign language interpreter addresses many of those issues in the booklet "Eye Witness", anyone seriously interested in Ed's story and what he has described over time should get a copy. Specifically the booklet deals with Ed's observation of a policeman up by the fence after the shooting (in something that sounds much like the "Baker - unidentified man with SS credentials encounter" wjocj Ed simply did not interpret as important) especially when first trying to tell his story to the FBI) as well as his observation of a train passing over the overpass shortly after the limo passed by him.

However, there is still considerable controversy over how much detail Ed really could see at that distance, how he could see the figures up by the fence given the number of cars and how they were parked up against the fence. The fact that the running man would have had to be behind those cars and the issue of how much depth perception Ed would have had at that distance to accurately call out specific locations. I've personally watched Ed locate the men behind the fence, trace their steps and describe his observations and there is no doubt in my mind of his sincerety. And he does describe the running men going out of sight behind the parked rail cars as he ran north into the rail yard.

However in attempting to duplicate his specific observations last year on a DP tour (the same way we attempted to see the detail Carr describes for a man with glasses on an upper floor), the whole tour group and myself were hard pressed to see how Ed could have seen that amount of detail pertaining to the "suit man" shooter that he describes ...especially given the parked cars.

Again, personally, I have no doubt Ed saw something going on behind the fence and saw multiple people......beyond that I just don't know. But you should get hold of the booklet by Ron Fredrich and give it a read for reference.

-- Larry

John, in the case of Kilgallen, no I don't and I think Lee Isreal presents a convincing case that it was most likely murder. As to the who and why and whether it had to to with JFK, it is significant that her husband appears to have destroyed her notes and working papers on the JFK conspiracy and that his final remark on the subject to Mark Lane as quoted by Isreal was that "I'm going to destroy that. It's done enough damage already." Apparently the FBI was still intersted in locating her papers up to four years after her death.

Kilgallen is definitely on my sort list of possible JFK conspiracy related deaths. I think the information Isreal presents in relation to her murder is very suggestive - and way to similar in comparison to the investigation of Robert Kennedy's murder for that matter.

I remind open minded but unconvinced in regard to Howard or Meyer.

-- Larry

John, your scenario certainly is an interesting one and actually it's been elaborated at some length over the years, especially in the 90's. In fact the very interesting book "A Very Private Woman", the Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer reviews some of the same speculation although the author - Nina Burleigh - says she could find no evidence that any of the three woman knew each other (page 290).

She points out that Mary Meyer had indeed become one of the most dreaded fears of any intlligence agency - the "runaway wife" of a long term and senior career officer. And she details Angleton's personal involvement in santitizing Meyer's recent past and gaining posession of her diaryl after her death (I even have a CIA report which mentions Angleton having to pass up on a critical meeting right after her death as he is busy dealing with the potential security problem of Meyer's death).

Certainly anyone really interested in this subject should try to contact Nina Burleigh and determine how diligently she investigated the possible connection between Kilgallen and Meyer or Lisa Howard for that matter.

I'd also encourage anyone interested to read Lee Israel's book on Dorthy Kilgallen, he also deals with "mysterous death" question at length. I think it's safe to say that either author would have loved to turn up something concrete.

In comparison of the three, I would have to say that Kilgallen perhaps comes closest to a true JFK mystery death given her private conversation with Jack Ruby, her expressed desire to crack the case and the timing of her death following a TV appearance in which she had only been persuaded at the last minute to postpone remarks about a conspiracy. Without a doubt she thought there was a conspiracy I personally belive that most of the real mystery deaths in this relate to Ruby and individuals who knew that i) he had crime and Cuba associations which could have lead in very dangerous directions and ii) he did indeed know Lee Oswald and could be shown to have been at least marginally associated with Oswald immediately before the assassination. A person with the media clout was truly a danger, not to the CIA but to those directly involved in the assassination. And to Johnson's drive to cover it up for that matter.

Anyone showing a connection between any two if not all three of these women would be breaking real ground - but for starters I'd suggest reading the work already done for background.

"A CIA report (3rd August, 1962) claims that they were recording telephone conversation between Kilgallen, Howard Rothberg (a close friend of Kilgallen), Monroe and Robert Kennedy."

-- By the way, could you give me a reference on the CIA report you mentioned,

I'd sure like to take a look at the document itself. As far as I know Matthew Smith has done most of the work on pulling together the "Marilyn story" and had a new book coming out on it in the U.K. late last year which I have not seen myself.

-- Larry

John, I think there is little doubt that Lisa Howard tried to continue her work towards some sort of Cuban-US reconciliation although there is no doubt from the document trail that Johnson wanted nothing to do with it in 1964 - even when Castro offered Johnson the option of staging some threatening incident against Cuba to help ensure his re-election so a deal could be done later.

JFK and RFK had both been doubtful that a Cuba dialog would have been political disaster. I'm not sure that Lisa Howard going public with a "Johnson's not listening to Castro" message would not have been anything other than a huge political benefit to Johnson in 1964.

And we have the documents showing that CIA high level people opposed the JFK-Cuba diolog at ever step of the way - and State Department wanted Howard out of it as well.

I can see Lisa Howard as a good person with great intentions - totally frustrated by the Johnson administration and everyone else - and very depressed about it. I don't see any special threat she posed to Johnson and I (naive or not) draw the line at thinking that the CIA routinely killed U.S. citizens in 1964 just out of caution - or to protect JFK's image. Not that they would not take great steps to cover up the her activities after her death - as witness Angleton's personal involvement in cover-up relating to Mary Pinchot Meyer. Of course there was a lot more Agency family history there.

-- Larry

Hi William, first, sorry for the confusion, I was not referring to originals but rather the fact that the copies included copies of the original letter pages not just memoranda about them.

The reference to Wyoming is because the first page of the letter appears to have an inside address to a VA hospital in Wyoming even though the second page refers to the recepient being in Florida?

As to the classification, I see the strike outs but I don't see any sign of either the standard classification/declassification block which removes a classification nor of any release stamp which designates when and who released the document from a file. The "letter" refers to the incident no longer being classified but in regards to the official memos and letter the NSA counsel cautioning that distribution and handling be restricted to personnel carrying appropriate security classifications. If this document was sent directly from someone to files it would be very good to know if it actually is released or declassifed as files says because otherwise it could still be classified and legallay actionable.

I will have to read this through several times before I could be comfortable in commenting on it but I very much doubt that it is in the HSCA collection; it could be in NSA documents released to NARA due to the action of the ARRB and that would make sense of the 1999 date - and you should be able to verify that through the archives.

I'm a little skeptical that NSA counsel could have written and signed a letter in 1978 during the HSCA investigation on this explosive subject and not remember it at all - I've seen one letter written from Justice and one from the IRS in the same period, both bringing serious information to the HSCA and you can tell those Agencies took it seriously. I would expect NSA would have as well (and actually they should have written Justice not FBI I think but that's another story). I was amazed to see a detailed acknowledgement about NSA monitoring activities overseas including actual comm links, I can't belive that was routine NSA correspondance - hard enough to get them to talk about such things under legally binding orders.

I think a key to this will be determing if this was really part of a NSA release to NARA based on the ARRB; if that is confirmed then this gets really interesting.

Although since the letter and documents seem to refer to Security Service perssonnel, most likey Air Force stationed in Scotland I'm not sure why anybody would have seriously thought Files was the writer?

Oh, on my book, I'm afraid Amazon would indeed be your option - on the Lancer site, I really don't have any operational involvement in that although occasionally I try to answer questions Debra sends my way. I'm having the same problem this morning that you see and can't do much other than drop Debra a note or call her. It may be back up now, hope so.

-- Larry