Larry Hancock

Matt, we are working on a list of items that were identified by  the ARRB and not collected as well as items we now know about that NARA has every right to designate as JFK records and move to collect.   New collections are a major element of the MFF legal action.....the alternative is to bring enough pressure on Congress and the oversight committee to get action from that direction.

Matt actually there were numerous JFK records, many identified by the ARRB, that were never actually collected by NARA.  In addition NARA was supposed to assume the role of prospecting for new, relevant documents as the ARRB was doing.  NARA's failure to do both is part of the MFF legal action.

Beyond that there  may be a special collection outside CIA HQ files or station files...very much like Angleton special file.  We know that when that was revealed the CIA assigned a special master to sort his large segemented file and move parts into the regular HQ file.  What we don't know is what happened to items that might be too hot to move...do they still exist somewhere or were they destroyed?

While I find it hard to believe any plot against the President was put on paper, it is not inconceivable that a document containing at least strong suspicions of CIA operational involvement existed at some point in time - as an example Sforza's investigation of the exiles has been confirmed once again in the re-release...so where is the report that resulted from that work?

15 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I do think that is a bit of a distraction from the point I was trying to make which was to judge him on actions not words...and I have no problem substituting another word..."effective", "convincing" etc however based on some of the comments I have seen in these threads I would judge some people to find him to be powerful, if not in delivery, in message.

Like many of the earlier radio "shock jocks", he has an approach that works for him and I assume for his listeners given his audience size.

Would I even think of putting him in the same league as Cronkite reporting from Vietnam - where I say him facing reality in real time, no. Is he an investigative reporter who can make a difference, I don't follow him enough to know, but the bombshell he just dropped would give him a chance to actually prove that. 

 

 

 

 

Well I happen to be ill this morning and its impaired my judgement enough to jump into this and try to focus on a couple of things - and not discuss media wars or personalities.

First off having Tucker tell his huge audience that the CIA  killed JFK, with at least the implication that the MIG and the Deep State were behind it was likely well received in his overall viewer demographic. I have a hard time seeing it as a shock to most of his listeners - perhaps only because he did say it so forcefully and sincerely (which he always does, he is obviously a powerful speaker).  Fine.

So OK, good, he focused attention on the CIA as the prime suspect in the crime and actually had Larry S on to go though the issues and potential remedies for investigating the CIA as a prime suspect.  To me that was actually more important than the pronouncement since its going to take a Court order or a Congressional committee or both to move the ball in that respect.

The problem however is that he substantiated his assertion with reference to an anonymous source - which in itself gets us nowhere.  Will he go to the Justice Dept or the FBI with that source and push to get him on record so as to force a legal investigation?  That would indicate to me he is sincere and its not just another doing another series of shows.

Actually I would think his supporters would push him to take concrete action with his source and his information - in fact one or more of his Congressional advocates should be on the phone with offers of  immunity in order to take testimony which would trigger a formal inquiry.

On a side note, I have no respect for anonymous sources sixty years into this...why have they not already done the above without Tucker (yeah, its a risk but is that any more of a risk than having the CIA go full out trying to investigate his source not to protect itself - sharing that with Tucker alone gives the source no protection at all).

And on a side note, Tucker said, implied or however  you want to phrase it that his source saw a document which proved the CIA murdered JFK - personally I have a hard time buying that sort of thing was written down at any point in time but the real question is why did not the source identify the document, tell Tucker where to find it, basically do anything that would make his story  actionable.

As usual my metric is simple, talk is cheap, show me you are sincere - and reliable and credible - by moving on to the action plan to do something with what you know and talked about.

So, fine for a first step but he made a specific claim that could actually get us somewhere, if its real and if he and his source step up to the plane. 

Of course RFK knew what the real story was....the first person he called on to ask if they had done it was the CIA Director.

Its just too bad nobody ever asked RFK to respond in detail as to why the CIA was his very first suspect.

Unfortunately still not new other than the redactions, I was working off Cain documents fifteen years ago from NARA.  They showed him as a source on Cubans in Chicago and offering numerous times to work for the CIA in Mexico City, to collect information either in person or electronically.  The CIA turned him down every time over issues with the possibility he would be shopping information to multiple "clients" and for background issues related to Chicago and likely criminal connections there. 

I suspect that at least was a good call by the CIA,  Cain was shopping himself pretty widely and in doing so made lots of claims that were hard even for agencies to check. 

Actually that has been out even longer, I had it direct from NARA back in 2005 when I was writing an update for SWHT.  And as far as can see there is no change......the CIA is really pulling a con to the extent they are positioning this as a major dump of new documents which fulfills their obligations. 

As if we didn't have enough "Hernandez's" to deal with...

Oh absolutely,  Harvey and the CIA clandestine ops guys (the PM and maritime ops types or "cowboys"" ) were never fans of Harvey - they considered mamy of his ideas wildly impractical and his plans to be so detailed as to be laughable. That has been written about by several of those who were involved at the time

The really ironic thing is that JFK continually wanted to run an anti-Castro effort as an inter-agency effort and Harvey, Shackley, Morales et al always objected to that...and to being controlled.   The cancellation of Mongoose ended the first attempt at control but in reality JFK did the same thing again starting in spring of 63, establishing a new inter-agency effort with State supposedly in charge and with Fitzgerald essentially replacing Harvey to lead the CIA element.  But the guys in Miami, the cowboys as you say, were not more excited by the new high level programs coming down to them in 63 than Harvey had generally been in 62. 

So yes, it was always a fundamental policy dispute between the Administration and the field guys down in Miami, especially the cowboys setting up and running  the actual missions.

Matt,  given that Barker was a general political action liaison to several of the exile groups and basically a collections point for all the various iterations of their relationships and networks this looks to be fairly routine...not sure it reflects a special relationship but David may have other ideas.

This appears to be Harvey's effort to move operations against Cuba out from under interdepartmental control ie. Mongoose and back under Western Hemisphere - strictly within the CIA.   A proposal to move himself and clandestine operations back inside CIA and away from administration/special group approvals and micromanagement.

It didn't fly and Harvey found himself odd man out but as I said in another thread, you could always count on him expressing himself and not holding back all that much....

We have heard about this anecdotally but I don't know that we have seen these sort of specifics or this particular document before....then again I may just have missed it up to now.

I think we would expect that since Harvey was running the CIA segment of the overall inter-agency anti-Castro effort that Lansdale was in charge of during 1962.  However Harvey had notably little enthusiasm for Lansdale or most of his ideas - which Harvey considered largely wishful thinking or fundamental unworkable.  And Harvey was never one not to express himself ...

Very interesting Robin...could you give a source or link for a reference on that email quote...thanks, Larry

As far as the "camp" is concerned its important to keep in mind that it was a very small, very ill equipped place, basically a house...set up for the MDC and largely a scam (with talk of big donors but no money ever surfacing) so with very little money actually around it.  Some of the local Cubans did take food out there but it only lasted a few weeks until the raid on the abortive bombing mission from the McClaney property scared them off and the volunteers were returned to Miami on a bus. That camp was never raided, the McClaney place was but that was from a tip out of Miami.

Its also important to remember that several of the AC Cubans were already sources for the FBI, CIA or both so who said what for what purpose is murky at best. 

My view is that Oswald was a Cuban revolution supporter and would have possibly reported to the FBI on any gossip he heard about their military activities to the FBI, do obstruct their military activities.

Why Pena or Arnesto Rodriquez - who also mentioned Oswald knowing about a "camp" - would have thought that is unclear to me but we have to remember Oswald was also reported associating with Cubans from outside Miami who the locals did not know.  If David and I are right, that might well have included either Carlos or Victor Hernandez, who were both in the area in conjunction with the McClaney mission. What they might have passed in an approach to Oswald would be pure speculation.

I do think its significant but I also think Oswald may well have been running his own game, positioning himself to pass on information on the anti-Castro Cubans and their local supporters.  Of course since several of them were also sources for the FBI and even CIA that could only last so long. Still, if  you accept the Clinton incident, which would occurred relatively late in his time in NO then Oswald was really walking a tightrope, playing multiple roles.

Tom, some great points there and one thing jumped out at me:

"One of the reports was written on 8/7/63, two days before Oswald’s arrest. The only difference in this report is that instead of “no information” they wrote “no corroborative information” had been received on the FPCC in New Orleans"

If Oswald did ask for someone specific at the FBI following his arrest, it would imply he had already had some contact with the NO Office...it that were the case Oswald might have given them some info about the FPCC - which as of the 8th they might still be trying to corroborate.  It would not be at all unusual not to mention a source name in a summary report, especially if it was a new source for them.   There may be a simpler explanation for the use of the word but it certainly is interesting.

Given the restrictions on DeBureys testimony its pretty evident they were shielding something about Oswald and what would have been really embarrassing is not just his being on file but the actual destruction of file documents on him - I tend to see the FBI destroying documents rather than faking them, especially if other agencies had not been copied (not unusual since they tended to poach each ours sources). 

I would have expected Cuban G2 to have had a file on Oswald due to his highly visible pro-Cuba support.  Open source intelligence is always easy, which means reading the newspapers for key cities like Miami, Tampa, or New Orleans where there were well established Cuban communities.  Of course that is just a guess but it would have been reasonable for them to have done some checking on him as to whether he was a dangle or provocateur and I would not have been surprised to have found an advisory on him a place like their Mexico City  embassy. 

Then again it seems like Cuban G2 was a lot more interested in undermining CIA efforts and penetrating anti-Castro groups so maybe Oswald was not on their radar....seems a bit strange though that they would not have a file on him prior to his appearance at their MC embassy.

As to the letter, I would tend to go along with Escalante's take on it....which of course brings up what "conspirator" would have still had access to really deep assets inside Cuba...sort of makes me think of Sforza. 

I would follow you on that Gerry,  probably the right thing to do would be to look back at the documents on Oswald's sessions with the FBI in New Orleans - he might well have offered information on the FPCC, on the anti-Castro Cubans (important since it was a top priority for FBI to obstruct military action or weapons buys by anti-Castro groups) and potentially even on ultra right figures in the area who might have helped get weapons for the Cubans..... 

I suspect we have not seen the full record - or a true record - of the info. Oswald provided to the FBI in New Orleans and given what Hosty destroyed in Dallas any formal records probably did not exist for all that long.

And yes I suspect Walther saw a potential informant file - given Oswald's approach to the FBI it seems to me it would have been a violation of practice not to have a file on him as a potential informant. You just don't ignore "walk ins"...

This is interesting in that we know from the AMSANTA project that FPCC members traveling to Cuba were well received, given a warm welcome, tours,  even introductions to senior Cuban officials.  The problem for Oswald of course was how the FPCC office might have responded to queries from Cuba.  But if he had been granted a Visa based on material appearing to show his support for the FPCC and Cubas - from New Orleans - he might not have faced that much scrutiny. 

Of course if the whole thing was  a propaganda ploy....possibly not even involving Oswald himself....it might never have been intended to get a person into Cuba, but rather to create a rather radical story about Cuban subversion of naive Americans to add on to the propaganda initiative that had been started by DRE/INCA/CIA in New Orleans.

This is just a guess but the way I understand it the sequence would be a Potential CI would be a source either providing info direct or even through a third party (makes them a prospect).  Offices were measured each month by how many potentials and provisional they had in their reports - identification and recruitment were part of the office's job.  

Once it became clear that a potential source was willing - or actually involved on some action of interest they would be bumped up to provisional and given some support (if not money, equipment).  Ruby was bumped to a provisional for two years, likely due to association with gun running and Cuba - which is why the FBI totally stonewalled anything other than admitting he had been on board with them.  But after a time (and the arrest and conviction of the gun runners he may have associated with he was dropped - we have no idea if he actually provided anything to that prosecution, if so they would have had to pay him but that would be another reason for their stonewalling).

Its only if the provisional informant has testimony that would be useful in an actual prosecution that they were bumped up to informant level, and actually had to be paid since they could have been called to provide either sealed or open testimony.  Its interesting that Hoover at one point chided someone about calling Oswald an FBI informant, saying that the fellow in question was familiar with FBI practice and what would constitute a true informant.  Hoover was of course very pick about terminology so he could get away with that even if Oswald had been either potential or provisional.

Allen, I did and that was actually the reason for my post.  One of the things we have to consider is that Oswald could show up in an ONI file (or any agency file) as a source when he was simply in contact with a third party contact and totally unwitting.  We see Cuban names show up all the time in CIA documents when the individual is simply the subject of information being passed on and has no idea the person he was talking to was a voluntary source - not even a paid informant, an asset etc.

In recent presentations I've been outlining a broader picture of Oswald, who admittedly frequented bars and engaged in conversations with not just women but as he himself said, young Japanese with his general political views who really expanded and reinforced his own ideas.  My friend Jack Swike, a Marine CI officer at Atsuki, wrote that the military was quite aware of what was happening in those bars and clubs and conducted surveillance and placed its own informants to identify military personnel who would be monitored as security risks.

All of which means Oswald could very well be showing up in ONI files - and very likely did - and being talked about by name for a number of reasons.  Oswald actually "working" for ONI as an informant would be something else entirely and that claim would need some sort of corroboration. It would not be at all out of the question for ONI to be playing Oswald as an unwitting dangle - or even arranging to test him in the case he decided to be more active in passing on actual intelligence. 

Given Oswald's personality and proven history of not taking orders and doing his own thing from his teen years on, personally I could see him being used unwittingly more than as some sort of actual "asset", tasks by ONI and making reports or taking specific assignments.

As usual the devil is in the details...

As far as the agencies, both FBI and CIA go (as well as ONI, AFOSI) etc, there was a good bit of differences between "sources" (some witting but some used through cut outs not revealing an agency connection), informants (who were closely involved with some activity to provide detailed information, not just suspicions, rumors, gossip), informants who could be used supporting arrests and charges and assets (people who were approved for use in actual intel operations).  Oswald could have been any of these at certain times, he did volunteer information to the FBI and in the case of the ONI he could either have been a witting or  unwitting source (perhaps just offering information on his bar contacts to a third party who was cleared as an actual ONI source and turning up in a file because of that). 

Matt,  I'm afraid Murgado and others will remain loose ends.  We have to face the fact that a number of individuals have come forward with or made personal statements that they cannot corroborate, and that we can't either. I've run out of explanations for it but I've also decided that such things really do get in the way of work on leads that do have some corroboration, are consistent from multiple sources and at least have a provable backstory. 

Hi Matt,  actually David discussed the other "set" in extreme detail in both our recent presentations to the DPUK and at the Lancer virtual conference.  I will leave it to him to toss out the names, which go back to New Orleans and who are extremely important in understanding Oswald's earliest activities in New Orleans.  They are new in the Odio context and likely not all that familiar although I do discuss both of them at some length in Tipping Point.

As to Victor, yes I'm pretty sure I mentioned the Mexico background in the appendix (Student Warrior) in Someone Would Have Talked.  For a number of reasons, including being in an assassination team in Havana during the revolution, it seemed especially interesting. So that Victor Hernandez is the same fellow that David and I are talking about along with Carlos in the Odio context.

For unknown reasons Victor seems to drop off the radar at the end of 1963, having been very active through the summer as part of the abortive McClaney bombing mission.  The only real sign we have of him is as a person of interest in the Odio visit and then the next time he turns up he is overseas, possibly with drug connections and in France.  He seems to have taken himself out of the picture and does not go on to participate in further anti-Castro efforts over the years as did several of his compatriots. 

As I recall it Nagell said that Oswald was contacted by anti-Castro Cubans who were contacting Oswald in the guise of Castro agents, in an attempt to use him for some purpose of their own.   Nagell knew they were bogus as he had been aware of them in Miami and the groups they were associated with and knew them to be anti-Castro.  He said he warned Oswald that he was running the risk of being used.

He warned Oswald to break away from them but that was not happening and Nagell literally fled New Orleans because he felt the Cubans were on to him and were a real time threat to him.