Larry Hancock

Oh we definitely address the subject of 'entanglement', in multiple forms, in The Oswald Puzzle....which is the actual working name of the book at present (publishers do sometimes have their own opinions on such things). Entanglement by agencies, different groups within agencies, different individuals within and outside agencies. Entanglements with implications well outside Oswald's own understanding. As noted above, he was bright and idealistic (if not 'deep'), and fearless. All qualities perfectly suited to getting a person in trouble even in routine, daily life. Oswald's personal agendas and headstrong actions brought him to the attention of those involved with both sanctioned and unsanctioned interests - and it could hardly have been otherwise for anyone overtly expressing an interest (and acting on it) with both the Soviet Union and Cuba in those times.

Ron, the actual availability date will be determined by the publisher (its not self published this time around) and while I would hope for pre-order this year its hard to see it being actually in print until 2025 - especially given that we just finished the manuscript the last week in July. The editing process has been extensive, significantly expanding both the scope and detail of the book (due to the efforts of an editor who knows the subject inside out) and in the process the book essentially doubled in size (since the editor would not let me 'duck" some of the most controversial issues about Oswald). Having said that, this book is about Oswald, his beliefs, agendas, personality - both the positive and negative aspects of each (from an external view, not his own of course since such things are relative and often situational). And about how those things drove him at various points in his short life, including how he entangled himself in things he thought he understood (but definitely did not). Its less sensation in one sense (sorry no high speed drives or shooting range games) and more in another - especially when you get to the last 48 hours of his life.

He was self-admittedly something of an idealist, stating that he knew he was unlikely to find what he was looking for but totally unwilling to give up because it was unrealistic. I'll leave it to his writing to allow a judgement of his 'profoundness', certainly I knew loads of sixties campus activists who were idealistic but not all that 'deep'. Based on his writings I view him as more realistic than most of them, more able to see both the good and bad sides of ideologies...including their implementations, as seen with his very objective descriptions of the problems with both the American and Soviet systems.

To some extent I think we have always known more about Oswald than has been acknowledged - because first the WC and then the rest of us wanted to fit him into boxes. And we made the boxes so small it left room for mysteries to grow around them. In fact many things about Oswald always have been quite consistent, and at the core his actions demonstrate a great deal of continuity in his beliefs (if you credit him with sufficient intelligence to follow his own course and pursue his own agendas even if that required creating conflicting stories as sometimes required). He was not all good, he was not all bad but it was almost always true to himself and his beliefs - which were always 'populist' regardless of how he described them, and made clear in his writings of 1963.

I don't know Ron, there is just something about Homer's version - especially with the imaging - that makes me play it a couple of time every month. True Homer is a little less polished...well maybe a lot less polished....but its almost like he was singing it for real:

Well I'm not sure everyone will "love it" as it represents a strong effort to be balanced, is without doubt contrarian in many respects, and goes to great lengths to let "Oswald be Oswald" rather than fitting him into a particular mold, the original sin of the Warren Commission and something which unintentionally came to entrap too many of us over the years. Oswald was actually quite unique for his time, as attested to by a good number of people who knew him, but whose commentary had to be shunted into the WC volumes rather than put up front in the report itself - because they raise way too many questions in regard to the 'look' the Commission needed to present. The WC really did not want to showcase sources such as a Marine officer who was willing to state that Oswald was as well or better versed in contemporary geopolitics than he was himself, but who had to kick him off a Corps football team because Oswald kept wanting to call plays. Bottom line, David Boylan and I started from scratch, let Oswald be Oswald as our foundation, and simply took that where it led us. That includes some extended speculation on what might have been going on with him that let him to become both independently mysterious, and a patsy on November 22. A patsy initially useful, but ultimately ineffective for the certain of the conspiracies goals. Enough of that, just wanted to be clear that we think the book does justice to Oswald, that was our first concern. -- Larry

I talked with Jones on numerous occasions about various Japanese he was suspicious of, in contact with Oswald, in New Orleans but it was never connected in any fashion. Basically just suspicions. What he was most specific about in our conversations was his belief that Roscoe White had killed the president, shooting from a position which I took to be on the Elm street extension. He apparently had a photo that he felt proved that. He also thought that that Zapruder was involved, that there was a DalTex connection. There were also connections to Honest Joes pawn job and his vehicle parked in the vicinity of the TSBD and to Dallas Jewish crime figures. We had dozens of calls with his discussing all those things but I never got a picture of how he felt that everything connected in a particular scenario - just that all those elements were suspicous.

We have some pretty solid descriptions of how the recorders were attached to the phone lines, these were electrical taps on actual phone lines, not wireless bugs. Which means that either the listening station sites which were locally tapped on the phones or the central switching site taps should have a very solid connection to the line which means they are going to pick up anything coming onto the telephone handset from either the transmitter or receiver. In those days telephone sets had reasonably sensitive voice pick ups but were obviously designed to pick up the person talking - if they held the receiver as they were supposed to of course. So bottom line, we could certainly be hearing surrounding background noise from either end, all it has to do is get into the handset transmitter. Which unfortunately tells us little about where the line itself was being tapped or for that matter which line...in the case of the Russian embassy we have some solid CIA records that tell us how it was tapped...via the central site...and in a fashion to pick up outgoing dialed digits. I did hear some dialed digits on a couple of tapes and that would differentiate outbound from inbound calls. Supposedly the Cuban embassy was tapped the same way at the central site. Its unclear whether the Cuban consulate was tapped either directly or from the local monitoring house in 1963. We also know that lots of places including private homes of select individuals were also tapped at the central site. So all in all it seems like it would take a lot of time and effort to parse out what locations are on these tapes - and if they are all from Nov 22....

Well at least the dates probably explain why they were actually saved and entered into the collection of materials related to the assassination. Sounds like these are all from the Cuban facilities - three observations that might be relevant. First, I heard dialed digits in a few of the calls and those were collected by the central switch facility which had the ability to collect outbound dialed digits. The taps and the local safe houses did not. Second, I wonder if the CIA even went so far as to use audio bugs on pay telephones near the embassies, if so that might explain the background noise - and they might have pulled out all the stops after the assassination, expecting the Cubans and Russians both to be suspicious of using business lines. In addition, as Bill Simpich has pointed out, central site taps were even placed on some private residences, that might also explain some of the background conversations and music. If anything following the assassination it might have been decided to tap a host of personal lines of diplomatic personnel.

Have you found anything which suggests the actual location of the point where the recordings were made - individual taps on building phone lines, the central switch tap facility or even wireless bugs in the area of the phones. At this point I'm quite puzzled by the degree of background conversation and even music on what were supposedly direct wire to recorder taps of phone lines locally or at the switching center?

I can say that the personal version I heard from David....no request for confidence.....was that there was a special room prepared within the hospital and a set of Doctors who were in place to somehow murder JFK at Parkland if he was not DOA. He did not specify what Doctors but mentioned several. I had the impression that he felt they were also going to alter whatever wounds there were to support a lone shooter - but while he talked of altering them at Parkland he was not explicit on any specifics. He also stated that Oswald was supposed to be shot dead inside the TSBD by Baker, he had interviewed Baker who denied it - but David felt sure he could judge that he had Baker lied. I don't recall further details as he offered no evidence and it just didn't stick with me, but at that point he was adamant that people at Parkland were committed to killing JFK whatever state he was in after being attacked.

Tom, the narrative is that the film showed up, specific frames were selected for briefing boards, the boards were created and taken away. Brugiani was there for that and made his own personal observations, no formal analysis was done and no comments were solicited. The following evening the film was returned, he was not told or invited to the selection of a second set of frames and a second set of boards were taken away - those ended up at NARA ultimately. The first set got stashed away and when somebody asked it they should be turned in to the HSCA the order was given to destroy them....apparently that had been ordered in the first place. Its not necessarily that the film changed but rather the selection of frames for the story boards was changed to support a particular scenario. And that was done in a very low profile manner. If you have SWHT 2012 its all there, most of it from Doug's work but a few more tidbits from some of my own research. While this does not seem to be an argument for a major alteration, it certainly does seem to argue that a new shooting scenario was being pitched and needed to be officially supported. NARA's official examination of the film occurred much later is not well documented and was not a major part of the WC narrative as far as I recall.

Robert is right, this photo will never go away though....in reality its Sturgis not Plumlee and as for Op 40, we have the history of that and its not Op 40 either....the Op 40 personnel are or were at one time listed on the Brigade web site, trained by Davit Morales as AMMOTS and later many became part of the Cuban Intelligence Service at JMWAVE, others went rogue on their own and some later became involved in drug smuggling. Anybody that has SMWHT will find this all in a bit more details there as far as OP40 goes.

Interesting what they may have thought, for all we know they might have believed he was being harassed b y the FBI...that would be in the spirit of the times and what they would be doing in a similar situation. If nothing else though I suspect that they looked at each other and said they were happy it would be New York who had to deal with he and his wife....especially since they knew that Marina's formal request to return to Russia was already in file and in review in Moscow.

There are actually a number of such incidents on record, for both US and American defectors going both ways....its was most used when the individual felt they were under suspicion at work and needed to do it as a surprise action. In that case they tended to declare themselves and stay under embassy protection. In other instances they picked weekends, did make brief calls and arranged for meetings elsewhere later. One of the best sources the US had in Russia came in as a walk in that way.... In any event, an American showing up unannounced on a Saturday asking for an urgent meeting, possibly protection and expressing fears of the FBI certainly would have gotten the attention of any of the KGB officers around at that time. Part curiosity and part day job responsibility.

Ben, an American showing up at an Embassy, claiming to need to urgently meet with diplomatic staff in Mexico City would be treated much the same as a Russian showing up in Berlin on a weekend needing to urgently meet with American diplomatic staff. Its the height of the cold war and the most desirable thing that can happen at an embassy is called a "walk in"....somebody from the other side, potentially a real voluntary defector of some sort....some of the most valuable intelligence came in just that way from walk ins who had been pushed over the edge for some reason. Saturday is another clue, the individual is not constrained by their day job and less likely to be seen defecting. You can bet all the staff, especially the KGB (or CIA) types in the building are going to want to talk to the person. Lots of Cold War spy novels started that way because it was very real, and dramatic. In this instance "its just Oswald" but at first the KGB guys would not have known that, could have been a very important American who was fed up and wanted to "come over".

Yes, given the size of the work and the limited potential audience I'm told the cost/price of a print version was considered prohibitive. We are fortunate to have it at all given his sudden death and the fact that Stu Wexler had to work with John's sister to reclaim his files, I had to work reordering them since he had anticipated doing more work with the book and Gary Murr played a major role in editing the whole thing. Unfortunately the huge collection of photos and illustrations he had obtained in his research to support it is not available due to limitations on Lacer's resources associated with Debra's health condition. https://www.amazon.com/Buried-Plain-Site-Search-Murder-ebook/dp/B0BR5WWY3Y

I honestly think it would be wrong of me to try and overview given the detail work John did - and the devil is in the details. Gary Murr might jump in and give it a shot as he is more recently familiar with it). Major takeaways - both the forensics consultant and the coroner were aware that the crime scene was been managed in a way to locate people and locations to support a Sirhan shooting scenario with fewer shots than there really were. Evidence of holes in the ceiling and pantry doors was first ignored, then some positions were changed and then the materials themselves were destroyed. So, way to many shots for just Sirhan. Everybody talks about that, John demonstrates it from the crime scene itself. Then John went into great detail on the autopsy and found paths what were not in the official report as well as strong reason to challenge the caliber of the gun used for the close range shot. He also had first hand access to ballistics materials and worked with Sirhan's attorneys aide Rose Lynn Magnan on it to show how the evidence was illegally handled and archived...he details that at length. But the real point is that he totally reconstructed (as a professional model maker) the crime scene, redid all the measurements and positioning related to the photos...and supported his findings with that level of detail. He did not go into conspiracy, what he did was go into the police investigation and the evidence presented in the trial - and how it was presented. You need that for context. Also, if you assess that Sirhan was totally unaware of what was happening in the pantry that evening, you really need to read the police transcript of his interviews and see how sharp he was at that point in time and how he was trying to play the officers. I summarize some of that in one of the early chapters in my RFK study at: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Incomplete_Justice_-_At_the_Ambassador_Hotel.html I offer all this is the spirit of providing information, not lobbying for it at all.

And for those who want to explore the subject with a comprehensive knowledge of both the crime scene and the related forensics, ballistics and autopsy work I suggest John Hunt's clinical study of the actual evidence: https://www.amazon.com/Buried-Plain-Site-Search-Murder-ebook/dp/B0BR5WWY3Y If you have not read it then you simply don't have all the facts...or at least I don't see how that would be possible and I've studied the LAPD materials extensively myself.....but that was nothing in comparison to what John did.

Martin Nee said it quite well, to my recollection as a long time member the forum is supposed to be about exploration and education - not advocacy and not evangelism. I sincerely hope to see it return to that mode of operation and moderation.

You have a very good point Allen and I've personally not done any work that at all going past his involvement with the restructuring of Domestic Ops beginning in 63 which David Boylan has written about. Given his egregious failures he mush have had one or more senior level champions at CIA and I would not be surprised to find it linked to Angleton and MH/CHAOS. Who was he doing liaison for in terms of the Black Panthers - given his disasterous liaison work on the Cuba Project I would not have expected that to work out well - which clearly it did not. If somebody carries that on one of the most important questions would be who remained his champion inside the CIA for the rest of his career and who were his 'angels' in public circles?

Ron, I think you will enjoy In Denial, its about covert operations in general although it delves most deeply into the Cuba Project of a prime example of why the cover operations model fails - but then is continually resurrected. You will probably find it amusing that Dulles went on record that the CIA should be removed totally from covert military operations but that actually was a result of the inquiry after the BOP and of course JFK did agree and began doing that first in Vietnam and then was well on the way to taking it from the CIA in the Americas - particular in regard to Cuba - and giving it to the Joint Chiefs (and CINCATLANTIC) totally by the summer of 63. On connections, I can say with certainty that Angleton and Harvey were still talking and close to each other before Harvey went off shore to Italy - Angleton did not really talk to many and for a few months Harvey had time on his hands. But of you want some equally interesting connections you might try Hecksher....SE Asia in Laos, then special assignment in the Golden Triangle, then back to the Cuba Project, into Mexico City on an assignment we totally do not understand but which may have involved Cubela (same time as Nagle talks about the mystery CIA guy who came and went), then back to the Cuba Project and on to AMWORLD which begins recruiting people like Carlos Hernandez and Felix Rodriquez. -- connections everywhere, the trick is the final connection to Dallas..

Ron, about all I can do is suggest suggest you read In Denial if you want a full understanding of the Cuba Project, the Bay of Pigs and Barnes role in both - in that project he was put in a very unique role, and in a strange situation that crossed a presidential transition. That made oversight extremely complex as did what was a virtually unique organizational structure for the whole thing - which along with Barnes was the subject of the entire project along with Barnes. The IG report was also quite an indictment of both King and Dulles for that matter - which I suspect is why Barnes was allowed to write his own rebuttal to it, a very unusual practice in itself. Unfortunately Barnes had the reach and support to market his version to the media, which was one of the reasons JFK ended up being so roundly blamed for failures that had been occuring months before he ever took office.

Barnes was the guy for Cuba, Dulles had left him virtually alone, J.C. King had no real clue as to what was going on operationally...that all becomes very clear in their testimony at the follow up hearings. Barnes was the one meeting with JFK, isolating him from the people actually in the operation, Barnes was the one talking directly to Commander in Chief Atlantic. Barnes was the one running the highly secret Castro poison plot. So yes in regard to Cuba Barnes was supremely important and the entire IG report on the failure focused on Barnes - which is why he was allowed to write his own rebuttal. As to the timing, the whole Cuba project Phase 1 was supposed to succeed before the election and both Nixon and Eisenhower were appalled when they found it it had totally failed on both concept and timeline.

Oh yes, David has developed quite a career history on him, much of that is Tipping Point but I'm sure he can do a synopsis here. Emileo had an exemplary career and was highly regarded in the Agency. He was also achieved a rather unique status as a political action agent and while with SAS at JMWAVE did a good bit of traveling. His address book is a who's who of familiar CIA names... I will alert David to this post and I'm sure he will follow up here.