Larry Hancock

Ron if you read section Five again I think you will find all of that mentioned and Ruby role described as actually a working asset in Dallas - then evolving to being ordered to first monitor and then kill Oswald, giving him no choice and threatening him with his family. Pretty sure I cover all that in considerable detail - connecting him to Roselli, and linking them all the way back to Jack's trips to Havana (financed out of Vegas) and ultimately to Roselli himself.

Nothing more than you mentioned...simply that there was something in the Navy files about Ruth Paine trying to contact Oswald long before he showed up in Dallas. Its actually quite a good match to what shows up in this document although looking at the document suggests all sorts of problems with the claim...

I don't think so and I'm surprised there have been so few comments on what has been rumored for so long...this would seem to resolve years of rumor and speculation. I assume folks are reading the link but its hard to tell that anyone but John has paid any attention to it?

Certainly that could not have been the plan, that's why Martino said the full plan aborted with Oswald's being taken into custody alive. They could not know what he would say, and they had very little in the way of resource on the ground - Ruby was it, which his why his involvement had to totally change, he became physically ill, and took off on a completely different tangent...first reporting on Oswald, trying to capture any rumors he could get about what Oswald was saying and ultimately had to do everything he could to silence him. I really tried to get that across in Tipping Point with the extended discussion of Ruby - but the larger part is that whatever the full plan was to manipulate Oswald, link in Castro definitively and ensure Oswald could not blow it failed. So we can only reverse engineer up the a point - the point Martino himself gave us.

I talked at some length with him and as I recall he described running up the steps to the west of the pergola in the encounter...

You should verify with the moderators that re-posting is allowed, not sure myself. If they approve it definitely needs to be cited to my post here and attributed to Malcolm Blunt and his research.

I suspect this document linked at the end of this post is the one that created the discussion that has previously appeared online; I have no idea if it is the exact one Jim mentioned, but if not its certainly related to it. The document itself is courtesy of the research of my favorite guru, Malcolm Blunt. It is an ONI document released to the JFK Records Collection from NCIS. The document was originally referred to the Navy/ONI from the FBI; it is not something that came out of Navy own historical files on Oswald or their own investigation of Oswald. It is a post-assassination document, not something that comes pre-assassination. It is also typical of many FBI summary reports in that it combines multiple pieces of information and if you are not familiar with that practice it’s easy to read things into it that are not there (been there, done that). Perhaps there were follow-on inquires to resolve the inferences and lack of dates specifications in the report. If so we don’t have them nor do we have the source interview by the FBI with the former Young Friends Movement source – which might clear up some important things like dates. Or not, depending on what questions the FBI interviewer asked. Element One: The FBI appears to have documented that Ruth Paine attended Summer Sessions at the University of Philadelphia in 1957 and studied Russian. Element Two: The individual contacting the FBI after the assassination described Ruth Paine as belonging to the Young Friends Movement of Philadelphia (the memo does not confirm that nor give a date as to when she belonged, the inference is that it would be in 1957). The source stated that the Young Friends were interested in relaxing East-West tensions and in pursuit of that somehow contacted Lee Harvey Oswald as a pen-pal (the inference is that it was Ruth Paine who made the contact, but that is not directly stated). The source also did not implicitly state the year in which the pen pal contact was made. For reference in the summer of 1957 Oswald was just shipping out to his assignment in Japan and is unlikely to have been visible in Philadelphia for his interests in Russia. Read it for yourself and see if you get more from it than I do, if nothing else it’s a lead to where the conversations about Ruth writing the Navy about Oswald might have started: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ZOL5oTCu1ByVTxV90BNDUAxlxYwWnt3/view

Chris, I think perhaps the most frustrating have been those materials that ostensibly responsible people have written about seeing that never make it into public view. I won't go through the list but it includes history professors who write, then talk about putting their documents or tapes into university archives and then that never happens. Having gone though a good bit of trouble putting my own special collections out on CD (the Chrisman/Beckham documents being one example) with Lancer's help I find that annoying to say the least. Equally frustrating are documents that you know must have existed within the official files, like the DRE files Morley has chased, which we can't get...and the "soft files" that show up in lists but then disappeared because they were never sent outside field offices. Of course we have absolute proof that documents and records were sanitized through destruction or alteration so not finding some things is no shock....but I'm "over" claims of tapes and photos that people claim to have in their possession but retain without release, just no time for those sorts of mysteries anymore.

It still comes out the same Calvin, we have encountered that sort or thing over and over again, references to tapes someone has, photos, documents....its happened so many times most of us old timers just insist on some sort of corroboration to even consider those things. Sometimes you file it away mentally and wait for something to show up but it really never seems too... It all adds to the mystery and sensation...and drives people back into old leads and theories...but to answer you question we have seen it so often over fifty plus years that you don't find a lot of enthusiasm for third party stories about sensational evidence that someone has but never shares.

Ah, well the answer to that is basically that it seems most former intelligence officers who have come out with detailed stories in regard to a purported conspiracy appear to point it in diametrically opposite directions from the agencies....whether it be to other domestic parties or most often towards Cuba and Castro. It just seems to be a standard pattern...so in general they get viewed as either repeating disinformation. So I'd say that would be the basic reason, just a history of what would appear to be diversions - which of course has nothing to do with him having a tape...if he does he needs to offer it up and have it evaluated.

I've heard his name in passing but have never seen him within the JFK community nor seen any vetting of his work. If he has tapes I presume he would have shared copies or transcripts. At this point in time I have an open mind about a lot of purported evidence but if someone claims to have it in hand and does not make it available then I don't spend much time on it or them...

I've seen no evidence or corroboration for it, only talk on forums over the years. As with other purportedly explosive documents, films, photos etc, its hard to imagine that a copy would not have been shared now if it were real. Its hard to understand why we would not have seen it? Apparently this is even more interesting since I gather claims have been made by one or more individuals to have it in their possession - so it would not be considered just another "lost" document. Also, I don't seem to see a thread with your asking Jim D about the document?

Great, sometimes is difficult to see something which mentions your name in a quick scan of the threads...I've missed thing before that way. I'm sure Jim will respond and I will certainly be interested myself.

Calvin, I suggest you do another post and put Jim D's name at the front of it to get his attention, he is visiting the forum but he many not notice this..

I hope Jim shows up to comment on this...you might message him via this forum. I've seen this claim bounce around online for decades but could never find anything to back it up. If Jim has documented it that would be very important.

Unfortunately Jim's Jenmkins story is uncorroborated and there really is nothing to confirm Burkley's "management" of the autopsy other than Jenkins that I'm aware of or have been able to find. If someone has that I'd like to see it. Frankly given that the senior Navy officers/Doctors at Bethesda totally blew off Burkley's initial attempt to block a full autopsy and simply do an exploratory for the bullet I'm not sure how much influence he would have had in terms of controlling the overall process? As usual we are left at the mercy of individual memories and claims that contradict each other. Which I why I tend to hang on points we can prove and focus on the fact that Burkley obviously did know something that he felt indicated multiple shooters and a conspiracy. That much is clear. The fact that he offered that to the HSCAt and then chose to back off and the fact that he did retain some autopsy materials that never came under "control" and troubled both LBJ and later AG Clark is also important to remember. Equally troubling is that his daughter refused to support Burkley's own lawyer in making his papers available to the ARRB.

As I recall Burkley came directly to Bethesda where his first act was to try to prevent any autopsy at all, saying they were simply to extract a bullet as evidence; the President's killer was already in custody. When that was rejected he became personally involved in the autopsy to an unknown extent...none of the Doctors would ever state anything specific in regard to what direction he might or might not have given...a rather convenient loss of memory on their part - as was so much else. All of which diverts attention from his most important act, an initial offer to the HSCA to provide information in support of the position that a conspiracy to kill the President.

RFK appears to have had obvious concerns and most importantly suspcions, as reflected in his immediate phone calls of the afternoon - concerns about CIA officer and about radical anti-Castro Cubans (as I described in Tipping Point, there were warnings about them, with concerns most recently expressed on the President's trip to Florida). Plausible deniability in assassination was certainly alive and well during the Eisenhower administration - and under John Foster Dulles and his brother. And of course it continued for covert political and even military warfare under JFK, Johnson et all. When guilt was introduced into the assassination it first came from Johnson, and the idea of "blowback" guilt came most directly from John Roselli during his preemptive strike against the Garrison investigation. The real blowback was from the lies about the Bay of Pigs, the peaceful resolution of the missile crisis and JFK's view that the Cuba problem might be solved though negotiation.

As I recall Mabra was coming from his assignment at the Elm and Houston intersection. Since the motorcade was primarily treated as a traffic control problem regular officers were stationed at intersections with reserves on the street in between...but nobody beyond the Elm / Houston intersection. I'm afraid for way too long we have speculated about the intricacies of the conspiracy at its highest levels and treated things going on in the Plaza independently, simply arguing over each of them again and again. What I tried to do was step back and look at it from a tactical perspective, as anyone with paramilitary experience would if they were involved with an ambush in an urban environment. Of course we are handicapped in doing that because that's not the way the police investigated it either. An exploding squib behind the fence for a diversion, lighted from a cigarette - nothing left but footprints and butts, weapons tossed into car trunks and no trunk searches (and the list of license plates and names disappears too), the large wooden shipping boxes in the TSBD never examined, easy to have an end off, toss in a rifle and slam wood back on - once they find the rifle you planted they will stop looking anyway. Same for any brass you picked up. All we know is that any reasonably sophisticated covert attack was not going to be exposed by the investigation that was done. Not when you have even the simplest one shooter frame in play. History shows us that with an obvious suspect in custody the tendency is almost always to declare victory and move on to strengthen the case against them, not expand the investigation.

That's a good question David, from memory I would say that neither Cuban CI at WAVE nor later SAS actually considered it as actionable intelligence even thought the rumors had been circulating as early as the winter of 1962 - they may have been becoming a bit more cautions since of course the exile groups were pushing any rumor that might cause military action against Castro. I don't think that WAVE ever had any direct intel out of its remaining on island contacts to vet the rumors, nor even which group was supposedly holding the defectors. Given that, the quantity of assets and time devoted to the mission is really quite exceptional. It took months for the rumors to translate into what you would have to consider a political prodding led largely by Pawley and supported by Senator Eastland. The initiative did not come from within the CIA nor do they appear to have done anything really to vet the intel, it was more a matter of responding to Pawley. The overall span of the thing, from rumors to actually mission was something on the order of six months. To save you some searching, you will find the story and some citations in Segment 1 of Tipping Point- in the Helter Skelter section: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point_Part1.html

David, honestly I wish I could just persuade people to read the material that we have collected and written on this - it gives a far fuller picture than I can paint here (and would make me feel better about doing all that work). But to clarify, Pawley was the driver behind the mission, lobbying King and Shackley for support. That support ultimately consisted of a number of CIA paramilitary officers, as well as maritime mission planning, communications coordination between the various boats and aircraft and even the assignment of one of the two CIA "ghost ships" to provide radar overwatch. Th Cuban volunteers were provided by Pawley - with Bayo a very last minute addition - and did receive some minimal security vetting. However when the CIA raised concerns about them, about Bayo and to having a LIFE photographer on the mission Pawley successfully pushed back, telling Shackley they were his employees and he would be responsible for them (he may have been a bit cautions himself since their weapons were not issued until late in the mission). I don't know exactly what I said to suggest otherwise but the mission members did include Pawley's "employees", Martino, Bayo and CIA PM officers. As to who else could have been sent - it if truly been a normal CIA maritime mission the Cuban's would have been from vetted and experienced WAVE PM cadre, people paid off the WAVE budget and working for Robertson or the other PM officers...in this instance they were not, WAVE was essentially supporting a private mission into Cuba - a violation of all standing Presidential directives.

Irrespective of Hall, it should be noted that we have a huge amount of information on the actual initiation of the TILT project, in particular the role of Martino, and much more importantly that of William Pawley in his outreach to both JC King and Shackley at WAVE. The exchanges between Pawley and Shackley are documented as are objections of CIA security over the very late inclusion of Pawley's selected Cuban volunteers (only accepted because Pawley himself paid for them and forced the issue), the inclusion of Bayo (who a security check showed had previously scammed the CIA with a similar proposal), and the inclusion of LIFE magazine - also brokered by Pawley but approved by King. All demonstrating that the op was as much of a political action to Pawley and King as it was in any sense a true intelligence action. We also have the extensive mission debrief document, and finally Shackley's self serving admission that although the CIA had been fooled, it was a good thing because it had impressed Pawley and influential Senators that the CIA was very responsive and "cooperative". All this is referenced in Tipping Point, much of it was in SWHT and David Boylan no doubt could provide document references at great length. If anyone wants the real history and details of the operation....

Good link Robert, I actually refer to that in Tipping Point and cite that particular link myself. We speculate a lot about the motives of many people yet the remarks by Morales's life long friend Reuben and Harvey's wife seem to me to carry far stronger weight. These people just didn't dislike JFK's policies, they considered him a traitor and literally hated him.

I agree Ron, and to be perfectly honest Johnson was essentially a coward when faced with personal danger, his war experience reflects that and Caro describes it. For that matter running from a group of ultra right wing women in Dallas, fleeing with Lady Bird from their protest signs as he had done only earlier sort of confirms that. My book Surprise Attack grew largely out of a curiosity to compare the reactions of presidents and the national security apparatus in response to national crises. What I found was that the system itself often responds as it did after Dallas.....moving to what you might call damage control, including containment and suppression of information....but Johnson's personal reaction as Commander in Chief was an exception, he was extremely detached. Compare his involvement after Dallas to his involvement with the Tonkin Gulf or the Liberty incidents. In any event, I find his behavior after the attack in Dallas to be a very strange mix of personal unconcern and detachment from the duties of Commander in Chief. He demanded to be installed in that position as soon as possible...and then did nothing with the responsibility for hours (other than making a still mysterious call to Hoover after his return to DC which does not appear on the record but which Manchester documented). The best option as to what might have caused such dysfunctional behavior is what I offered in 'SWHT. ,

Let me try those one at a time: First, Roselli coded his expense report for the trip to ZRRIFLE operations and we have a document saying that Helms had funded the project through the end of the year. We have nothing to corroborate that operations were totally shut down in April, we just don't have any concrete records of what might have continued, including ongoing training for personnel to go into Cuba to assassinate Castro. There are anecdotal stories of a special, compartmentalized camp used for such a training, supported by Rip Roerbson and isolated from the rest of WAVE activities. Segment 5 really deals with my views on higher level involvement - as well as a post I just made to Pete in this thread earlier today so you might want to check that out. Angleton did not take over the Cuba desk (if anything that remained under JC King, Chief Western Hemisphere), what actually happened was that during 1961 he was given a special assignment to investigate Cuban intelligence penetration of the first Cuba Project. He worked with Miami station for much of 1961 doing an extended study of CI failure in the first project and preparing a report on fixes...one of the outcomes was the creation of the Cuban Intel Service at JMWAVE, which incorporated many of the AMMOTS Morales had trained. A personal bond did later develop between Angleton and Harvey, as related to Castro assassination, I detail that in NEXUS and its covered in the bio on Harvey that I mentioned to Steve in another post today. On your final point, the Castro assassination project was certainly live going into 1963 and it continued on for several months, what we have no real details on are which particular Cuban volunteers were part of that project or exactly what they were doing that year...or where they ended up for that matter. The committee was just getting around to asking Roselli about that last phase, when he was killed before going back in front of their investigators. Roselli tells us the JFK assassination was carried out by personnel that had been involved with a CIA program to kill Castro; Wheaton tells us the same thing. As to operational approval, as I pointed out in an earlier segment of Tipping Point, these volunteers were used to taking orders, especially from people like Robertson or Lynch whom they trusted. Nothing ever on paper, no verbal countersigns from higher up...just do it.....asking questions violates operational security. For your last point, again I refer you to the same comments I gave to Pete, with one exception....if you refer back to SWHT you will see that I do hold an option, which I spell out in considerable detail (with names) that Johnson had some minimal level of knowledge that something was going to take off the hook in the Baker scandal befire it all blew back on him in Congress. All that he should do was to be calm and accept whatever occurred to bring that about - without any questions. Pure speculation on my part, but with some factual info behind the speculation spelled out in two chapters in the book - none of which I put into Tipping Point because I see it as not directly relevant to the attack, but only to the suppression of any inquiry into conspiracy that he might have driven (and to those really interesting calls from the White House to Texas on that Friday night from his aide). It's just hard for me to grasp no knowledge at the top of what was going to happen. Things like my belief that LBJ was briefed in advance so he wouldn't over react. Talbot says Dulles did spend the evening and rest of the weekend at his residence on the farm, fired or not. . . He'd been to Dallas a month before for the first time in his life on one of three stops (?) on his book tour. I know proof of nothing. Another coincidence.