Larry Hancock

Thanks Gary, I thought this was an oldie and a questionable one at that.  Another commonly referenced source on people in the sixth floor window may also be questionable:

"many inmates on the 5th floor of the County Jail, including Johnny L. Powell who said, “Quite a few of us jail inmates saw two men in the 6th floor window of the Book Depository".

I explored that claim with Jim Marrs among others and was told that the holding areas for prisoners in that building did not have a view of the sixth floor of the TSBD.  I visited the county jail cells which DPD officers told me were the holding area and those most certainly did not have a view....neither Jim nor I could never confirm if there was another area in use that day which would have offered Powell and others a view so I removed to claim from the 2010 edition of SWHT because I couldn't verify it one way or another...

I do have the book and talked extensively with Twyman about it and his research.  While de Torres was very likely known to Morales given de Torres's activities in the Cuban exile community and his connections to the Cuban Brigade - and with a Miami detective agency owned by his father, there was nothing concrete to document a closer relationship.  You can concretely connect de Torres to some of the Interpen guys including Hargraves as well as Vidal...but connecting him to Morales is purely speculative as far as I know and as far as I discussed with Noel.  At least that is my recollection and as much as I "wanted" such a verified connection, I'm pretty sure I would have put anything of that sort into my own writing since I used both Noel and PDS as sources.

Ron I did notice that you mentioned PDS and his book and I will be interested in his citation; I have his book and read it a number of times but don't recall anything solid about such an association.  And of course his work was very "early days",  sort of like that you find in The Fish is Red by Hinckle and Turner.  There is lots of good material in both and at the time it was cutting edge. Still, a lot of it had to be pretty speculative; some of it stands the test of time and new information but some doesn't. 

B.A. - and David,  B.A. mentioned Morales being closely associated with Bernardo de Torres.

de Torres himself was an both an informant and a suspect in regard to drug smuggling but I have seen nothing which suggests a relationship between de Torres and Morales...if either of you has seen some evidence of that please give a citation, I would be most interested.

B.A. this comes from Surprise Attack/2010 and most likely is in NEXUS as well although I'm not absolutely certain about that. It involves a report from a former JM/WAVE officer who was involved in the inquiry.  He described it in considerable detail including the types of questions involved, the targets who were either CIA Cuban exile contacts or well to do exiles who might have been involved in the funding or operational activities. The inquiry was conducted by the Cuban Intel Group which at that time was led by Morales's friend who had taken over that group after coming out of deep cover intelligence work in Cuba.  The name escapes me at the moment but the reference is in the book. If an actual report was compiled from the work it may never have made it out of the group or out of JM/WAVE.

Shackley explicitly stated that his station performed no such investigation related to the assassination but that does not mean a lot in this instance.  On the other hand it may have been something done without his knowledge - one way to cover up loose ends would be to see if a local investigation turned up leads that needed to be suppressed to protect those involved. 

Evan, I was referring to those directly involved in the assassination, not your friends. Actually a number of CIA officers suspected people associated with JM/WAVE and its exile connections.  Enough so that an investigation was actually conducted at the station and then the results suppressed.

First for Ron, there have actually been a series of agreements between Justice and CIA, Stu and I cover several of them in Shadow Warfare.  They often exempt employees from prosecution for illegal behavior - like say murder - if it is part of a sanctioned program (which means officially sanctioned under NSC and Presidential mandate).   Others have to do with not reporting illegal actions of surrogates, assets, etc who are being used in sanctioned projects...which has covered a lot of drug and weapons smuggling.  Again, we give a number of examples in Shadow Warfare.  But again, under the NSC legislation and codes, sanctioned projects and missions were conceived as being a defense of national security and basically no normal moral rules  applied...it is viewed as a matter of survival.  I go into that even more in my upcoming book Creating Chaos.

As for the capture of Che, that was a sanctioned program, as far as his execution, nobody was going to argue the point...it was a dead or alive mission just most anti-ISIS missions are today.

For Kirk,  I believe the murder of JFK was done by individuals who personally considered him either a traitor or an imminent national security threat and that they acted at their own initiative,  they considered themselves anti-Communist patriots above everything else...

To really evaluate the statement I recommend reading up on the various pieces of NSC legislation passed in the late 1940's as well as the legal code that goes along with it.  You will find that there are a great number of actions which are legal for the CIA and the NSC which would be illegal under civil and even military code.  I explore that at length in Shadow Warfare.  One of the reasons that so many military operations - by special forces and uniformed military - post 2001 are actually conducted under this code is that they would not be permitted to the military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Beyond that there are areas under Presidential directives, as the ones issued post-9/11 which are essentially orders without any legal constraints at all. ...and any penalties related to following them can result in pardons by the President - which we saw in Iran Contra and in other instances.

So - when CIA officers tell you they are following the law, its most definitely the civil and criminal code you might assume.  Which is why they are actually authorized to lie in civil court to protect sources, methods and operational security...even if exposed to perjury charges.

Known aliases for Morales include Stanley Zamka and Dr. Menza.  There are probably more now, haven't updated my list in awhile.

Indeed it was - and we have some independent verification of his investigation.  Two areas he picked out related to Hill and to the subject of the polygraph of Frazier.  In interviewing various officers he came across a lot of obfuscation, a number of conflicting statements and overall a denial that a polygraph was ever performed on Frazier - which of course is important since the DPD totally suppressed said polygraph and kept it from the WC.  However now we know from an independent FBI document that it was performed, that Frazier was shown the actual bag recovered from the TSBD and that he adamantly denied it was the bag Oswald had that morning.

The ramifications of that statement, made just hours after seeing the bag, are serious.  The suppression of the polygraph equally so and the verification that the stress O'Toole was recording among the DPD officers, in particular Hill, was very much real because they were covering up something very important.

The book and interviews are interesting on the face of it but with confirmation of the reality of the stress it makes it even more important.  As I recall another major area of stress was on the origins of Oswald's billfold and what Hill apparently said about it over the radio on the way back to the station.  Probably a good time to revisit that book given what we know now.

Well I wouldn't want to do that.  I would say Craford would be a name I would expect to be pursued by any new investigation so that makes sense to me, it would be something from as early as the WC.   The James Earl Ray name would have come out of MLK and Ray's remarks about Raoul - that was a story the HSCA did investigate so no real big surprise there.  What is probably more amazing is given the number of names and crypts on that list that they were able to make any progress at all....just think of yourself starting an investigation with that list, a limited number of experienced staff, none of the data resources we have today, a deadline - and knowing you will get no cooperation from the CIA or FBI....whew. 

Uh, just for context, is this not just a list of items including names that the HSCA investigators compiled to make requests against and to look for information...like a huge shopping list.  Please correct if I'm mistaken - you might also want to double check the very first time Ray shows up with his Raoul story....

Not that I'm trying to spoil anybody's fun but it would be good for the thread to elaborate on what this document really is..

Thanks David, I do vaguely recall that document now but honestly I could not parse the remarks between what De Torres was offering as a source on drug trafficking and what the redacted DEA source might be saying about De Torres....I also couldn't tell if it was the redacted source relating gossip that De Torres was associated with Trafficante or whether that was a remark from the DEA agent or even a note from Lopez.  Given that I think I just passed on by it when I first read it...

Its been a good bit since I looked into Hunt in Madrid,  as I recall it was a pretty interesting case of detached service....probably a precursor to his other assignments after "retirement"....

Paul, I cover Harvey's recruiting trip briefly in NEXUS but I'm sure you would find more detail in Stockton's fine biography:

https://www.amazon.com/Flawed-Patriot-Rise-Legend-Harvey/dp/1574889907/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1525640329&sr=1-1&keywords=bayard+stockton

Stockton actually gives samples of Harvey's notes from the trip, including Harvey's remarks about the type of people he contacted in each country and his assessments on being introduced to WI/ROGUE and QJ/WIN

On a side note, I think you will find Hunt's travels to Spain and his move there occurred beginning in 1964 and were a result of his serving as a personal liaison to Artime,  who requested his involvement much to the objection of Hecksher and the AM/WOLD people.  Hecksher even made an effort to break the two apart but Hunt just wouldn't keep his nose out of it and apparently Artime got his way.  Its worth noting that the documents show Hunt personally contacted Artime and inserted himself in with him, something that irritated Hecksher no end. 

Paul,  Havey's most recent biography (by Stockton) would be the best source on that but I don't recall Harvey being in Spain during that period (62/63) or even earlier when he was on his fall 1960 Staff D recruiting trip in Europe - that took him to France, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg.  As far as 1963 goes, to my recollection he didn't make it outside Italy.  As CIA station chief in Rome, his duty station was pretty clearly in country.

Thanks Eddie, in answer I will say that personally I find considerable indication of "rogue action" before the assassination and a good bit of evidence that of concern at the highest levels of the CIA and NSC after the fact that there had been a rogue action, involving at least some CIA officers either in a conspiracy if not the attack itself.  I lay that out in considerable detail in NEXUS so there's no worry about disclosing my hypotheses, I haven't changed my views since I did that book

Bottom line, I think that the stimulus for the conspiracy was two fold, within certain exile social networks it was stimulated by JFK's actions in settling the missile crisis without ousting Castro and that "track" began as early as the winter of 62/63.   However I think a separate track opened up in spring 63 when Angleton began discussing the back channel communications with Cuba and Castro's outreach with Harvey.   That message was repeated at JM/WAVE by Harvey and Morales and a track 2 action to trigger action against JFK as a traitor began by late summer. 

To answer your question, I don't think Angleton did know the specifics of that conspiracy however he was certainly well connected enough to realize after the fact there had been one,  his "I don't know who struck John" would be literally true, just without the addition of "but I know someone did and I have my suspicions of who".

One of the indications of individuals suspecting that individuals in the exile community were involved comes by the secret investigation conducted using the Cuban Intel Group at JM/WAVE, an investigation Shackley about but which was performed and which likely never got out of Miami.  One good tactic to look for weaknesses is to do your own investigation and find out who is willing to expose you, and make sure they don't.
 

Hi Eddy,  I'll certainly try with some answers:

First, I see no evidence of Harvey himself being directly involved in organizing the Lumumba affair, that was coming directly from the office of the CIA Director who was himself responding to what he felt was an order from the President.  This chain of events is well documented at this point and I write a good bit about it in NEXUS.  The whole effort was ill conceived even from a tactical standpoint and is reflected in the fact that those involved including the two assets from Europe (whose main credentials were that both held Belgian passports) didn't know each other and that the Chief of Station was clueless about the whole affair.  He thought the messages he had been getting about removing Lumumba meant political action not assassination.  Harvey himself just came in on the end of that, how much he even knew about it is uncertain; the bottom line is that he was simply referred to QJ/WIN as an asset - a spotter - who could help in his new European recruiting efforts.  He was given other leads of the same nature for different countries.  Harvey certainly did not have the personal experience with assassination that certain of his predecessors, like Bissel, had.  You can tell from his own notes that when he received the assignment it was new to him and something he had to seek advice on to set up, especially at an executive assassinations level.  Harvey had not even been an operations field officer - someone like David Morales had been and had experience in tactical assassination projects as far back as Guatemala.

Second, while its no doubt RFK was the main figure in pushing new anti-Castro initiatives via the SGA circa 1963 and its also true that the Cuban exiles they were dealing with kept pitching killing Castro, exactly what Harvey had been doing in terms of assassination related to Mongoose may well not have been known to RFK -  and to what extent that Mongoose project continued may well have been compartmentalized as it had been earlier.  Certainly the fact is that Harvey went ballistic when the subject of assassination was even vaguely mentioned in Special Group meetings. That suggests that is was not something to be shared in any fashion other than within the circle of say Helms/Harvey/Angleton and whoever was told anything operational was the level of Morales at JM/WAVE operations. It appears to have been a Helms initiative project and he is the one who signed off on the budget Harvey was using. We do know that RFK also warned JFK about his back channel approach to Castro. 

It would be foolish for me to say that I fathom what was going on in RFK's head after the assassination. My best speculation is simply that he was aware of so many things both he and JFK had been doing that put JFK at risk that it was simply numbing.  I do believe both men knew that JFK was at risk, they were aware of threats but they were natively risk takers and had moved forward, when the worst happened it was simply too much for RFK, at least for a time. 

On your third point,  actually I've moved on to a concept of what I think of as Deep History.  I feel the term Deep State assumes far more coordination, structure and planning (and far more long term continuity) than what actually happens in the real world.  My history studies over periods of decades and centuries lead me to the view that real life is far more chaotic than that, with competing agendas and power struggles at virtually all economic and political levels.  For that matter I think the term Deep State has essentially been "stolen" and is currently being politicized, just as is the term fake news - adapted in daily use as a talking point for certain power bases and agendas.  My view is that you have to take "slices" of history and each slice may only last months or at most a couple of years as competing forces jockey for power and shift tactics.  Capturing long term patterns among those power shifts is what I attempted in Shadow Warfare and have moved on to in my new work Creating Chaos.  And I do find patterns, depressing patterns, patterns that are repetitive but not patterns that are tied to any particular Deep State construct.

Anyway, a long winded and rambling answer so I hope at least part of it was intelligible and helpful to some extent.

Special acknowledgement needs to be given to David Boylan for my remarks in regard to the most current names and references relating to WIROGUE - which I shamelessly  added without giving due credit during my presentation.... 

This was one of those very early things looked into by researchers in Dallas, I mention that because I've suggested how much good work was done in the early journals that nobody reads any longer.  In any event, turns out the order for decorations and floral arrangements for the Trade Center banquet was so massive that they literally bought up all he red roses on hand and hauled them off to decorate there - and by the time somebody got around to shopping for Jackie, only white roses were available. That is what the florist who provided the flowers told the local researchers.  I have no idea about the other stops, perhaps some photo research would answer that but my guess is they were red...

I'm surprised there hasn't been much in the way of questions or any discussion at all on this so I'll just post this interview on Killing King, which was quite focused and direct, for anyone that might be interested and leave it at that.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv/xzrs20180425ep1emlarryhancock

That sounds like something I would have done with Rex Bradford...for the MFF.  I've been talking about Nagell for a long time. The good news is that all those interviews should be on the MFF site, along with much more of course.  Certainly they were, I've just not looked at it in a long time.  Take a look before spending any time as it likely is available for viewing there. 

Very interesting, I'm not really sure where my clips would have come from, I've done video interviews with the Mary Ferrell Foundation and of course presentations at the Lancer conference...probably something I've just totally forgotten...

Hi Joe, gosh I thought I had lost that...grin.  I'm from Oklahoma and worked all over the US,  twelve years in California, 14 in Atlanta and even six in Boston.  At times the accent faded a good bit but my wife used to tell me the closer we got to Oklahoma on vacations the more it came back.  Now that I'm here again it seems to have taken full hold. 

In case anyone is interested I do have a thread going in the MLK section on Killing King and am happy to chat about the King conspiracy there.  Just didn't want to go off track in the JFK area.

for reference:  https://www.google.com/search?q=cadillac+hearse+1963&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIq_3Kk73aAhUFYawKHSs3DJYQ7AkIOw&biw=1126&bih=672