Larry Hancock

Gene, quite the contrary. You can find a good deal about their relationship and apparently Barry was quite close to Ethel too. My take on the remarks is that the Bureau stuff appears to be pure BS... If you do some searching you find Barry remained close to the entire family for years after the murder. But more directly to your point, according to witnesses if RFK had listened to Barry and gone off the stage into the auditoriaum and through the crowd as planned he would have avoided the pantry entirely. It appears rather than leading him there RFK chose that route - which he had preferred in the beginning, to avoid the crowds - and left Barry following along behind. https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/bill-eppridge-on-rfk-assassination/

Actually I don't think all parts of the MSM always gets everything wrong....the following is a pretty decent article. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/opinions/fidel-castro-promise-and-betrayal-garcia/index.html There was much blame on both sides in our relations with Cuba and Eisenhower jumped behind Dulles's program to overthrow Castro eagerly and with little hesitation even though he had pledged to wait and see....that didn't happen. Regardless of that, Jim's point about the executions is a good one. Castro immediately brutalized his revolution and with a nationalization program that went far beyond American interests and even Cuban agriculture - it literally chewed up the thriving middle class in Cuba. And Castro's public security measures were draconian; on the Stalinist model...all that was initiated well before the Bay of Pigs. I do think JFK could have moved Castro towards neutrality if he had been allowed to proceed with dialogs; whether Congress or the American public would have supported that is pretty questionable unless it involved a dramatic break from Russia. Did the U.S. give Castro a real chance, no. Did it throw away an opportunity to keep him out of the Soviet camp just as it had in Vietnam, yes. Does that justify the executions, the economic brutality and the suppression of what could actually have been a truly democratic revolution, nope - not in my view.

That certainly makes sense given that it was handed to him initially; its interesting that it bears the same number as an actual CE JFK document exhibit item related to Oswald, as you can see from the link i provided. Just a curiosity of course. My comments on a number of the Oswald related intelligence questions asked of Jones still stand though....

On the first question, it appears that JFK#94 is Oswald's unpublished manuscript: https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_94.pd The obvious question is why give that to Jones? The answer may be that they asked Jones a lot of questions about intelligence work, and about "spying", including his opinions on Oswald as an intelligence asset. Almost all of that was outside Jone's experience - although he answered anyway - and above his pay grade not to mention in regard to matters which would have fallen either outside military intelligence or with counter intelligence at best. They were questions that should have been asked of the CIA or even the subversive unit of the FBI. Which brings up the point once again that most of the staff in these investigations really had virtually no backgrounds for this sort of inquiry and should have had recourse to consultants to at least point them in the right direction as to both witnesses and questions. Much of Jones' testimony is so far outside his expertise I sometimes wonder if calling him rather than more relevant witnesses was just stupid or actually a diversion. Why not call the MIG people in Dallas if you are asking questions about 112th people in the Plaza, the ones the ARRB interviewed decades later? As to the Central Records Facility, it would have been at Fort Holabird but the records there were central files on personnel security investigations, the major mission of intelligence groups like the 112th. Any personnel security investigation file on Oswald would have been with the Navy or Marines. As far as Jones response, a reference to those files doesn't make much sense to me. https://books.google.com/books?id=ni7gk3-iY-EC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=army+central+records+facility&source=bl&ots=sOFOP_wBDV&sig=flVnA2RN0gIFkDzPoy-59rc2oLc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih-qvdw8bQAhWL54MKHYKcDLIQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=army%20central%20records%20facility&f=false On an after action report, that is interesting since a report of that sort might have been written if there had been some specially requested field deployment but such a report would have been retained at the local MIG office in Dallas or at headquarters in San Antonio. Since at one point in time Jones had served as ops officer for the 112th he should have known exactly where such files would be - but of course if there had been no security deployment there would be no after action report. The ARRB did interview the commander of the 112th and its records and found nothing of that nature - that's another story in itself but fortunately its in the internal files and available.

Steve, the military may indeed be called upon for security; if it involves their own facilities it is routine and involves no special request. This was discussed at length in the ARRB background work on the 112th, in interviews with their personnel and by reviewing the groups operations manuals. There were some instances in the Fall where military help was requested, primarily on the conservation tour. However those normally related to locations where there was not a major law enforcement presence. In that regard any call for support to OSI would be the same as the MIG, if it involves a base or a facility or transport from a landing site to a base you would expect to see them involved. Beyond that they could actually be called on for support by the Secret Service, but that would require a request and coordination. If you go through the transcripts and records of the Lawson/Puterbaugh planning meetings for Dallas you will find that did not, in fact there was not even a request for support beyond the DPD - specifically the Sheriff's office was not asked to participate. Study of the ARRB work on this issue is critical for understanding the confusion, including the fact that the HSCA called the wrong MIG officer to interview, Jones was intel at the time, not operations. They should have called the operations officer who would have been able to speak to any actual deployment of personnel. Even better they should have called the head of the Dallas MIG office. It is true that Jone's local contacts in Dallas, the Dallas field office were active that day but after the fact, you can see that in his communications and the info that is being passed back and forth.

Steve, first off I would refer you to the actual mission of the OSI, they like an Army military intelligence group would have had no role in Presidential protection unless it involved a visit to a military facility or some relatively remote location where the military was involved in logistics for the trip. The whole 112th stand down is truly in the class of a JFK myth; all I can do in that regard is to refer you to the ARRB inquiry into it, the related internal memos and their extended voluntary interview with Fletcher Prouty. Much of that should be online now; I put it all into my CD Keys to the Conspiracy offered by Lancer years ago. On the other hand, AFOSI as well as Army intelligence at the Regional level and for matter the Naval Investigative Service were all charged with background security checks and were routinely copied with information about groups ranging from the FPCC to the KKK. You find that relatively commonly in FBI CC's on reports, especially at the local field office level. Actually Army intelligence at all levels was frequently reorganized and re-designated as Army Groups themselves were restructured during overseas combat and following consolidations. Group designations changed frequently; same for OSI and its various groups. I happen to be working on the Air Force now and tracing any particular group over the decades is a major chore, although easier with all the military history and unit sites, than it used to be. Back to the document in question, given that both military intel groups and the FBI were involved in personal background checks and security clearances, the memo in question is pretty standard practice. It was not at all unusual to find the FBI involved with assisting in higher level security clearances for the military as well as the AEC.

Steve, OSI is almost certainly AFOSI or Air Force Office of Special Investigations. INTC is probably Army Intelligence Corps although that is something of an uncommon usage since its normally Military Intel Corps or MIC. It might be going to the 112th but it might also be going to a higher headquarters. AFOSI would have had a regional office at the time, not in Dallas. Its is a local FBI office memo out of Dallas or an FBI HQ memo, that would probably give a clue as to where it was really going.

I know Ian Grigg's explored that and I was with him when he questioned one DPD officer on the patch; as I recall the officers response was that it related to emergency medical assistance training/qualification of some sort. Its something that has come up over and over again through the years, wish I had a more concrete reference to offer. Its been bandied about for a long time

Chris, what I do know after looking into all the earlier Conein scenarios is that he was in Vietnam in October and November and there is a solid string of documentation on that including all his own communications in the weeks beforehand dealing with the coup and his efforts to get the targets of the coup out of the country. Afterwards he was called back to the US and put on the carpet to explain exactly how everything had gone wrong and to explain the murders and his own failure. As point man in the coup, in contact with the coup plotters he was on the radar constantly in DC and communications were ongoing. His trip back to DC is also documented. Now given all that, I could not find anything specifically stating where he was on Nov. 22 but I certainly find plenty of evidence that he had his hands full before and immediately after the coup. I also found that even with his position, he was unable to do something as simple as get access to an aircraft to fly the brothers out of the country as the coup was coming down - and if he couldn't do that, which was officially sanctioned with DC behind him it speaks poorly to his span of control,

Yep, and I'm trying to break it....disclaimer....if anyone expects me to worry about spelling on forum posts...do not read further, life is too short. I worry about it some when I write for publication but that's what editors are for...Jim, when you reach my age you begin parsing your concerns...grin

Yep, pretty much....now I'm off to spread more sunshine and smiles...

Ron, the same applies to Trump's campaign promise to immediately end sequestration and dramatically expand all the branches of the service -if you look at his stated level of military spending...including building up the Navy, an immense increase in aircraft (without that many more personnel for those services) and a huge Army build up it looks much like Reagan - which I don't see that Putin would cheer. So where is the money for that? Personally I'm totally at sea how he plans to fund many of his promised actions - but to some extent The Great Society of Johnson and the war in SE Asia represented the same intrinsic conflict and Johnson ignored that. So, your point is well taken but I'm afraid we don't have many good examples of restraint based on financial capability. Not to mention that if you look at the current supplemental budget for contingency military operations...meaning all the anti-jihadi warfare we are doing not, its huge all by itself. Going beyond what we are doing now would be nothing less than full scale warfare with all its expense and risks. Which of course takes us back to Congress..

In order to shift this thread back towards a bit more relevance to the JFK assassination, lets consider the foreign relations and military side of the coin again. Its not uncommon to hear the proposition that the goal of the assassination was to essentially "give the generals the war they wanted" in Vietnam. You even see quotes attributed to Johnson in that regard. Personally I've suggested that the war the generals (and admirals) wanted was really with Cuba...that was one they could win and win quickly. I've also suggested reading some of the great studies that actually explore Johnson's terrible relationship over time with his Joint Chiefs and his rejection of many of the military requests on SE Asia. But that aside, we do have a pretty clear picture of who was talking to Johnson, who was pushing him on Laos and Vietnam and the influence they had. Given that history what can we predict about the military course to be followed by our new President. Its pretty clear from the campaign that there is no majority military view pushing him or at least one that he respects - his remarks on the military have been extremely dismissive and critical. However there is one voice that seems to influence him and that voice leads back to the neocon roots of our current conflict across SW Asia. The following article gives us some insight into the officer who might become the key influence on the new President.... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/opinions/trumps-national-security-guru-general-flynn-bergen/index.html So who really convinced LBJ to fully jump into the muck of SE Asia, was it a host of people, a few, or his own personal political desire to look hard nosed for the 64 election (as the Tonken Gulf incidents might suggest). GWB swore there would be no nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq after 2001...he got his mind changed. Trump has sworn against nation building...but will someone or some few of the same ilk change his mind as well? In some ways Trump is very much like Johnson, does that give us any grip on projecting what Trump will do at yet another military tipping point?

"This (the meeting above) is all taking place at about the same time CIA was letting Harvey go, so I can't believe it's a coincidence that Roselli is calling Maheu and asking to talk to Edwards or O'Connell at the instant they are all having a "meeting".I'm looking at Joe Shimon's testimony now. I get the impression that Harvey was furious at Maheu and even mentioned to Roselli that he, (Maheu) should be killed in front of Shimon. Chris, just to be straight on the timing, this meeting is occurring as Harvey is being separated from the CIA. Of course that is the same time that everybody is trying to step away from Roselli over the FBI probes and pressure. I don't see it as hard to believe that Roselli would be asking for help over the FBI pressure from Harvey, but of course he was in no position to help him. Roselli's only other point of appeal would be via Maheu and O'Connell - but Maheu had no real leverage no matter what he might have claimed earlier and why would O'Connell even care. The only card Roselli held was the Castro assassination story, which he began to float in Washington in December, 66. Maheu himself was irate about how Roselli was being treated and but he is also on record as being angry about all the folks who began to appear to give Roselli advice on how to respond at that time...possibly encouraging him to use the Castro story. He talks about how much they were hanging out Roselli after using him. So, you have Maheu and Harvey both as close personal friends of Roselli and Roselli in grave trouble with the FBI and the FBI irritating the CIA again over the Castro plots. I see no particular reason why these folks would not be talking to and about each other at that point in time. What I don't see is why Harvey would be so mad at Meheau - even talking about killing him. Did he blame Meheu for starting the whole thing? Was Meheu giving Roselli some advice Harvey didn't like? So he's talking about killing Meheu in front of Roselli....is that just to cover up loose ends. I see no sign that Roselli himself hated Meheu or ever really broke off with him...what's Harvey's real problem here? The only thing I can figure is that Meheu had made a lot of promises which he had no power to really keep when it hit the fan. And of course the FBI knows all about these people and about Phase I from the bugging incident connected to Meheu...its not like anything knew could come into play other than Roselli himself going public with the story...which of course he did within a few months, but in a very controlled fashion, keeping his name out of the papers but known to all the real players.

Chris, doing this from memory but this was during the 1966 period when the FBI had determined that Roselli had entered the country illegally and was trying to pressure him into becoming an informant. At this point in time the FBI was communicating with the CIA trying to get info on him and possibly testing the waters to see if the CIA would in any way endorse or support him - which they did not. In turn Roselli was putting out his own feelers in regard to any possible CIA support. This all happened before Roselli dived off the deep end at the end of 1966 and began his bombshell effort to take a Castro blowback story to Washington (in a preemptive strike against the Garrison inquiry). So some of this correspondence may have to do with both agencies trying to get their stories and files straight on Roselli as the FBI was deciding whether he would cave in and become a crime informant or they would need to move to bring charges and deport him. It was certainly a confusing period since the CIA wanted nothing to do with it yet the FBI knew all the details of the Phase I plots (maybe not Phase 2), of Meheu's involvement etc. Basically there was a lot of probing, testing of the waters and dancing around by all parties concerned - with Roselli still under intense FBI surveillance and even harassment. And in 1967 it even got more intense with Jack Anderson's "Political H Bomb" story and Roselli and his representatives floating stories in DC and Johnson asking the CIA for briefings on the Castro assassination and everybody running around in a frenzy after the Garrison investigation became public.

Pat I follow you, although I don't so much see Meheu acting as a cut out or cover throughout all of Phase I. Once the initial contact had been made, with Roselli on board and actually operational he was was meeting and working with CIA guys directly in Miami throughout Phase I without Meheu. So why introduce him when it restarts, especially since Harvey very clearly wanted to separate Roselli from everyone who had been involved previously. Now if Roselli was gun shy and hesitant about going on, maybe Meheu had to be used to make the personal introduction and assure Roselli that Harvey was trustworthy, old school chum, salt of the earth, carries two guns, trusts nobody, lots better than the CIA wimps you were dealing with before, this time its really serious? Here is an interesting point though, we now know that Roselli was actually paid a substantial sum to participate in Phase I, it was not just expense money. I don't know that money has ever been discussed for Phase 2, however we do know that Helms funded ZR/RIFLE and I suspect that funding went for Castro assassination operations, with some to Roselli; it would be interesting to know how much. In any event, the more I think about it Meheu does make some sense in the first meeting with Harvey, primarily as a reference and giving a personal endorsement on Harvey's character. As we know, with Roselli it was all personal trust.

Robert, that could be a circus but check these two links on who might end up as the top Presidential advisor... and if you thought the neocons were dangerous, just ponder this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/steve-bannon-trump-chief-of-staff/ www.wired.com/2016/11/alt-right-will-fail-even-president-trump/

Oh no Jim, please don't associate me with Kissinger or his school of thought. My concepts go much further back, learned and stated by Acheson in the first years of the Cold War when Stalin was taking over nation by nation in Eastern Europe. Acheson simply noted that for the Russians, both diplomacy and negotiation are merely tactics, elements of their geopolitical strategy (whatever it is at the time). If that happens to be territorial expansion, as it was then, basically the key to negotiation is to demonstrate to them that something they want to do will cost more in resources than it is worth to them, if they see that they will not do it. If its not, they will. Purely a calculation, a calculus. JFK understood that quite well, we can see it in Berlin, we can see it in the missile crisis, and we can see it in the Congo. Acheson also appreciated that they prefer to use surrogates, in particular surrogate military forces if possible...let the Albanians go into Greece, provide the resources, arms, advisors and if you get caught just deny it - think Korea, think Ukraine, let your opponent bleed. JFK grasped this, you can see it in his plans to deal with Soviet clams on Berlin. It doesn't need to lead to conflict or combat - if you understand the calculus - and he did. The people you name were pursuing a much different approach, more like the neocon polemic - "rollback" is one term for it. That sort of approach can indeed lead to very bad things, in 1983 it almost led to nuclear exchange. Enough of that, as far as Kissinger, I consider him a war criminal, as to Rice, I would charge here with dereliction of duty over 9/11...nope, no fandom here.

Great work Chris! To some extent they seem to have similar personalities including being not that great a fit inside the FBI - or is that just my impression? I have to say the meeting thing is very confusing to me, we know O'connell helped arrange the deal to bring Roselli into Phase 1 of the project in 1960 and having Meheau involved as a broker makes sense to me. Harvey at that meeting makes no sense based on what we think we know. On the other hand, a meeting with Harvey, Roselli and O'connell when Harvey takes over Mongoose and starts Phase 2 makes great sense but I'm missing any obvious reason for involving Meheau again. Maybe I'm just getting lost and mixing up meetings?

Peter, I response to your raising the point of national security I suggest you read the link below if you have not; I have been blogging on Russia and Russian related national security issues and will be following up in that area with more blog posts. While I agree with Jim on certain issue in regard to things we could do to ease some tension with Putin, I have to say I am far more hawkish, mistrustful of Putin, and in general mistrustful of Russian foreign policy under Putin than Jim may be - I always like to be transparent when I'm being right wing...grin. Having said that, I think there are some venues to a rapprochement with Russia, but historically they are far better negotiators and far more ready to violate their agreements than the West has been, so caution has to be a watchword. If Trump thinks he can out negotate Putin he is sadly mistaken and it could be tragic. JFK knew had to "negotiate" national security with the Soviets; he should be used as an example of "best practices" but I'm not sure Trump looks to anyone in that regard. https://warisboring.com/donald-trump-wins-and-we-have-no-idea-what-will-happen-8de223692f1#.c0pi53gni

I just have to respond to Ron - unless I misread the popular vote totals, if you actually tallied the "droves" on pure head count Clinton would be President elect. But more seriously I think Peter has brought up a relevant point, we know that the WC did not trust the FBI and bemoaned relying on them for investigative research, we know that they felt Hoover would willingly withhold information from them - yet they forged ahead and rendered an opinion with virtually no investigative resources of their own and a staff that was not composed of criminal investigators or even legal professionals. They were pushing the FBI on evidentiary issues right up to the issuance of their report and even up to that point we know that FBI HQ was spinning the information being provided to them, the Odio inquiry being an example where the field offices were saying one thing and HQ another. In the JFK case the FBI was literally assigned to the WC, rather than acting under the Justice Dept as it would in a Federal crime investigation and prosecution; if you look at the MLK case you find the same thing with lots of documents showing that the FBI blindsided Justice and forced them out of what should have legally been a Federal crime investigation. And in 2016 we have the FBI Director bypassing Justice, even worse rejecting Justice legal opinions, violating all existing protocols about investigations in process and going directly to Congress. There seems to be a real pattern of the FBI being used as a tool by its own Directors - is that really the case, how do the Directors get away with it and do they have some motive other than purely individual career/political interests?

Very good post from Keillor Douglas, thanks! In reference to the JFK assassination, the up side of this is that the powers that be managed to close what happened to JFK down and render it over and done within 72 hours - then one and all moved into denial. At the same time Johnson managed to move aggressively and eliminate a very serious threat including criminal charges which was coming to a head in Congress. Mr. Trump's story is just beginning and will continue to be there for all, including his supporters, to see. We need to closely watch how long they can remain in denial...first up, a little matter of a court date over charges of fraud.

Jim, yes indeed I was talking about prior to 63 which is what I felt would be relevant to the assassination and what Pat had posted on in regard to any direct contact with Harvey circa 63. What would be going on post assassination wasn't what I was thinking of an although I know what Roselli was doing in some detail I couldn't speak to the Hughes connection to the CIA beyond his association as a cover company and contractor. I'm sure there was an extended relationship there, just something I don't have enough info to comment on...

Sandy, if you have not been through several decades of Tosh's statements yet then you just have not seen the full story. I mentioned early on how it had morphed and become more complex including the fact that he had been briefed by a senior CIA officer after the assassination which is why he now has be big picture. Which includes the President being advised that intelligence had lost contact with their informants and no longer had a handle on the attack - yet they allowed him to go forward in Dallas and he himself chose to do so. And in doing so they appear to have had no contact with their abort team, they failed no additional security assets on the route and they left Tosh and his buddy on their own just to wonder around the Plaza apparently looking for somebody with a gun? Which would be quite inconsistent with the security response to the much more limited threats that surfaced in Chicago and Miami. Certainly you don't need to take my word for it but on the other hand I have no special interest (or time for) in debunking Tosh any more than Judyth or Files or any other source I have found credible - nor in assembling links and sources to do so. Don't mean to sound harsh but I have other research and writing to pursue. I don't mind being regarded as a contrarian on any of those folks, I reach my own conclusions. I was being perfectly serious though, if you accept Tosh you need to do a lot more research, you need to go through all the documents on him, record all his stories to the FBI, to the media, to Jim, etc and then use that as the context for your research. Same as anyone accepting Files, Judyth or Roscoe White would need to do. If you take them as credible you need to take all their story line seriously and adjust your beliefs and scenario to them.

Meheu's connections were with the Office of Security, which typically vetted and recommended domestic assets to folks in CI and Staff D...which means both Angleton and Harvey. In regard to Roselli we have virtually day by day FBI surveillance on him beginning in 62. No sign of meetings with Harvey in Las Vegas, Roselli typically went to Florida for that. And given that Hoover and the FBI were already all over Mehau, the phase 1 Castro assassinations etc you can bet they would be watching for any further contacts with anyone from the CIA or for Meheu who was known to them from the earlier bugging incident. The FBI was watching Roselli closely enough to record all his contacts with Harvey, which proved bad news for both of them in the long term. Don't think Meheu ever showed up on the radar in that monitoring.