Larry Hancock

Cliff, I don't really know enough to comment on your question about Dunn. I don't find him on a list of CIA station chiefs nor do I see his name associated with CIA covert or overt military ops. His obituary states that "from 1963 until 1965, he was personal assistant to Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge in South Vietnam and executive secretary at the American Embassy in Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City" .

Certainly its clear, even in Richardson's own obit that Lodge appears to have maneuvered to get him out of his position in October, essentially creating a station vacuum as the coup jelled. Assuming that Dunn was playing a liaison role with the Vietnamese Generals - which would have certainly gone along with his assignment to Lodge - no doubt he could have pushed for the coup or even for murdering the brothers. Looks to me like that would be a Lodge play more than anything else - and games about moving station chiefs in and out over internal State/CIA battles are legendary. State had tried that with Hecksher in Laos but in that one CIA held firm.

Sorry, not able to shed much light on it.

Actually the fact that it was assigned a crypt indicates that it was an approved project and on the books from that standpoint. That means its funded out of regular CIA funds, budgeted within the Technical Services Division. Tech Services supported projects major project ranging from spy satellites to silent helicopters to specialty bugging and radio intercept gear the bio and drug projects under MK/NAOMI and MK/ULTRA. The CIA team that went into bug and steal codebooks from the Chinese embassy in Havana were Tech Services types...probably supported by guys from Staff D. Funds were dispersed to MK/NAOMI by project and well accounted for - actually its financing is one of the main reason we even know it even exists. If you want to find the real projects inside the CIA, even the assassination ones, you follow the money as usual and somebody has to sign off in a budget distribution. Those financial records and we have numbers showing MK/NAOMI was running about 500 million annually from 1950 to a high in the mid 60's. Of course we only have those records because Carter's Sec of Defense ordered an inquired into all CIA projects supported by the military. If you want the dirt on CIA, look for State and DOD revelations.

The real issue gets to be documentation. Normally field operations are run day to day with soft files, held locally as working references, and then with normal business and operational memos and reports back to headquarters. In this case the operations at the field level, at Fort Detrick, were ordered to be verbal only. We know of other instances, in particular assassinations projects, where the same was true. It doesn't mean its financially off the books, its just so volatile that its verbal only with no paper trial for the actual day to day operations. That protects individuals and also allows Congressional testimony or even IG internal investigations to be manipulated at will with no paper trail to worry about.

Gottlieb was perfectly willing to talk to Alberelli about MI/NAOMI but we have no way of corroborating what he said.

If you want a real lesson in off the books funding....take a look at Iran-Contra.....or the earliest involvement in Afghanistan against the Russians - that's when the CIA Director tells folks outside the Agency how to do things Congress won't fund and mentors them on where to go look for money.

Paul, I have to laugh at the idea that Hemming did not like public speaking...he was one of the most outgoing guys with the media you could find. I have seen him in what amounted to fund raising TV pleas for his group and he put together one fascinating media day for the press involving his and Sturgis group and some parachute jumps, one of which did not work out well at all. He was all over the Miami newspapers and on TV whenever he had a chance. Actually Hemming came across very well with the media, very sincere, strong spoken and not at all hesitant. Whatever else he might have been, he was a really great spokesperson and did quite well in public appearances - and I can verify that from personally seeing him speak in public.

Paul, we can all sketch out scenarios with logic, no doubt about that. I will say, and you know from my book, that there were rumors circulating about the JFK/Castro contacts in Miami, being carried by Cuban exiles that are named and certainly not connected to the logic you laid out. The CIA had known about Castro's outreach since Spring and it had definitely circulated down to Miami by August, spreading into select exile circles from there. Certainly by those rumors could have been making it back to New Orleans in a variety of ways. As far as I can recall Beckham never brought up anything of that nature in his statements in the Grand Jury inquiry or to the HSCA. You might want to check that; I'm afraid Mr. Beckham has added to his story a good bit over time so all I can do, as I did to Joan, is recommend caution on him as a source.

It would be impossible to say where he specifically was on that date - his duty station was in Miami - JMWAVE...which is not exactly next door to New Orleans. As operations chief Morales was expected to be on duty there unless he was either in DC in meetings or traveling to Mexico City. We do know he traveled to MC on occasion and that there was also a small JMWAVE group there, completely independent of the MC station and its own facilities. We also know some of the AMOT group traveled there for training MC surveillance staff.

Unfortunately to get any specific detail you would have to get his detailed travel and pay records, normally protected under personnel privacy regulations.

Paul, I've asked before that you show some direct connection between Morales and New Orleans and as I recall you referenced Joan Mellon' book. Could you give us something specific putting him in New Orleans, in contact with Bannister etc. Or could you show when and where he cane into contact with a Walker plot. Thanks to a lot of diligent work over the years we have a reasonably good picture of where and what Morales was doing in 1963. Everyone knows I believe that Morales was fully capable of going on his own and he did have people he trusted who could have influenced him. People he had been working with on assassinating Castro for example. But I know of nothing that would connect him to Bannister, Walker and a civilian plot already in progress....does Caufield's book connect Morales and if so please lay that out for us.

So that would mean that from way back to Cuba in 59 all the way through his AID job in Chile, Veciana mistook Phillips for de Morenschieldt ...including all the advice he was getting

from Phillips in forming Alpha 66 and the media Phillips managed to bring in for that announcement....seriously...

Well I can say I've reviewed Johnson's daily appointment book and call log for that period and I certainly don't recall one, I think it would have caught my attention - and that's where I did catch the short meeting in Johnson's office that was pure political dynamite when he was being investigated for Baker's influence pedaling. Of course Dulles could always have dropped by Johnson's house in DC informally or something like that but I don't think there is one on the record.

In any event, there definitely was not one at the Ranch, Johnson's time there is well tracked...

Yes Vince, I'm afraid that is an oldie that has been debunked over and over...its a stock photo put into a contemporary news article on the Texas trip. Several of us have done the homework on that, David Lifton was very likely first and there is no doubt about it. I've even seen the full set of ranch photos taken during Dulles 1960 visit...by a free lance author that got quickly kicked off the ranch for some unflattering snaps of Lady Bird and a horse...

Cliff, something else does occur to me. I do discuss in NEXUS that the senior CIA officers who were aware of the chemical project were Harvey , Angleton and the head of the Office of Security. That is because their respective groups were the actual users of the project's developments. Most of the CIA chemicals were non-lethal, to be use in security interrogations and of course in intelligence interrogations, especially in interrogation of suspected foreign agents or informants. There was one thing that Security and one of Staff D shared...that was the use of professional safe crackers, break in men and strong arm guys - they were all used to obtain foreign codes and code machines...one way or the other. It occurs to me that a poison delivery weapon would be very handy for them since they were often operating in "denied" areas and overseas. No time or connections to apply poison in a covert manner. One of the reasons the Office of Security had to be briefed on the Staff D contractors was that hey were pros, and when not in use could go off the reservation.

It also occurs to me that in the CIA assassination plans that we know about - which did use poison - the CIA turned to criminals or third party foreign assets to deliver the poison.

The only place I can recall where the Agency was really concerned about going head to head in the use of lethal poison was in Europe, especially in Germany....where the Soviets were using

poisons and some pretty high tech delivery tools. I can only guess what the dart gun might have been developed for but given the proclivity to always match Soviet weapons and the

fact that the CIA had actually lost defectors to Soviet poison attacks, that might be one place to look for the actual use of such a weapon.

David, I'll do this the best I can from memory.....originally in his NO Grad Jury testimony he said he had never met Oswald. However you should take a look at his HSCA interview; that's where I recall he talked about knowing Oswald and even meeting him on the street during the leafleting. You might find this in Joan's book as well or even in Caufield's interviews with him. which I see are on line. Now I have to say I don't trust Mr. Beckham on any detail I cannot independently confirm so at the time I started looking at the photos and found the wider angle which I keep talking about which shows him with the young Latina's. Having gotten his military and arrest records I knew he had just married an underage girl and I also knew he was working at a radio station in the neighborhood. After examining several photos I came to the conclusion that he had indeed been there probably had briefly spoken to Oswald who I suspect he did know from hanging around Bannister's young men who did street work for him.

Sorry, that's the closest I can get you from memory.

Cliff, I will leave you to your own interpretation, just as I do everyone else. You might want to try and contact Alberelli who knows far more about what was going on there and has seen much more

actual documentation on the projects and staff there than I have; he even interviewed some of them including Gottlieb.

Thanks Jim, and yes Tannenbaum will be there in person. He is very much involved with the Parkland Doctors movie and is coming along with its producer and some of the

Parkland Doctors. Some clips of interviews done from the movie will be shown. We hope to have several of the Doctors there; Debra and Lancer helped fund raise

for the final production cost of the movie we are hopeful we can help get some launch press for it. Ian Griggs will also be speaking about his long awaited book detailing his

decades long study of the DPD, - looks like that will finally make it to print and will be invaluable as background on DPD personnel.

I'm looking forward to Frazier but also to Mancuso given that many of us have been into the Rose Cherimie story for so long...it appears that he was indeed the toddler left

behind in Dallas, further validating that part of her story in regard to the drug smuggling thing out of Houston.

I wish I could have done Skype to the ROKC too but I had to tell Greg it looked too problematic with being in Dallas - wish you could have made it down there this year.

Paul, that's very interesting...does the book specify a date or give any sources to verify that Garrison abandoned his initial inquiry out of personal fear...that is very contrary to his image. I'm sure the book must give some hard evidence of that so I'm interested in what it cites...thanks. Also, since you would have to consider Ferrie and Shaw as pretty right wing, is his shift to prosecuting Shaw actually a shift away from the right?

Its up to you guys to decide...you have a statement from someone who says he was there, and talking to Oswald and someone resembling that person is captured in several photos...including the wide angle one with the girls

I mentioned..

If you decide it is Shelly then it would be good to place him in New Orleans, prove he was not at work in Dallas that day and also come up with a reason why he would have been in New Orleans and would appear with Oswald in public

while lots of photos were being taken.

It might even be good to make sure that the whole series of photos shows the suspect as separate from the photo I described with the girls.

Personally I've just become pretty demanding on myself is identifying folks in JFK related photos. I hesitated to even comment on this as its come up before on different forums and occasions but I figured you should at least consider Beckham.

Yes I would suggest it was Beckham, especially since he testified he was there at the leafleting and spoke to Oswald. This has been discussed numerous times before. Nope, I don't have a scanner but its been posted before in similar discussions. Its one of those many things that constantly recycles.

I think if you keep looking you will find a wide angle photo which shows the man in question to the right of the leafleting with a group of young girls. Suggest you compare that and you will find he is much younger, was a local DJ

at the time, had just married an under age Latino which got him charged with statutory rape and he would later talk of having been personally at the leafleting, knowing Oswald and a great many other things - he would go on to

become a traveling minister, singer and become involved in a number of scans and con games with Fred Chrisman....that should be enough clues.

Well as long as we are talking conferences, you can find a list of speakers for the JFK Lancer conference at the following link and the schedule is on the site as well.

http://jfklancer.com/Dallas2015/speakers.html

In addition to the Friday and Saturday presentations we will be having authors tables and a meet and greet on Saturday afternoon with additional participants

including Peter Dale Scott and Robert Tannenbaum as well as some additional guests including Parkland Doctors. Buell Frazier will be speaking in the evening as will

another additional presenter not yet on the schedule, Michael Mancuso - Rose Charemie's son.

Sunday morning we have added a panel at the conference hotel and then a series of crime scene sessions actually in the Plaza.

You'll find it in AGOG, just look under C in the index. Just kidding Paul, but we do mention the party, its cliques and both Milteer's association with it and as I recall

Sommersett's remarks about covert goings on at some of its conferences. David Boylan provided us with some good material on the party. Stu and I discuss such meetings

in conjunction with certain individuals in Florida and possibly California that were supposedly being formed with the intention of targeting national leaders and Jewish financial magnates.

Sommersett even provided names in some of his informant reports.

I think I would take exception to his characterization of those specific Constitution party cliques as the most dangerous groups...within the ultra right Stoner's very hard core inner circles

and Wesley Swifts CI inner circles were far more dangerous in terms of actually carrying out attacks and not just talking about it. And of course that's just within the ultra right...

It would be helpful if someone in Dallas could take a listen to the following, listed on the Sixth Floor Museum web site. The listing would suggest that Briggs was indeed an employee of the design firm....but engaged in research....

The former executive director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Briggs spent one year working on research for The Sixth Floor project in the Washington, D.C., offices of exhibition designers Bob Staples and Barbara Charles. Recorded February 16, 200

http://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-names/?alpha=B

His oral history is listed as being available at the Museum. Which also raises the question, given his career history, as to why he would have given an oral history related to the assassination. Should be a fascinating interview.

Very good point Chris, I have to admit that if I knew something about Briggs I've forgotten it...sigh. But its sort of like calling a former officer involved in Cuban penetration missions back to

debrief guys that were involved with a Castro assassination project.....pretty clear what was going on there. I'm beginning to wonder if a "protection" mission would explain Brigg's extensive

consulting work after his retirement. Wonder if a FOIA for his contracting files would be in order.

Actually I think this may be a lot more significant than anything to do with the Sixth Floor Museum per se.

The CIA does not play games. The CIA is not going to use an extremely expensive, former senior officer, under contract, and put him under commercial cover as

a consultant to a design and display company for fun or simple curiosity.

However we do have examples of how they have brought back retired officers to do some very specific debriefs and to work as liaison with investigative committees.

This is the first case I can recall of going to far as to actually put them under cover with an element of deniablity....which Gary Mack repeated and Gary was really

to sharp not to know what was going on with such an individual as Briggs....or certainly should have been.

The appears to me to be one of the few absolutely concrete pieces of evidence that suggests there is an ongoing and very real national security concern relating to

Lee Oswald or to something in regard to the assassination that would lead them to put not just a low level agent but a very long time and highly cleared

officer in place to scan and examine everything going on display in a new public venue devoted to Oswald and the assassination.

Sorry, I think in focusing on the museum its a case of not seeing the forest for the trees....

OK, the CIA brought a former very senior officer back on contract.....and one of his assignments was to be "hired" by the exhibit designers to fact check the designs and content? That's one of the most

entertaining things I've ever seen. Was he double dipping? Or was it a standard Agency cover to have a view into what the Museum was showing and telling before it opened. I'm betting on the latter and

that when his obit says "liaison" it implies a direct Agency relationship during his work with the Museum - and it was just that. A classic cover for domestic activities, just like putting Hunt in an Ad agency.

Well given that Wilson's sentence was ultimately overturned due to discovery of a host of communications with the CIA while he was engaged in his contract work that doesn't argue well for Briggs credibility....of course

that would have all be compartmentalized so as usual a statement from a CIA headquarters type about anything can be perfectly sincere and also perfectly bogus. Its designed to work that way.

I'm not even sure that Gary Mack was there during the initial formation of the Museum or in a position to know but did he deny that Briggs was involved or did he come up with some sort of innocent explanation?

That's a real leap for me Cliff.....I know you lean that direction but I just have to fall back on the view that if I am CIA and organize an assassination of the President

the last thing I want to do us use my highest level covert weapons, which might or might not be traceable after the fact. But if I did it would certainly'

be an untraceable poison delivered in a manner to produce effects very consistent with his preexisting health problems.

Your choice though, we have a pretty good idea of what Tech Services was developing but automatically assuming it would be used in the

Dallas attack is another story entirely.

As far as I can tell it would not be at all strange to find military officers in SOD working for Army projects and assigned to support the CIA project -

assuming that automatically makes them suspects in an attack in Dallas is something I'll have to leave to you.