Paul Trejo

Yes, of course, Ernie, I'm using the word, "reports," in the most generic sense of that word. I realize -- because you endlessly remind everyone here -- that the FBI themselves have very specific definitions for the terms "Report," and "Informant" and so on. Yet I'm not speaking to the FBI. I'm speaking to ordinary English speakers, who are aware of the multiple meanings of English words, and don't need to be reminded to read in context. The very EXISTENCE of dozens of documents from the FBI acknowledging that Harry Dean spoke to them about the FPCC and the John Birch Society is ample evidence for my statements -- and I don't need to catalog each document here (endlessly) to support every sentence I say. That has already been done (endlessly) in the context of this (very long) thread. Harry Dean gave "information" (in the most generic sense of that word) to the FBI from 1961-1963 about the FPCC and the John Birch Society, and we have the FBI documents to prove it -- and no, I'm not going to catalog each and every one for this group of educated readers. They are already well-known. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Larry, I agree that a statement to this effect would be a power-driver if it can be found in Walker's personal papers BEFORE 11/22/1963. So far I've not found that -- but I do have something from 11/23/1963 -- so it's VERY CLOSE. Actually, in 1963 and 1964 this statement by Walker was well-known to the JFK Research Community -- it involves a German newspaper named Deutsche Nationalzeitung and it went to print on the weekend after the murder of JFK. Still, the interview itself occurred on 11/23/1963 -- less than 24 hours after the murder of JFK. The call took place around 7am the next morning, as Walker called a German newspaper (but told the newsman to claim that they called Walker instead). It seems Walker could not wait to tell SOMEBODY that Lee Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963. It's worthwhile reviewing this snippet of Walker's testimony for the Warren Commission on this. Yet before we get into it, some background is in order, according to the best of my recollection. (1) There is no such person as Hasso Thorston -- that is the pen-name for Helmet Hubert Muench, a news reporter in Munich, Germany, writing for the Deutsche Nationalzeitung. (2) The editor of that newspaper was the ultra-right-wing publisher, Dr. Gerhard Frey, who was possibly befriended by Walker when he had a command in Augsburg Germany (1959-1961) (3) The article itself is about four pages long and can be found on the Mary Ferrell Web site. (4) The article is a transcript of a phone call interview between Edwin Walker and Helmet Muench early in the morning after the murder of JFK. (5) In this interview, Edwin Walker tells Helmet Muench that Lee Harvey Oswald was also his own shooter back in 10 April 1963. (6) Dr. Gerhard Frey advised Muench to change his name, and to obscure parts of the interview, e.g. to suggest that it was Muench who first made contact with Walker, rather than the reverse. (7) As soon as the article came out, the German FBI (BKA) arrested Helmet Muench and made him talk. Muench confessed to using Hasso Thorsten as a pen-name, and to the source of his information -- the resigned US General, Edwin Walker. This article also became known to US citizens who could read German. Here is a link to the headline page of that weekend report (found among Walker's personal papers): http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg We must bear in mind that the FBI did not officially learn that Lee Oswald was Walker's shooter until the first week of December, 1963, when Marina finally told them. So -- the Warren Commission wanted to know, urgently, how Edwin Walker knew this fact even before the FBI knew it. OK, with that background in mind, let's review Walker's testimony to the Warren Commission: ----- Begin excerpt of the 23 July 1964 testimony of Edwin Walker to the Warren Commission ----- Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Helmet Hubert Muench? General WALKER. That name is not familiar to me. Can you give me anything to refresh me? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. He is a West German journalist who wrote an article that appeared in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldatenzeitung, a Munich, Germany, newspaper. General WALKER. No; I don't know him. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to him? General WALKER. Not that I know of. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in which you told him about the fact or the alleged fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life? General WALKER. I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't speak German. Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a copy of that newspaper? General WALKER. Yes; I have. Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, I suggest that you have seen the November 29, 1963, copy of that newspaper which had on its front page a story entitled in German "The Strange Case of Oswald", that told about how Oswald had allegedly attacked you. General WALKER. November 29, that is correct. Mr. LIEBELER. Now, where did that newspaper get that information, do you know? General WALKER. I do not. There was an article in the paper that he probably got from me. Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in fact, the issue of that newspaper has right on the front page what purports to be a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and some other person. General WALKER. Thorsten? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Hasso Thorsten, is that the man? General WALKER. He called me in Shreveport. Mr. LIEBELER. When were you in Shreveport? General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7 a.m. Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you? General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information -- I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a record here that indicates when you were in Shreveport? General WALKER. I don't know that I have a record here. I can tell you definitely when I was in Shreveport. Mr. LIEBELER. Would you? General WALKER. Well, starting back to make the record clear, I had a speaking engagement in Hattiesburg, Miss., either the 18th or 19th of November. I went from there to New Orleans and stayed 2 or 3 days. I was in the airplane between New Orleans and Shreveport about halfway, when the pilot announced that the President had been assassinated. I landed in Shreveport and went to the Captain Shreve Hotel and stayed there two nights and returned to Dallas and was walking into my house, just about the time of the immediate rerun of the shooting of Oswald. I had been out of the city on speaking engagements. Mr. LIEBELER. The question was, when were you in Shreveport, and when did you talk to this man? General WALKER. I was in Shreveport the night of the 23d and the night of the 22d. Do you have a transcript of my conversation with Mr. Thorsten? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, sir. General WALKER. Sir? Mr. LIEBELER. I have what appears to be that; yes. General WALKER. Where did you get that? Mr. LIEBELER. It is apparently taken from the newspaper. The newspaper itself had a transcript printed right in it. General WALKER. I believe the article you referred to in the newspaper was separate from the other article in the paper which evolved out of the conversation. Mr. LIEBELER. Now so that there were in this particular issue of the newspaper two transcripts of a conversation between yourself and Thorsten, and also a story about how Oswald had allegedly fired at you, is that correct? General WALKER. In the newspaper I remember two separate articles. One based upon the conversation we had between us, as he understood it, and then as a separate article which I consider that the newspaper had done on its own. Mr. LIEBELER. What was the separate article about? Did that have any reference to the fact that Oswald had allegedly fired at you? General WALKER. Yes. As I remember the article, it alleged that Oswald was the one that had fired at me, and that this had been known earlier, and that this had been known and that nothing was done about it. And if something had been done about it at that time, he wouldn't have been the man that--it wouldn't have been possible for him to have killed the President. Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, did you tell anybody from this newspaper that Oswald had shot at you and that this had been known prior to the time of the assassination of the President? General WALKER. No; I did not. I wouldn't have known it. It was much later that they began to tie Oswald into me, and I don't even know it yet. Mr. LIEBELER. And you certainly didn't know it before November 22? General WALKER. Or the morning of the 23d, certainly not. I was very surprised to see the article. Mr. LIEBELER. So the best of your recollection is that you never provided them with the information? General WALKER. I did not. I didn't know it at the time of this conversation at all. I didn't know it until I started reading the newspaper, which would have been later than then. Mr. LIEBELER. I think that is right, so that you only had two conversations with these people, is that correct? General WALKER. In connection with this incident, as I remember, there was a call back to verify something on the original conversation? I don't remember how the conversation came about. There were two telephone conversations; right. Mr. LIEBELER. They both took place while you were down in Louisiana, the 23d and the 22d of November? General WALKER. The first one was 7 o'clock in the morning the 23d, and it woke me up. Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't have the faintest idea that Oswald had taken a shot at you and you didn't make a statement to that effect to the newspaper? General WALKER. No; I didn't know. Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't make a statement to the newspaper or anybody connected with it at any other time, isn't that a fact? General WALKER. No. ----- End excerpt of the 23 July 1964 testimony of Edwin Walker to the Warren Commission ----- Notice that in that interview, Walker again denies to the Warren Commission that he ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald before 11/22/1963. He repeats it and insists upon it. Yet to Senator Church, as we saw -- Edwin Walker quickly admitted that he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald by Easter Sunday, 1963. Nor is the letter to Senator Church (or this German article) in any way unique or even rare. This was one of the most common themes inside the personal papers of JBS member, Edwin Walker. In future posts I will share more of such letters and memos by Walker to this effect. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Dale, this is the proper objection to my theory -- namely -- the TIMING of the cover-up. I am willing to retract my latest claims if you can show that any of these 11/22/1963 COVER-UP activities occurred before the HOOVER HOUR. How do I define the HOOVER HOUR? J. Edgar Hoover decided approximately ONE HOUR after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, that there had to be one shooter and one shooter only, and that he could not have had any accomplices of any kind. All accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald were to be officially DENIED, even forcefully so, decided Hoover. He immediately conveyed his reasoning to LBJ, and LBJ quickly accepted it. That was the start. That was the HOOVER HOUR. Now - according to my theory, all of the COVER-UP activities that you mention occurred AFTER the HOOVER HOUR. This would have been by Presidential mandate, and would have been most thoroughly promoted by the FBI in the field, who would do literally anything for J. Edgar Hoover. If somebody has hard evidence to show that any COVER-UP activities in the JFK murder occurred before that time, I will go back to the drawing board. I don't think you can show it. Because of Jim Garrison and also Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, there is a strong bias in the JFK Research community that the murderers of JFK and those who COVERED IT UP were exactly the same people -- all working together. That is where Garrison went wrong, IMHO. The killers of JFK wanted to frame Oswald as a COMMUNIST. The Cover-up people wanted to demand that Oswald was a Lone Nut. They were AT ODDS. LBJ and the FBI followed J. Edgar Hoover, it seems to me -- and this all began approximately ONE HOUR after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Why? In my theory, Hoover instantaneously realized WHO had killed JFK and WHY they did it -- to start a war with Cuba and the USSR. Hoover could not let them get away with it, because it would have led to World War Three. This is what he told LBJ, and LBJ sided with Hoover. I think history will bear me out on this. THE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT LIE WHEN THEY SAID THAT SECRECY ABOUT THE JFK MURDER WAS A QUESTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I agree with this, David. I would start by using official CIA titles and hierarchy as the apex. We would then see that the people named by Jim Garrison were never CIA officers at all. We would see that the people named by Joan Mellen were also below the level of CIA officer. It would be very interesting to see this fully plotted out. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., there are many reasons I keep defending the CIA high-command: (1) Most JFK Researchers have been blaming the CIA for the JFK murder since the days of Jim Garrison -- and this still hasn't solved the JFK murder. (2) Blaming the CIA high-command for the JFK murder fails to satisfactorily identify the ground-crew. (3) There is not enough hard evidence to blame the CIA high-command -- and researchers just feel free to express their political opinions about it. That's not good enough. (4) It's easy -- all too easy -- to just blame the CIA and be done with it. (5) The evidence being used to blame the CIA high-command is even shakier than the evidence used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald. It's hypocritical to demand solid evidence for Lee Harvey Oswald, but to accept shaky evidence for the CIA high-command. (6) Suspicion is a far cry from hard evidence. (7) Yes, Garrison was ahead of his time, and in fact in 1968 there was probably no other conclusion that a bright person could draw. Joan Mellen rode on the coat-tails of Jim Garrison, so that even in the 21st century she can make a considerable splash. But to blame the CIA with such shaky evidence was THE VERY REASON that Jim Garrison failed, and why Joan Mellen will also fail to solve the JFK murder. (8) It's no use, Paul B., to simply say that the CIA SOP and plausible denial explains EVERYTHING and so that's that. I don't accept that. I demand something more solid. (9) The good news is that there are more solid leads in the JFK murder -- just not surrounding the CIA high-command. (10) No way do I ignore CIA SOP or plausible denial -- but I simply demand more. (11) Yes, Morales and Hunt were clearly involved (by their own admission). But they were middle-level CIA officers. (12) Maybe Phillips and Harvey were involved, but maybe not. Phillips was focused on killing Fidel Castro. So was Harvey before 1963, but in 1963 Harvey was drinking himself to death in Italy. (13) I don't expect to find the magic memo showing that the ground crew was ordered by the CIA high-command -- but that's not the only criterion I would accept. (14) There are material evidences that are available and that I use as logistics. For example, the timing of the shooting, the direction of the shots, the number of fake Secret Service Agents on the Grassy Knoll, the role of Jack Ruby, the role of the Dallas Police, the role of the Mayor, the role of the Police Chief, the political scandals of Dallas in the month before the shooting, the predominance of the ultra-right in Dallas, the lies of Edwin Walker, the connections of Edwin Walker with Guy Banister and with Gerry Patrick Hemming. There is just so much more to consider than the CIA high-command. (15) The reason I draw such a hard-line at Morales and Hunt is because they CONFESSED, and I can't deny them. (16) Also, Bill Simpich proved scientifically that CIA officers *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, trying to link his name to KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. Yet because Morales was also active in Mexico City (as in Latin America generally) by using OCCAM'S RAZOR I will posit that Morales was behind the impersonation, and that he used his own, lower-level "operatives" to help him there. (17) I would deny all involvement of the CIA if I could -- but I can't. I must include Morales and Hunt and their immediate underlings and quislings. But they are far from the CIA high-command. (18) The reason I'd absolve the CIA is simply to see how far the argument can go -- and to divert more energy and more focus on the non-CIA players, namely, the ultra-right wing activists in Dallas and New Orleans. Jim Garrison started this ball rolling, but he couldn't get any traction on Dallas, and so he had to give it up with a whimper. (19) Bill Simpich proved that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt looking for the *impersonators*. Now, since the impersonators were working hard to frame Oswald, and the CIA high-command had no idea who they were, then we should conclude (at least tentatively) that the CIA high-command was cut off from secret plans of David Morales. (Howard Hunt said he was on the sidelines, so possibly even Hunt didn't know everything that David Morales had planned.) (20) As for Harry Dean's story -- perhaps you've been misled by Ernie Lazar -- the ample FBI documentation we have shows that the main contours of Harry's story stand firm -- he really was an FPCC Secretary, and he really did supply reports to the FBI about the FPCC. Harry really was a JBS/Minuteman pawn, and he really did supply reports to the FBP about the JBS/Minutemen. The FBI documents prove that all this is true. (21) As for the crux of Harry Dean's story -- his eye-witness account of General Walker leading the plot against Lee Harvey Oswald -- I accept it because it fits in with my larger theory (which I developed before I met Harry Dean). As I said before, it's not Harry Dean that convinces me that General Walker was the leader of the JFK murder plot -- but the reverse -- Harry Dean only CONFIRMS what I already suspected based on evidence I found in General Walker's personal papers. (22) As for how I view the FBI and CIA -- here's the explanation. I'm trying to develop a theory that focuses on the right-wing of 1963 in Dallas and New Orleans (and to a lesser extent in Southern California). That's my focus. The more time goes forward, the more confirmation I find. CIA Rogues were part of it, but even they were a MINOR part of it -- and not the leaders as Larry Hancock and Joan Mellen opine. (23) The main push-back I get from JFK researchers is from: (i) those who want to blame the CIA and be done with it; (ii) those who want to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent; and (iii) those who want to blame LBJ. Sorry -- those theories just don't convince me. They are too facile. They don't dig deeply enough into the politics of 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I agree, and I think it's important to emphasize this point, so I thank you and David Andrews for this detour. It's important because even great researchers like Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen would gather a motley of CIA mercenaries or "operatives" in a suspect list, and then refer to them in broad brush strokes as "all CIA". That approach fails to break out the ground-crew from the leaders -- and it has the overall effect of presuming that the leaders were in the CIA high-command. This, IMHO, is the key weakness in the otherwise great research of Garrison and Mellen. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks, Larry, for the invitation to share something from Edwin Walker's personal papers currently in storage at UT Austin. One of the things we all look for with regard to testimony and documentation is the occurrence of blatant contradiction. Today I'd like to share such a contradiction. This contradiction is between Edwin Walker's testimony to the Warren Commission in July 1964, and a personal letter that he sent to Senator Frank Church in June 1975. In his testimony to attorney Wesley Liebeler, Walker said he had never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until 11/22/1963, but in his letter to Senator Frank Church, Walker admitted that he had. It's noteworthy, IMHO, that the authorities never followed up on this blatant contradiction. Here are the documents: ------------------------- Begin extract of Warren Commission testimony of 23 July 1964 -------------------------------- Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department investigated this attack on you that occurred on April 10, 1963? They sent men out there and talked to you and took some pictures? General WALKER. ...Right; they did. Mr. LIEBELER. Did they discuss with you any possible suspects that they might have come up with, any leads they had on it as to who might have been involved? General WALKER. I don't recall that they did. They may have, and I may have told them who had been in and about around the house, or who had worked for me. I don't recall this definitely, but the records will probably show. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any records like that here? General WALKER. No; I don't. Mr. LIEBELER. Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald come up in connection with this investigation in any way at that time? General WALKER. No; it didn't. Mr. LIEBELER. You never even heard of Oswald? General WALKER. ...I have no information of Oswald's name ever being mentioned in my house, and I had never heard of the name with regard to the individual we are referring to at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time. Mr. LIEBELER. You have never heard of any connection until the assassination? General WALKER. Until his activities of November 22... ------------------------- End extract of Warren Commission testimony of 23 July 1964 -------------------------------- OK, we can see Edwin Walker's very specific, plain statement to the effect that he never heard of Oswald, even stating, "I had never heard of the name...at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time." Walker wanted to wipe the slate clean of any suspicion of contact with Oswald before Oswald became globally infamous. (We should recall in the context that Walker was accompanied by his own long-time attorney Clyde Watts during his questioning. Watts, along with another Dallas attorney, Robert Morris, got Edwin Walker acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury for his role in the Ole Miss riots of late 1962.) There is some chance that this blanket statement of denial of any knowledge about Lee Harvey Oswald was made on advice from Walker's counsel. Nevertheless, there it is, in sworn testimony -- Walker's denial of any knowledge about Lee Oswald prior to 11/22/1963. Now for the blatant contradiction. On 23 June 1975 Edwin Walker wrote a letter to Senator Frank Church, who was heading up the Church Committee on JFK, and asked him to re-open the investigation of his own 10 April 1963 shooting in this regard. In this letter, Edwin Walker plainly states that he had information about Lee Harvey Oswald back in April, 1963. I could type in the letter -- it's quite short. But I think it's more helpful for people to see it on Walker's letterhead with Walker's signature at the bottom, as it appears in Walker's personal papers. Here's the link: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf That's my opening salvo, Larry. Again, many thanks for requesting information about the personal papers of Edwin Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, David, your point is well taken. If everybody else here agrees to this nomenclature, I have no problem adopting it from now on. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, I still think this lets Angleton off the hook -- unless more proof is offered, it is still suspicious but inconclusive. As for knowing it was not Lee Oswald (alone), that is nothing new anymore, since even in 1979 the official position of the US Government about the murder of JFK as told by the HSCA is that JFK "was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy." So, that's not news anymore. No important researcher since 1979 has ignored the HSCA. No important researcher since 1979 has promoted the Single Bullet Theory -- as it's sad that 35 years after the HSCA the public is still debating about the "Lone Assassin." That's the sad state of JFK research literature today. The second sad result is that suspects are just blamed willy nilly -- without even the circumstantial evidence that was produced to falsely convict Lee Oswald as the "Lone Assassin." We hear nonsense that LBJ killed JFK, or that the Mafia did it (on their own) or some such nonsense. Well, you're right about one thing, Paul B. -- the heart of my argument about the JFK murder is that the ground-crew matters. Yet I should emphasize at this point that the ground-crew that we can definitely name today does not necessarily remove all suspicion about David Atlee Phillips. We know, for example, that Phillips (alias Maurice Bishop) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald by Antonio Veciana in Dallas in September 1963. So, Phillips touches the ground-crew. That increases our suspicion. Yet Phillips responds to this in Night Watch by suggesting that he was training Lee Harvey Oswald for a hit on Fidel Castro. This is plausible because Antonio Veciana was a major supporter of attempts on the life of Fidel Castro. So, Phillips has a plausible alibi. The ground-crew matters! Mainly those who want to make a political statement -- some sort of anti-Republican statement, perhaps -- will continue to ignore the ground crew and speak of the murder of JFK in broad, generic terms -- and claim that it doesn't matter who gave the orders, or who comprised the ground-crew. Larry Hancock is willing to speculate on the ground-crew, however he finds them *all* to be close to the CIA -- as lower-level assets (i.e. not actual, salaried CIA Agents, but mercenaries under their control with "plausible denial.") Even that is too vague, IMHO. I want to see the names of *all* of the ground-crew, and also to see their ranking -- to see the captains among them, and the role they played in the Jim Garrison scenario. Jim Garrison went to a lot of trouble to expose the New Orleans ground-crew -- and they need to be linked to the topmost leaders of the JFK plot at highest priority! I find the ground-crew members whom we can name today to be suspiciously close to the John Birch Society -- and the Dallas arm of the John Birch Society is stinky as hell in this mess. The Warren Commission volumes (sans its pre-fab conclusion) should be revived again -- a half-century later -- to show the street-level detail about how this fit together, and how people in 1963 identified the puzzle pieces. This is truly empirical evidence -- and only this evidence will finally resolve the JFK murder. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

This is intriguing stuff, Larry. My wild guess about why would be this: Phillips figured out that David Morales and Howard Hunt were involved in the JFK plot, along with a number of their regular "operatives", like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, and sundry others in that circle. In order to let David Morales know that somebody higher up in the CIA finally figured out that David Morales was leader of the ROGUES from inside the CIA, David Atlee Phillips sent an unsuspecting journalist to Morales' home with advice that Morales had some good "war stories" to tell. Naturally, Phillips knew that David Morales would explode in rage. That was a dirty trick -- David Morales probably had more to hide than any other CIA Agent in the 20th century. And David Atlee Phillips knew that very well. Phillips did it on purpose, just to make Morales jump, and to let Morales knew what he *could* do if he only wanted to. Making Morales jump was also a form of PROOF -- the sort of proof that Phillips was looking for, to confirm his suspicions. Anyway, that would be my guess. Perhaps this is what Phillips meant, IMHO he admitted near the end of his life that CIA people were involved in the JFK murder -- but he wouldn't name any names for history. David Morales was a beaten man, IMHO, after he saw to it that the Kennedys were eliminated, but Cuba was STILL Communist! All of his efforts to liberate Cuba -- for decades -- proved to be futile. No matter what else Morales accomplished, he would always have Communist Cuba as a thorn in his side. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Larry, that might be an overstatement. When seeking out trouble-sources in a University, for example, one of the first things that psychologists do is seek out the people who were shooting off their mouths. I certainly agree that more people talk boldly than act boldly. That's true. But in almost every case of a social disaster, the culprits were giving themselves away fairly regularly -- but their associates didn't report it. So -- let's just not write off people who were shooting off their mouths. For example -- let's take some people who shot off their mouths that we know about: 1. Lee Harvey Oswald (I'm A Patsy!) 2. Jack S. Martin (to Jim Garrison) 3. David Ferrie (to Jim Garrison) 4. Frank Sturgis 5. Johnny Roselli 6. John Martino 7. Richard Case Nagell 8. Loran Hall 9. Gerry Patrick Hemming (to A.J. Weberman) 10. Thomas Edward Beckham (to Joan Mellen) And the list goes on. Do you doubt the involvement of these people, just because they shot off their mouths? Actually, most of what we know from Jim Garrison first came from Jack S. Martin, to be confirmed by David Ferrie. One of the keys of my own theory is that I take first-person eye-witness claims VERY seriously. Furthermore -- as for Loran Hall -- even Jim Garrison interviewed him at great length. Also, Gaeton Fonzi explored his involvement as far as he could. He's there in Dallas on that day, and he admitted associating with people who offered him big money to kill JFK. He lied about the Silvia Odio episode -- very plainly. Furthermore -- as for Harry Dean's claims -- FBI Agents themselves told Harry that he only overheard "wishful thinking" among big talkers shooting off their mouths. Harry knows that's a possibility. He even hoped that this was a possibility. However, the naming of Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy is the kicker. That can't be just "wishful thinking." Furthermore, I don't doubt that Joseph Milteer was involved, just as FBI Agent Dale Adams insists to this day, although probably at a very low level. It wasn't just his boasting on tape -- it was his photographed presence in Dealey Plaza at the moment of the JFK shooting -- that is the harder evidence. I admit -- and Harry Dean admits -- that listening to ultra-right-wing guys talk about killing JFK was an everyday, commonplace occurrence. It was no big deal in those days. But just because they shot off their mouths about it doesn't prove their innocence. Best regards, -Paul Trejo

Larry, I fully agree that John Martino and Johnny Roselli -- both of whom confessed to involvement in the JFK murder plot -- were actually "on the sidelines" and not part of the tactical team as such. I also agree that we each get to make our own list, and I also wish you good luck with yours. Also, I have read your excellent book, NEXUS (2011) and yes, I do know that the CIA (like the FBI) will typically hire mercenaries to do their dirty work. It's all part of "plausible denial." I think we agree that this makes discovery far more difficult -- yet I wonder if you agree that we can never use this LACK of evidence to build a positive case. Finally, as for the remarks of David Atlee Phillips, that there was a JFK murder conspiracy, and that CIA officers were involved -- that is indeed important -- HOWEVER -- using a modest, minimalist approach to this statement, we can at best (today) conclude that Phillips later found out that David Morales and Howard Hunt were involved. Nor does "involvement" mean "leadership." Your theory in NEXUS (and even in your other works) still leaves the Dallas Connection unsatisfactorily resolved, IMHO. Jack Ruby could never have organized the DPD and City Hall the way that a bona fide leader of the Dallas Right-wing could have done. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

So, Tommy, two things. 1. I'm not a Professor here at the University. I work on computers on the staff of an ITS department. 2. No way did I say that these CIA Agents "mustn't" have conspired -- what I said was that in the absence of convicting information, we should suspend judgment and not rush to judgment. Just set them aside until more data comes in. We have plenty of CONFESSIONS already in our history to work with -- and logically speaking, that should be the starting point. If we garner more EVIDENCE about these suspects in our search, then these names will be placed back into play. I never ruled them out of play entirely. But we can't use the LACK of evidence to make a case, just because it's the CIA. We still need EVIDENCE. Bill Simpich did the ground-breaking work on this, and I think he deserves a medal. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Congratulations, Greg, on obtaining a rave review from A.J. Weberman himself. I'm impressed. After years of interviews, A.J. Weberman became certain of the key role that Gerry Patrick Hemming played in the murder of JFK. NOTE: The personal papers of resigned General Edwin Walker at UT Austin contain part of the correspondence between Gerry Patrick Hemming and Edwin Walker in 1963. Also, one episode that Hemming shared with Weberman was a visit to the home of Walker in Dallas, shortly after Walker's famous 10 April 1963 shooting. It wasn't a private meeting -- other members of Interpen were with them on the back porch of Walker's home, smoking cigars and drinking beer, like the good old war veterans that they were. There is a DIRECT connection between Gerry Patrick Hemming and Ex-General Edwin Walker that links them BOTH to the JFK murder. Yet historians at UT Austin might become the first to unravel this relationship, since A.J. Weberman failed to pursue this line of research, and I haven't seen anything from your site that refers to it. Or perhaps there is, Greg; is there anything in your interviews with Gerry Patrick Hemming that dwells on the resigned General Edwin Walker? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, Paul B., these are all good points. Let me try to defend my position here. 1. I don't want to push Angleton's mole-hunt over the very reason it was started -- namely, the impersonations of Oswald and Duran. The important thing is the impersonations. The mole-hunt is only the proof that these were really impersonations. 2. The reason we know that Angleton and the CIA high-command were clueless about the impersonators is that Bill Simpich found a CIA paper trail showing the mole-hunt still in progress much, much later. The paper trail is good evidence because nobody but the CIA high-command were allowed to see mole-hunt documents. 3. As for Angleton expressing his worries to Dulles, Harvey and Helms and then walking away -- that is an interesting anecdote but it proves nothing at all. It might raise suspicions, but it proves nothing. As for the CIA culture of plausible denial, we already know a lot about it -- and that was really what opened the CIA up to abuses like the impersonation of Oswald and Duran in the first place. 4. Just as I object to the modern argument that LBJ's ignorance about any details of the JFK murder is somehow a proof that LBJ planned the whole thing (which is just nonsense), in the same way I object to arguments that the lack of a paper trail in the CIA is somehow a proof that the CIA planned the whole thing. You can't use the lack of evidence as proof. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Larry, although I agree that there are many differences between these characters, and their ranking in an authoritative hierarchy is quite wide -- still, by the rules of logic, I actually can make a few broad statements about them. For example: despite their varying levels of usefulness to the CIA, not one of them was an actual, salaried CIA Agent. That's important for historians, IMHO. Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen are only two of the well-known JFK Researchers who have taken this motley of characters, and added a few more, like Clay Shaw, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Edward Beckham, and tried to make a CIA conspiracy out of these characters, none of whom was an actual, salaried CIA Agent. In my view that's pretty important. It points away from the CIA, rather than toward them. Now, when it comes to actual, salaried CIA Agents, even you yourself are unwilling to name James Jesus Angleton in the JFK plot. It is still unproven whether David Atlee Phillips was involved in the Kill-JFK plot (although it is guaranteed he was involved in the Kill-Fidel plot, and also involved Antonio Veciana and Lee Harvey Oswald in that task). It is still unproven -- and even doubtful as you yourself said -- whether Edward Lansdale was involved in the Kill-JFK plot. It remains unproven whether Bill Harvey was involved in it, and in fact, Bill Harvey was drinking himself to death in quasi-exile in Italy when Oswald was being framed. It remains unproven that Allen Dulles was involved in it -- and in any case Dulles was no longer a salaried CIA Agent in 1963. As far as actual, salaried CIA Agents, the only confessions we have are from Howard Hunt and David Morales. That's it. It's important, IMHO, that all the other confessions we have are from these lower-level motley of characters named above. And actually lots of them confessed in roughly this order: 1. Lee Harvey Oswald (when he declared, "I'm a Patsy!") 2. Jack S. Martin (to Jim Garrison) 3. David Ferrie (to Jim Garrison) 4. Johnny Roselli 5. Frank Sturgis 6. John Martino 7. Loran Hall (in a way) 8. Gerry Patrick Hemming (to A.J. Weberman) There's a fair chunk of the ground-crew, Larry. And not one of these was an actual, salaried CIA Agent. Now, in order to identify the rest of the ground-crew, we must naturally research the known ASSOCIATES of these men, and especially those people who were known to MORE THAN ONE of them during 1963. That's where we find Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Edwin Walker, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler -- and various other rightist mercenaries and activists, and those in the Cuban Exile community. And not one of these was an actual, salaried CIA Agent, either! So, Larry, I think I can logically and correctly make a few broad generalizations about these men -- and paint them all with that same brush. And furthermore, I think it tells historians something very important about this ground crew. Their very plethora tends to argue against a central role for the CIA in the murder of JFK! Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, Larry, I'll step back and qualify my remarks about John Martino. My phrase, that he was "low-level" was only a comparison of John Martino with actual CIA Agents, and in particular with the CIA high-command. What I meant was that compared with Richard Helms, James Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, Bill Harvey, Theo Shackley and George Joannides -- all of whom had middle to high positions in the CIA -- John Martino was comparatively "low-level." When observing charges that the Official CIA plotted to murder JFK, one mainly gets a list of low-level assets in that regard, e.g. John Martino, Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Johnny Roselli, Lee Harvey Oswald and so on. These guys were certainly dedicated -- yet they weren't good enough to receive an actual SALARY from the CIA. (Much as they may have wanted that.) That was my point. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

These are good questions, Paul B. Yet I defend my position by noting that I don't suspect Ex-General Edwin Walker because of Harry Dean's story. On the contrary, I accept Harry Dean's story because I have suspected Edwin Walker for a long time. I should add, also, that I don't accept everything Harry Dean has written, e.g. I don't buy the LDS angle. I made that clear to Harry when we wrote his CONFESSIONS last year. That's off the table for me. Harry Dean has eye-witness information about Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon. However, about the LDS, Harry Dean is only speculating. That's where I draw the line. So, I don't buy everything that Harry Dean wrote -- and I thought we were past the LDS story, until Harry broke off with me this year, and returned to his LDS story. Oh, well. Back to the point -- Larry Hancock doesn't make much room for Guy Banister, either, or Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman or Thomas Edward Beckham -- although Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen spent years of research on these guys. We now have evidence linking Ex-General Edwin Walker with Guy Banister. This is not CIA -- but I say it is more important than the CIA when it comes to the JFK murder. Also, although Banister and Walker were on the side of racial segregationists in 1961-1965, and they got lots of support and cash from that political spectrum -- I don't believe that the racist wing of the JBS led the charge against JFK. Instead, it was their CUBA wing that got all the traction. It's well-known that the JBS had two great wings -- the South and the North. The South wanted to Impeach Earl Warren over the Brown Decision (1957) which mandated racial integration of US Public Schools. The North wanted to Impeach Earl Warren because Robert Welch said it was a good idea. But the main issue of the Northern JBS members from 1961 through 1963 was CUBA. It was on the issue of CUBA that the JBS in New Orleans and Dallas (i.e. Banister and Walker) were able to cut a deal with low-level ROGUES in the CIA, who split off behind David Morales. As David Andrews ably showed, David Morales was an officer who followed orders. So who gave him his orders? The answer is that the orders of David Morales and the CIA Rogues came from a wealthy authority who preached that JFK was a dirty rotten Communist, and a traitor betraying the USA who deserved a firing squad. Despite the fact that the JBS waved the American flag more than anybody else, they preached this poison coast to coast. Anybody who liked Joseph McCarthy loved Robert Welch. Same story, only more of it. David Morales finally found his leadership. We have Guy Banister and Edwin Walker -- peers in the fight against alleged Communists in Washington DC. They were well-connected and had tons of funds from sources as diverse as H.L. Hunt and Carlos Marcello, Howard Hughes and Santos Traficante. These rogues within the JBS were the real leaders, IMHO. Jim Garrison is one of my main sources -- but I disagree with Garrison when he said that the CIA was the leader of the plot to kill JFK. I disagree. I don't see the evidence. (I can see the SUSPICION, but I can't see the EVIDENCE). The evidence leads back to these two key members of the JBS, namely, Guy Banister and Edwin Walker, and their many underlings, many of whom have already confessed to the plot in one way or another (e.g. David Ferrie, Thomas Beckham, Loran Hall) or face overwhelming convicting evidence (e.g. Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and Edwin Walker). On Larry Hancock's side, he has one person who openly and unambiguously confessed, namely, John Martino, who was never a CIA Agent, but only one more low-level mercenary. Martino, in turn, was sponsored by the JBS. So, Paul B., it all leads back to the Birchers, according to my theory. This plot includes the participation of David Morales and his bunch. The fact this year that Bill Simpich proved a BREAK in the CIA over the impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico, and the fact that Larry Hancock himself denies that Angleton took part in the JFK murder, only adds substance to my theory. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Larry, your anecdote about James Jesus Angelton is unconvincing. You're GUESSING that Angleton directed Helms, Harvey and Dulles, without written memoranda -- that simply on his water-cooler worries they would jump into action. The compartmentalization that led to the confusion in Mexico City which Bill Simpich writes about can only go so far in explaining events. You admit that "the telephone impersonation is the point of focus for tracking fingerprints of the conspiracy, not the mole hunt." Yet that is a two-edged sword. All I needed was your admission that the telephone impersonation (which was the subject of a mole-hunt) is the proper focus for tracking fingerprints of the JFK conspiracy. That alone supports my point -- that the CIA moles who impersonated Duran and Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 in order to link Oswald's name with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov, were doing so to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a COMMUNIST -- so that he would be blamed for the murder of JFK as a patsy. Then, Larry, you completed my point when you wrote: "Do I see [Angleton] operationally involved in the conspiracy and the attack in Dallas -- no." This also agrees with my scenario. This top-level CIA Agent was NOT involved in the plot to murder JFK, but a middle-level CIA Agent, David Morales, was clearly involved, and operated underneath the radar of the official CIA. So -- you claim that you disagree with my position -- but on the key points, it seems that you actually do agree. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

No, Bill, this really goes too far, IMHO. The video that you shared is a fairly good one -- it demonstrates fairly well that Governor Connally was hit with the final bullet, not JFK. But the problem with that video (and its author) is that he glibly accuses the HSCA of LYING when it made the mistake of reporting that the final bullet hit JFK. It is just as simple to say that the HSCA was MISTAKEN. That is just as effective and still promotes the point of the video, i.e. that Governor Connally was hit with the final bullet, not JFK. But the author uses the word LIE to make a POLITICAL POINT. (However vague.) Nor did the US Government mince many words about it, because Earl Warren plainly said that the full TRUTH about Lee Harvey Oswald would not be told for 75 years. So, the US Government already admitted to a WITHHOLD. Yet it should be obvious that a WITHHOLD is not necessarily the same as a LIE. The US Government gave the reason for the WITHHOLD -- namely -- National Security. During the years of the Cold War, there may have been excellebnt reasons for that US Government decision. Now that the Cold War is over (because the USSR has fallen) the 75 year deferrment of the TRUTH can be relaxed, so that now, with the JFK Information Act, we can look forward to the release in the year 2017 of all JFK related documents formerly withheld as Top Secret. Then (and only then) will we be able to truly assess the National Security impact of the decision by Earl Warren and the LBJ Administration to withhold many of the key facts about Lee Harvey Oswald for so long. In summary -- nearly nobody believes in the SBT anymore. That's beating a dead horse around here. But calling it a LIE, instead of a politically necessary and temporary WITHHOLD is merely to play politics. So I stil believe that a ban on name-calling on this Forum remains well-thought and proper. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Many thanks, John. Very well done. --Paul

Many thanks, Larry Hancock, for chiming in here, and especially for your clear and concise summary of your expert thinking about the JFK assassination. It is interesting to note that you haven't changed your views about Angleton since publishing NEXUS (2011) even after Bill Simpich published his online book, STATE SECRET (2014) which demonstrates with what appears to be scientific precision that James Jesus Angleton started a mole hunt to discover who in the world impersonated Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963. Whoever it was that impersonated Oswald made every effort to link Oswald's name with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. More than a decade after the mole-hunt, the CIA never learned who the mole was. I must ask in all seriousness -- doesn't this mole hunt prove conclusively that the CIA was divided within itself? Doesn't this mole hunt prove conclusively that the framers of Lee Harvey Oswald NEVER included James Jesus Angelton, or anybody high enough in the CIA to start a mole hunt? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

That's no surprise -- most JFK researchers in the past 50 years have overlooked Ex-General Edwin Walker as a major suspect, even knowing about his disloyalty to his uniform and to the US Government by virtue of his JBS belief that all US Presidents since FDR (including JFK) were deliberate, conscious Agents of the Communist Conspiracy. In 1961-1964 the US awareness of Ex-General Walker was high. He is named over 500 times in the Warren Commission volumes alone. But after the Warren Report and its Lone-Gunman theory, and after the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw, the name of Edwin Walker has almost vanished from the public scene. Most JFK researchers overlooked him -- including Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marr, Jim Garrison, Jay Epstein, A.J. Weberman, and the list goes on. The work on Edwin Walker is tiny compared with the nonsense literature about LBJ killing JFK. The current rage among serious JFK researchers is the error (IMHO) that the CIA high-command killed JFK. This error was started by Jim Garrison and fueled by Mark Lane, and then took on a life of its own with John Newman and Joan Mellen. Larry Hancock also started down that road -- but since he is pals with Bill Simpich, and since Simpich has basically shown a major RIFT in that theory -- I wonder what Larry Hancock thinks about a totally CIA high-command plot today. The alternative theories are breaking down. The more time goes forward, the more JFK researchers will return to the history books of 1963, and realize that Ex-General Edwin Walker and the JBS again appear to be the leading suspects -- exactly as Jack Ruby said to Earl Warren -- and exactly as Harry Dean has been saying for five decades. Time goes fast. Soon 2017 will be here, and the JFK Information Act will reveal all the secret documents that the US Government concealed about the JFK murder. I predict that Ex-General Edwin Walker will take center stage, take the US reader by surprise, and then be the subject of a furious hurricane of media coverage. A movie will be made about Edwin Walker by the year 2020. That's my prediction. And then -- at long last -- JFK researchers will realize that Harry Dean's claims about General Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard were always correct. Time will tell about Guy Gabaldon. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, David, you're talking about ROGUES, so I presume you're talking about David Morales and Howard Hunt. These are the only two medium-level CIA Agents that we can link to the murder of JFK with reasonable assurance based on material evidence (e.g. confessions). (But none of those other people were ROGUES, instead, they were just plain stooges and mercenary punks.) Anyway, aside from that, David, your main question seems to be this -- how come the murderers of JFK survived into 1979 (the HSCA period) without being prosecuted? The answer -- in my opinion -- is crystal clear. The answer is that any prosecution of these people would have to be public, and then the TRUE KILLERS OF JFK would have to be identified, and that would have been an enormous risk to NATIONAL SECURITY. Exactly like LBJ, and J. Edgar Hoover, and Allen Dulles, Earl Warren and the whole Warren Commission ALWAYS SAID IT WAS. We tend to forget how wild the 1960's were in the days of the Cold War. The right-wing in this country was practically insane. There were plenty of liberals who thought it was *completely* justified for JFK and RFK to send Edwin Walker to an insane asylum for violently promoting the John Birch Society agenda. (e.g. Impeach Earl Warren!) Identifying the fact tha the KILLERS OF JFK were among the right-wing radicals in 1963 would have started a CIVIL WAR. I'm convinced of this by looking hard at the history. LBJ knew it. LBJ didn't want a Civil War, because he was already fighting a Cold War. Besides that, only a few of the people were clearly known to be participants -- Edwin Walker, I am convinced, was totally KNOWN by Hoover, Dulles and Warren to have played perhaps the major role, at least in Dallas itself. Also, all the players in New Orleans that were discovered by Jim Garrison in 1968 -- the Warren Commission, the CIA, the FBI -- knew about ALL of them. The reason the CIA stomped so hard on Jim Garrison (and Mark Lane and Penn Jones) was because, even though they didn't realize it, they were treading on thin ice with regard to a CIVIL WAR. It was because the US Government KNEW who most of the guilty parties were (at least at the ground-crew level; perhaps not yet within the CIA itself) and realized they were relatively powerless (compared with the US Military) and a bunch of right-wing fruit cakes -- they just kept an eye on them, and perhaps dealt with them privately, outside the scope of the Court System. But they didn't really need to do much more -- the KILLERS OF JFK wanted the USA to invade CUBA, and the official USA really didn't care that much about CUBA. I think you were correct in a former post, David, when you said that Fidel Castro's main protection was basically that he was IRRELEVANT to the USA. The economy of CUBA was so TINY in comparison with the Global Politics of 1963, that it wasn't worth the bother to fool with CUBA anymore. The KILLERS OF JFK failed to get what they wanted. They wanted to convince the American People and the US Government that Lee Harvey Oswald was a COMMUNIST. They failed. The one who figured out the strategy for beating the plotters wwas J. Edgar Hoover, who came up with the Lone Gunman theory only ONE HOUR after the arrest of JFK (says Dr. David Wrone). Inside the CIA, even all the way to 1979, it seems to me, David Morales was still getting away with murder. The mole-hunt inside the CIA in Mexico City failed to identify David Morales -- the real ring-leader in Mexico City. Yes, Morales went to Vietnam. Yes, he still propped up many Latin American dictators. But I doubt that Hunt, Sturgis, Martinez and Barker were happy about Watergate. What a fiasco that was. LOOK AT HOW FAR THESE MEN HAD FALLEN! Hunt was desperate by that time. He tried to blackmail Nixon for a million dollars! In conclusion, David, I think the answer was already given by LBJ. The Truth about Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of JFK could never be made public in his lifetime -- BECAUSE THE COLD WAR WAS STILL RAGING. I think that the US Government is willing to be more lenient with the JFK Assassination records today mainly because the USSR fell in 1990 -- AND THERE IS NO MORE COLD WAR TODAY. That said -- except for Harry Dean, I think that all the JFK conspirators have gone on to their final reward. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Dream on, Greg. No way Gerry Patrick Hemming would spend YEARS with A.J. Weberman from the 1970's to the 1990's if he despised him. Clearly you're feeling competitive about it -- so your opinion on this matter is marginal at best. People know A.J. Weberman's work worldwide. Who cites your interviews? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo