Paul Trejo

So, Ernie, all that simply means is that you aren't going to share the FBI findings about John Rousselot with us. Probably you realize it will shoot your theory out of the water. As for the notion that FBI Director forbade any FBI Agents from joining the John Birch Society, that is already common knowledge, and so there's no need to for me to provide a citation for every sentence I write. Also, you raise the issue of an FBI investigation of the JBS, which is a problem in your own mind, Ernie. I never mentioned that once. J. Edgar Hoover didn't need a major investigation of the John Birch Society to simply read one of their tracts and realize INSTANTLY that these people were Unamerican, disloyal and frankly idiotic. The FBI Rule against Birchers being FBI Agents did not require an FBI investigation -- only Common Sense. I think your long post only goes to show that you're running scared -- and you can't produce the proof of your many wild claims. We're still waiting -- for months -- for you to show the FBI results of your research of Harry Dean -- and you won't show it. I think it's because you've already seen it, and it doesn't support your wild claims. Hmm. As for Congressman John Rousselot, we have a speech by him, now showing on Youtube at this URL: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoC2lNw113k] In this speech Rousselot blasts Reverend Martin Luther King as a Communist. One of the images on this YouTube video is that photo of Rousselot beaming before a John Birch Society billboard reading, IMPEACH EARL WARREN! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Of course, Paul B., your objections are the appropriate ones. This is what most of my detractors are thinking, even if they don't say so. Your main charge, of course, is that my theory is "comfortable." By that you mean that I'm simply too cowardly to presume that the CIA leadership, along with the Pentagon leadership, murdered JFK in cold blood and then lied about it to the American People. In other words, that our greatest leaders are themselves cowards who could not face up to the courage of their political convictions, and ran into the shadows to hide the Truth from the World. But actually, Paul B., that's not much of an argument -- it's mainly just a series of insults. Of course, if you had evidence, you would have shown it by now. Instead, your argument is based on emotional rhetoric like this. The truth, however, is even more horrible than you suspect. Actually, I think it's more "comfortable" to blame a CIA and a Pentagon who hide from the world. If my theory is correct (and I don't remember how many times I told you that I don't believe I've got the whole conspiracy tied up) then things are even more uncomfortable, because this means that the ultra-right-wing forces that murdered JFK were never brought to justice. Furthermore, it means that they weren't brought to justice because our US Government knows very well that they comprise a huge, enormous minority of Americans, that to confront them directly would result in Civil War -- maybe even today. Why? For the simple reason that these forces are precisely the same forces that fought the Civil War in the 1860's, and who fought the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. The numbers are overwhelming, and the US Government had no choice in the past, and no choice today, but to compromise in our endlessly "uncomfortable" compromise. Ultimately, the undercurrent of Racism in the USA is the Achilles Heel of our great World Empire. World History suggests that great Empires last an average of 200 years each (from the year that they assume global power, which in the case of the USA was 1945). Most global Empires lasted 200 years -- Assyria, Bablyon, Persia, Greece, England -- however, a few global Empires can last 2,000 years. Egypt and Rome are two candidates (if we count the Holy Roman Empire as part of the Roman Empire). This means that the USA could last 2,000 years as a global Empire -- unless it destroys itself from within. If it does, the cause of that inner decay is very easy to detect -- it is the same decay that was there from the very start, namely, the undercurrent of Racism. Some claim that we've solved the problem -- but that's self-deception. The crisis in American schools today is simply a part and parcel of the same old original problem. We Americans like to deceive ourselves. So, it's really less comfortable to think that the forces that murdered JFK got away with their crime and are still out there, and through their surrogates are still active in local politics today. You don't have to believe my theory, Paul B. I don't want true-believers. I'm seeking EVIDENCE and FACTS and I'm doing my best to connect the dots. BUT I'M ONLY ONE GUY. It's important, if we're really going to solve the JFK murder, to pinpoint the exact people who did it. It is useless, IMHO, to just name people without Evidence, simply because they were rich and powerful and hated JFK. That is the easy way out. I'm not looking for the easy way out. Finally, Paul B., your argument about plausible deniability seems to be genuine, but really it's not very strong. It's simply saying that NOBODY can ever figure it out, and that the CIA modus operandi of plausible deniability is the EASY ANSWER, that is -- they destroyed all the Evidence, and so nobody will ever find it. That means we can really stop looking -- we can stop trying to solve the JFK murder -- as long as we simply accuse the CIA and stick to that story with our hands over our eyes, ears and mouths. I have already offered a viable explanation why high-level CIA officers like Helms, Angleton and Dulles were so good at covering-up the murders of their rogue employees -- National Security. The Truth would have led to Civil War, and in 1964 that would have led to World War Three. That's actually a fact, and so it's also a justifiable position. The key was to prevent these people from talking. As for the ground crew -- they are the key to the resolution of the JFK murder. Nobody has yet named the ground-crew. Whoever names the ground-crew will have taken the key step to identifying the entire Conspiracy. So, Paul B., on the contrary -- our Democracy is not safe. The Rogues are still on the loose. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Ernie, that's interesting information about a man who was very well-known in John Birch Society circles, at a time when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a standing policy that no FBI Agent could join the John Birch Society because of their disloyal and unpatriotic values. So, would you kindly tell us what the FBI report about Congressman John Rousselot said about his outspoken membership in the John BIrch Society? We have a photograph of John Rousselot, by the way, standing and smiling wide in front of a giant billboard that read, IMPEACH EARL WARREN (Join the John Birch Society). So Rousselot did not keep his Bircher politics much of a secret. So, Ernie, would you kindly tell us if the FBI reported anything about the BIrchers in Rousselot's background? Also, did the Reagan Administration hire John Rousselot for any position? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Steve, the latest writing by Bill Simpich argues conclusively, I believe, that it certainly was a mole-hunt. In my view, this is clear proof that the CIA was a house divided -- and that ROGUE Agents were plaguing the system. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., my definition of a ROGUE is a CIA Agent (or an FBI Agent or other high-level official) who acts on his or her own without the knowledge and approval of their immediate superiors inside that Agency. This is my argument -- that people as high up in the CIA as David Morales and David Atlee Phillips, might form a secret cabal of CIA ROGUES to act on their private political belief that JFK was a Communist. The leadership of the CIA, namely John McCone and Richard Helms, would not be told about their plans. Furthermore, this secret cabal would operate with others outside of the CIA for coordination and resources. In my view, Joan Mellen offers plenty of evidence that David Morales was a ringleader of such a cabal, and that he was supported by the ultra-right-wing leaders like Guy Banister and Edwin Walker in Louisiana, in meetings at sites owned by mobster Carlos Marcello. Here was the bankroller, and here were the true leaders of the plot. There were many plots to murder JFK -- most of them just talk -- some of them swindles -- but at least one was ready to go as soon as the patsy was selected. Edwin Walker selected the patsy on Easter Sunday, 1963 -- this is what the available evidence indicates to me. As a member of the JBS (John Birch Society), which had long been preaching that US Presidents were making secret deals with the Communists, Edwin Walker contacted his fellow JBS leader, Guy Banister, in Louisiana. Both men were also leaders in the national paramilitary movement, The Minutemen. Together they agreed to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for their plot. Now the wheels started turning. The Minutemen were also involved in the Cuban Exile training camps that were funded by the CIA through David Morales and David Atlee Phillips. So, the connection was natural, and the meeting of the ROGUE CIA men, who wanted to act on the belief that JFK was a Communist, was supported, not by the official CIA leadership, but by wealthy supporters of the JBS in Louisiana and Dallas. Joan Mellen places the first coordinated meeting of this JBS leadership with CIA ROGUE leader, David Morales, in Louisiana in the early summer of 1963. This is the period investigated by NOLA DA Jim Garrison. There were CIA connected people in this Louisiana plot -- not CIA Agents -- but low-level CIA assets with big egos, e.g. Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. These were the Americans in the group, who would be the leaders of the Cuban Exiles in the plot. This view, as I read it, is entirely in sync with the story of John Martino as presented by Larry Hancock (SMHT/2010). The two highest level CIA Agents who "confessed" were David Morales and Howard Hunt. (Low-level but connected people who confessed were Frank Sturgis, John Martino and Harry Dean). However, as Larry Hancock noted, all Howard Hunt really said was that Frank Sturgis invited him to a meeting with David Morales, and that David Morales laid out the plot before his eyes. Hunt took no further action. Howard Hunt was merely "on the sidelines" as a "bench warmer" he admitted. Therefore, the whole story that LBJ was involved, and that Cord Meyer was involved -- is really a rumor that came from David Morales. Thus Howard Hunt only knew what David Morales told him. Therefore, as far as I can see, David Morales was the highest level CIA Agent who was involved in the JFK murder. He basically confessed to it, just as Howard Hunt confessed to being "on the sidelines." Until I see more material evidence, I won't accuse anybody higher than David Morales. I once thought that David Atlee Phillips was guaranteed guilty -- but I can't guarantee that anymore, after reviewing SWHT/2010. Phillips probably knew what was going on, but I see no guarantee that he helped with his eyes open. For example, when Antonio Veciana met David Phillips in Dallas with Lee Harvey Oswald, that was in the context of a murder-Fidel plot, not a murder-JFK plot. (Also, in his 1977 book, The Night Watch, Phillips says that Lee Oswald was training in a plot to murder Fidel Castro, and he was surprised that Oswald was diverted to a plot to murder JFK.) So, it's at least possible that Morales kept his JFK murder plot secret from Phillips. I'm open to debate on this. I once thought that Edward Lansdale was guaranteed guilty -- but I can't guarantee that anymore. He was the one who sent Fletcher Prouty to the South Pole instead of to Dallas to protect JFK, and he was also photographed in Dealey Plaza next to the infamous Three Tramps. Yet his close relationship of to JFK and RFK, combined with the possibility (however remote) that he was in Dealey Plaza to try to prevent the JFK murder, were recently proposed by Larry Hancock, and I have no ready proofs against his challenge. I still suspect William Harvey very strongly -- yet he was no longer a high-ranking member of the CIA during this time, because he had been demoted by RFK and sent to Italy to spend his last years in the CIA. This could have been a motive for Harvey to participate in some way -- but again, he was thousands of miles away from the action. (I have little doubt that Harvey cheered when JFK was murdered, but that alone is no proof of his part in a conspiracy.) I still suspect James Jesus Angleton very strongly -- yet he started a mole-hunt in Mexico City after a breach that was probably done by David Morales and crew (namely, the impersonation of Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald in a phone call from the Cuban consulate to the USSR consulate). That is evidence, rather, that James Jesus Angleton himself did not know what David Morales was up to. So I even have my doubts about Angleton, now (thanks to Bill Simpich). So -- the highest level person I can find in the CIA behind the JFK murder plot is David Morales -- a hothead who was accustomed to assassination, having managed the assassination of thousands of leftists in Latin America during this same time period. His closest associates in the CIA would also be suspect -- Rip Robertson being first among them, who was very close to John Martino. As Larry Hancock points out, John Martino only told us this: that "Anti-Castro people" murdered JFK. That is too wide a net for an easy answer. John Martino gave us no names. However, by tracing those CIA people with whom John Martino was in contact -- this give us our best clues. David Morales was the highest level person. Then Rip Robertson, who reported to Martino. After that, we must drop down to the low-level assets Johnny Roselli, for example, and Frank Sturgis. But Larry Hancock also notes a vital fact: there were other Anti-Castro people in the USA at the time, not just the CIA and the Cuban Exiles. For example, on page 201 of SWHT/2010 Larry Hancock notes that the John Birch Society sponsored John Martino's speaking tours. The JBS and the Minutemen provide the most active elements of civilian Anti-Castro movement. It seems clear from the evidence that David Morales worked closely with these elements. Again -- if the highest CIA Agent that I can guarantee in the plot was David Morales, then I can easily argue that the high-level CIA command did not know about Morales' plans and actions -- and therefore Morales was a ROGUE. In this role, he would need support from outside the CIA, and he would find that support in the JBS/Minutemen and Cuban Exile gaggle of right-wing fanatics. I trust this answers your question, Paul B. Did I leave anything out? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Also, on page 201 of Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked (2010) we find another correlation between the account of John Martino and the account of Harry Dean -- namely, the correlation of the John Birch Society. Here's what Larry Hancock wrote: "It appears that gossip about a threat to the President was circulating among not only the Cuban Exiles, but also certain elements of the ultra-right. John Martino was moving within both of these circles in 1963 and 1964; he was in great demand for speeches and articles relating to the Communist menace in Cuba; something in which he sincerely believed. His speaking tours were sponsored by the John Birch Society." (Hancock, 2010, SWHT, page 201) Independently of John Martino on the East Coast, Harry Dean on the West Coast was also exposed to gossip about a threat to JFK that was circulating among Cuban Exiles who were affiliated with the John Birch Society in Southern California, including but not limited to Loran Hall (a Cuban-American) and two Mexican-American US Army Veterans, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon. Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon also made ultra-right speeches sponsored by the John Birch Society, also about the Communist menace in Cuba, a cause in which they deeply believed. It was in this context that Harry Dean particpated in a meeting with these individuals and Ex-General Edwin Walker, who had recently joined the fight against Castro, in which the name of Lee Harvey Oswald was raised as a doomed officer of the FPCC, and now a target of their rightist group. This discussion, says Harry Dean, occurred about two months before the JFK murder, at a post-meeting of the John Birch Society in Southern California. There is an individual who appears in both accounts: Larry Howard, traveling companion of Loran Hall. Harry Dean saw these to men together on a regular basis in Southern California, where they all gathered, often at the home of Guy Gabaldon. Jim Garrison produced evidence that Larry Howard was also a comrade in arms of Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen. Larry Hancock produced evidence that Larry Howard's name was on the lease of the Louisiana training camp used by Cuban Exile groups like DRE and Alpha/66. The circles are the same. Harry Dean, quite independently, ultimately confirms the story of John Martino. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

As I continue my second review of Larry Hancock's superb book, Someone Would Have Talked (SWHT/2010) I'm moved to remark how closely the accounts of John Martino and Harry Dean correspond with each other. John Martino claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a shooter at JFK on 11/22/1963, but was set up as a patsy by Americans who were radically opposed to the regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Harry Dean also claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a shooter at JFK on 11/22/1963, but was set up as a patsy by Americans who were radically opposed to the regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. John Martino claimed that the JFK murder plotters believed that JFK was a Communist traitor to the USA. Harry Dean also claims that the JFK murder plotters believed that JFK was a Communist traitor to the USA. John Martino and Harry Dean never met. They never spoke with each other. There are differences in the details of their perspectives, yet the factors above stand out as key claims of both independent observers of the JFK murder -- John Martino on the East Coast, and Harry Dean on the West Coast. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Here's your answer -- straight from the horse's mouth. ( media] [/media ) Greg, actually, that's an excellent interview. Of course it clarifies that it all depends upon how we define "right-winger" in any given context. Gerry Patrick Hemming wasn't a member of the American Nazi Party under George LIncoln Rockwell, and he never joined the John Birch Society -- although he did ask them for money from time to time, and was disappointed that he only got a few bucks here and there. Yet one man's right-winger is another man's conservative, and vice versa. I suppose all we might agree upon is that Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen were Anti-Communists of the militant variety. Some people call that right-winger, and other people call that common sense conservatism. Hemming evidently thought the latter. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Greg, I have no illusions that Gerry Patrick Hemming never lied to A.J. Weberman, or that Weberman always got the truth from Gerry Patrick Hemming. Yet I do recognize the tremendous volume of material that Hemming was willing to give to Weberman over the years. Also, when Hemming came to this very Education Forum back in 2005, I believe, he gave Weberman the credit for talking him into that. So, there is a mixed bag with Weberman, but we have so much volume that we have years of data to sort out with his historical interviews of Gerry Patrick Hemming. Perhaps the main difference I see between Weberman's interview style and your own is that Weberman interrupted Hemming much more frequently, and that sort of grated on Hemming. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Steven, I think this is one of the most important questions of current JFK research. It seems to me that the most suspicious behavior of all regarding the Secret Service on the day of the JFK murder is the obvious fact shown by the Zapruder film, that the Secret Service driver of JFK's limo seems to be slowing down after the first few shots are fired, instead of speeding up. The JFK limo only speeds up after the limo driver looks back to see the head shot, and then the JFK limo speeds away to Parkland Hospital. Now, it is part of paramilitary SOP ambush protocol to block or slow down the target vehicle in an ambush like this. So, one can make a case (and of course a number of writers already have) that the Secret Service was clearly part of the JFK murder plot. If that is the case, then one must immediately argue: (1) was the full Secret Service part of the JFK murder plot; or (2) were only a few Secret Service agents part of the JFK murder plot; or (3) was only the Secret Service limo driver part of the JFK murder plot? Of course, if the answer is (1), then I must agree with you, that this cannot be a Rogue plot, but a high-level plot. However, if the answer is (2) then we have a longer debate on our hands. However, if the answer is (3) then we have the probability of a Rogue plot again. And yet there is still a fourth alternative. It is possible that the slowdown of the JFK limo was not controlled by the JFK limo driver, but by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry who was the driver of the first limo in the motorcade -- the man who was responsible for choosing the motorcade route, and deliberately led the motorcade into the Grassy Knoll area. Jesse Curry, in the lead car, could have slowed down to a crawl, thus forcing the JFK limo to slow down. That is a real possibility. Therefore, before I suspect the ENTIRE Secret Service of being involved in the JFK murder plot, I must demand more evidence. And I might even relax my suspicions of the JFK's limo driver if I can somehow argue that he was trusting in Jesse Curry for his cues. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Greg, the mercenary status of Hemming's group, Interpen is well-known, is it not? They were engaged in toppling the left-wing government of Fidel Castro, were they not? The right-wing funded this activity, did they not? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Greg, if Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed a full-fledged, full-time Intelligence Officer, it is surprising that he lived in dire poverty, and struggled to keep every low-paying job he could find. He seems to have received a $200 monthly stipend from the FBI as an informal, low-level informant -- but that's very little money, even in those days. It seems to me that Lee Harvey Oswald sought full-time employment as an Intelligence Officer, and that's how he found himself in the position of the Patsy in the first place. His "handlers," who were crooks and rogues, pretended to be CIA Agents, and offered him money. Jim Garrison suggests this (i.e. that Clay Shaw gave Oswald money from time to time) and so does Harry Dean (e.g. Guy Gabaldon gave Oswald $500 in Mexico City). Both Shaw and Gabaldon were low-level CIA assets, but not full-time CIA Agents. Yet they both evidently pretended to be CIA Agents to Lee Harvey Oswald, who apparently bought their act. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks for the response, Greg. I find Hemming's opinion of General Walker to be odd, particularly since Hemming himself was a right-wing activist. I also found a 1963 letter from Gerry Patrick Hemming addressed to Ex-General Walker inside the boxes of Edwin Walker's personal papers, stored at the Briscoe Center for the Study of American History (UT Austin). That letter from Gerry Patrick Hemming is very polite, and describes the poverty and desperation of Interpen members who had sacrificed so much in their family lives by volunteering to bring Fidel Castro down. Hemming also admits that he, along with several members of Interpen, visited General Walker at his home, and sat drinking beer and smoking cigarettes on the back porch of Walker's home on 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd in Dallas. This was shortly after the infamous 10 April 1963 shooting at Walker (allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald). In those recollections, Hemming thought that Walker was acting too calm and assured for somebody who had only weeks beforehand escaped death so narrowly, behind the window of that very porch. (This is why Hemming thought Walker might have staged his own shooting.) Yet Hemming might not have known Walker's full history -- when Walker was in the Army in the 1940's, and was assigned to parachute duty, having never worn a parachute before, he was up in the airplane, asked his subordinates how to put the parachute on, and then within seconds, to their amazement, he dove out of the airplane, head first. That was the sort of personality that Walker had all his life. He liked to impress people, especially military people. Being surrounded by Interpen mercenaries on his back porch in late April or early May 1963, it does not surprise me that Walker would put on an act of supreme confidence -- even if the shooting had been real. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks, Greg, for the citation. This interview suggests to me that Gerry Patrick Hemming regarded Loran Hall as having some role in the JFK murder, but Hemming didn't know exactly what role that was. (This suggests that Hemming was at most a low-level player in the JFK murder.) Hemming knew that Loran Hall had Hemming's 30-06 rifle, and that he took it to Dallas. The way Loran Hall got the rifle is that only a few weeks beforehand, Hemming and Hall were driving in Hemming's car together on a cross-country trip, probably a gun-running trip, and Hemming's car broke down. At that point Hemming relied on Loran Hall to provide another car. At this point Hemming became indebted to Loran Hall. To pay for trip expenses, Gerry Patrick Hemming went into a pawn shop along with Loran Hall, and hocked his 30-06 rifle. Then, just a matter of days before the JFK murder, Loran Hall went back to the pawn shop on his own, and redeemed the rifle from hock. The pawn-broker gave Hall the rifle, remembering Hall's participation when the rifle was hocked. This is all a matter of record. Hemming knew that Loran Hall took the rifle to Dallas with him, and he was enraged, because Hemming feared that the rifle could be make Hemming himself into the patsy for the JFK murderI (Hemming was hyper-aware that a rifle was going to be used to finger the patsy. That's how close Hemming was to the action in the JFK murder.) So, that explains the rage and hatred and foul language in the interview with Dick Russell that you cited above, Greg. Yet it also explains a few other things. Hemming and Hall were not always enemies. They shared rides together. They shared cars together. They hocked weapons together. They were seen together, working in cooperation, only a few weeks before the JFK murder. (We know this is true because we have FBI reports soon after the JFK murder that FBI Agents investigated exactly that rifle! How in the world did they get that rifle? Well, it didn't matter because in another day the FBI ceased seeking any accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, because J. Edgar Hoover so ordered that stoppage.) Hemming and Hall had worked together in Interpen, and possibly before that, as early as 1959 in Cuba, fighting alongside Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra, to topple the corrupt Batista regime. (This was also the time when Harry Dean was supporting Fidel Castro -- before Castro came out in daylight as a Communist.) Both Hemming and Hall were sought or detained by Castro in the backlash, and somehow escaped from Cuba. So, even though after the JFK murder they tended to say only bad things about each other, we should not get the idea that they were always enemies -- on the contrary, they worked with each other closely for years. It is interesting that after the JFK murder they refused to say anything kind about the other. Loran Hall flew into a rage with one reporter and called Gerry Patrick Hemming a Communist -- and claimed he couldn't remember his full name. That might have been mere theatrics -- meant to throw people off the scent. So, Gerry Patrick Hemming thought of Loran Hall as having some role in the JFK murder -- or at least being very close to the JFK murderers and the action. Yet we should remember that Hemming also confessed to A.J. Weberman that he himself also took a lower-level role in the JFK murder. Remember that Hemming confessed that he called Lee Harvey Oswald from Florida on the day before the JFK murder, and offered Oswald double the market price for his Manlicher-Carcano rifle, if he would only bring it to the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 22 November 1963, and leave it between some packages on the sixth floor -- so that his underworld friend could pick it up anonymously. (Hemming knew Oswald was always hard up for cash.) This was the specific and final act that made Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy. Gerry Patrick Hemming admitted to being the one to make that phone call. So -- here we have two former members of Interpen -- Hemming and Hall -- and they were both moving closely within the circles of the JFK murder. So I feel pretty certain that here we have part of the ground-crew. Finally, I would emphasize, both Hemming and Hall knew Ex-General Edwin Walker, and even visited him at his home in Dallas. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I found this interview intriguing because Hemming half-heartedly suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting on US Intelligence orders to leave the USSR and situate himself in Cuba, right around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, at a time when the US had very few information assets in Cuba. The suggestion that I hear -- that harmonizes with other statements by Gerry Patrick Hemming -- is that Oswald was acting as a spy for the USA -- not necessarily as a full-time spy, but something like a spy trainee. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Greg, this was another interesting interview of Gerry Patrick Hemming. Thanks for sharing it on the FORUM. I was particularly impressed that Hemming named a figure that I've not heard about from any other JFK researcher except Harry Dean, namely, Guy Gabaldon. Gerry Patrick Hemming evidently knew a lot about Guy Gabaldon, including the movie made about him (FROM HELL TO ETERNITY, 1960) starring Jeffrey Hunter, and the father of Gabaldon's wife, and the fact that Gabaldon had houses in Mexico as well as in Los Angeles. Harry Dean says that Guy Gabaldon was present in the Los Angeles meeting with Ex-General Edwin Walker and Congressman John Rousselot in the Southern California John Birch Society post-meeting in mid-September 1963 in which the JFK murder and the name of Lee Harvey Oswald were mentioned. Guy Gabaldon shares his opinions freely in his book, AMERICA BETRAYED (formerly Saipan: Suicide Island, 1962) which is largely a John Birch-like rant against Liberals, JFK, RFK and the United Nations. However, Gabaldon also lets loose with hate-speech against "Japs, homos, potheads and the Peace Corps. He was open, honest and slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. Edwin Walker's personal papers include some correspondence with Gerry Patrick Hemming. Do you have Hemming's opinions about Ex-General Edwin Walker in your interview tapes, Greg? Thanks, --Paul Trejo

Larry, I appreciate your expert participation in this discussion. I think we all agree that William Harvey, James Jesus Angleton and David Sanchez Morales worked closely in CIA Counterintelligence with Cuban Exiles to try to murder Fidel Castro and take back Cuba from the Communists. The fact that they brought in elements from the Mafia, e.g. Johnny Roselli in early 1963 is also a well-accepted fact of history. I think most of us agree that these three high-level CIA Agents, Harvey, Angleton and Morales were suspicious of JFK and RFK (to put it mildly). Some of us agree that they were so accustomed to power and secrets that they could be tempted to act on their own -- as ROGUES. They decided that JFK making back-channel discussions with Fidel Castro was collaboration with the Communist Enemy -- flat treason. Insofar as they thought this, they were NOT acting in cooperation with the Official CIA, but most likely with forces OUTSIDE the CIA. By suspecting JFK of "treason" these CIA ROGUES were joining forces, quite deliberately and with their eyes wide open, with the John Birch Society. The meetings in New Orleans at hotels owned by Mafioso Carlos Marcello, in which David Morales is reported there along with Guy Banister, Ex-General Edwin Walker, Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham, are part of Joan Mellen's well-known narrative (c.f. Farewell to Justice, 2005). There were the seeds of the JFK murder. This was a ROGUE operation. It involved ROGUE CIA men acting in cooperation with wild cards from the John Birch Society. This is why Jack Ruby told Chief Justice Earl Warren: "there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization." I agree with you, Larry, when you point out that CIA headquarters relied too much on its "plausible deniability," because IMHO this inadvertently gave powerful ROGUE Agents a green light to do anything they wanted. In my opinion, to get back to Bill Simpich and his theory of Morales blackmailing the CIA -- I also agree with you that 'blackmail' isn't the correct interpretation. It seems to me that Morales knew about the Lee Harvey Oswald gambit, already set up by Guy Banister and David Ferrie throughout the Spring and Summer of 1963, to make Oswald look like an FPCC officer. What David Morales did, I suspect, was to try to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the KGB. That was the key. That is why the impersonators of Oswald and Duran in that wiretapped phone call made sure that the name of Valery Kostikov was mentioned in the tape. The whole purpose of the JFK murderers was to lay blame on the COMMUNISTS. Their aim was to enrage the USA People in order to motivate the USA to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro and take back Cuba from the Communists. This is plain from their countless actions. I don't think that Morales wanted to blackmail the CIA. I don't even think that Morales knew (as Bill Simpich suggests) that the CIA would start a mole-hunt and camouflage Oswald's 201 file. The fact that the CIA did start a mole-hunt and did camouflage Oswald's 201 file is no proof that this was intended by David Morales. I think David Morales simply wanted to link Oswald with Kostikov in order to motivate the USA to invade Cuba. Bill Simpich deserves a medal, IMHO, for explaining why this photograph of a six-foot Russian dude was labeled as Lee Harvey Oswald. I always wondered how that could happen. Now we know -- it was part of the CIA camouflage of Oswald's 201 file, intended to smoke out a suspected mole in Angleton's mole-hunt for the Insiders who impersonated Oswald and Duran using the wiretapped telephone between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate. Furthermore, the fact that Angleton started a mole-hunt is evidence that Angleton himself was unaware of the actions that David Morales was performing. This is more evidence that Morales was acting as a ROGUE. So, IMHO, Simpich's brilliant proof of a CIA mole-hunt is also hard evidence of the INNOCENCE of the CIA high-command in the victimization of Lee Harvey Oswald. (I do believe that David Atlee Phillips was involved in the JFK murder (although he didn't openly confess as did Morales and Hunt) as shown by his interaction with Lee Harvey Oswald and Antonio Venciana of Alpha 66 in Dallas in September 1963. Yet again -- Phillips was acting as a ROGUE due to his personal involvement in the Bay of Pigs. I'm open to debate on this point, just as I'm open to debate about the participation of General Edward Lansdale.) So, Larry, despite the brilliance of Bill Simpich and yourself, I still disagree with both of you on this single point -- that David Morales was trying to "scare off the highest levels of government" by implicating the CIA in the JFK murder. On the contrary -- the fact that the CIA really was "scared off" was a miscalculation on the part of Morales. Morales only wanted (along with the JBS) to convince the American People to invade Cuba. HOWEVER -- the fact that the USA never invaded Cuba is also hard evidence, IMHO, that the JFK murderers were totally *separate* from those who covered up the murder. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edited>

Please, Paul B., no need to become upset about it. If you want me to consider the possibility that David Morales was acting on orders higher than himself within the CIA "to blackmail the CIA," then just show me some evidence. Otherwise, it's a self-contradiction. If Bill Simpich is correct, and David Morales wanted to "blackmail the CIA," then of course his bosses weren't the high-command of the CIA. Why would they want to blackmail themselves? So, as far as the CIA goes, it HAD to be a ROGUE operation inside the CIA, and to this degree I can agree with Bill Simpich. However, Bill Simpich doesn't go far enough, IMHO, in explaining WHY David Morales instigated this "Oswald and Duran" impersonation on secure, wiretapped telephones between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate in Mexico City. Now -- if somebody wants to try to link David Morales with higher-ups outside of the CIA, then I will happily follow that trail as far as it leads. I have no problem in linking CIA Agent David Morales with LOW-LEVEL assets like Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and Ex-General Edwin Walker -- all through Cuba Raid camps like JMWAVE and Lake Pontchartrain and Cuba Raid groups like La Sambra, Interpen, Alpha 66 and Operation 40. Inside the CIA, the only other confessed ROGUE was E. Howard Hunt. But he admitted he was a 'bench-warmer.' So, in that line-up, the two highest ranked people would be Walker and Banister. So, I would consider a case that David Morales reported to one of these guys. IMHO, this is the ROGUE'S GALLERY that murdered JFK. (The cover-up people were completely separate, and NOT on their side.) However, Paul B., if you can explain why the CIA leadership would want to blackmail themselves, I'm all ears. Regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, I've just finished the new book by Bill Simpich, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald (2014). Bill is very generous to make his new book available to the public free of charge from the Mary Ferrell web site. Aside from his generosity, he's also a great researcher. His exploration of the Mexico City episode of the Lee Harvey Oswald saga is second to none. It's truly excellent. That said, I want to point out that his theory about Oswald in Mexico City does not cancel my own, but instead can be used to support my theory. Bill Simpich agrees with my theory in many important points. For example: 1. Oswald was extremely foolish in his effort to get an "instant Visa" into Cuba. He'd made no prior preparation, he had no sponsors, he brought no other credentials than his New Orleans street credentials of newspaper clippings showing him to be a (fake) FPCC officer, along with a phony CPUSA card. It should have been super-obvious that the Cuban consulate would see right through his game in a minute, and all but laugh in his face. 2. The foolishness of Oswald to lie to the Cuban consulate and tell them that the USSR consulate already approved their Visa, and then lie to the USSR consulate, telling them the Cuban consulate already approved their Visa, is beyond boldness -- it's just plain stupid. The Cuban and USSR consulates called each other within minutes and confirmed that Oswald was lying to both -- and that was the end of it. . 3. Oswald's shouting match with the Cuban consul was sheer stupidity. As if that would change anybody's mind. 4. Oswald's taking a revolver to the Soviet consul, complaining that the FBI was out to get him, and breaking down in tears -- was also sheer stupidity. He got away with something like that in the USSR in 1959, so maybe that's why he tried it again. It was dumb. There remain a few differences between the treatment of Bill Simpich regarding Lee Oswald's antics in Mexico City compared with my own treatment. Bill wants to keep open the idea that Oswald wasn't really that stupid, but might have been testing the clerks at the consulates. That's implausible, IMHO. Bill Simpich also wants to keep open the possibility that it wasn't really Oswald in Mexico City, but a double. That's also implausible, IMHO, not only based on the behavior of Oswald (which was true to form) but also based on a key theory by Bill Simpich, namely, that the CIA modified Oswald's 201 file at CIA HQ when they realized an Oswald impersonation had taken place over their wiretapped telephone system -- twice. It was Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, all right, and he really was behaving like a total ignoramus. The best explanation that I see isn't the one that Bill Simpich suggests, however. I see that Oswald made a fool of himself in Mexico City because he really and truly believed that the clerks at the Cuban and USSR consulates were easily fooled. Now, why would Oswald think that? The most likely scenario is the reason he was there in the first place -- he was acting under orders. He was there to sneak into Cuba to participate in some "Mongoose" type of scenario. Oswald's handlers promised him that by being an officer of the FPCC that he would be welcomed into Cuba with open arms, with no questions asked, and given an instant Visa. He believed it -- which is proved by the fact that when the consulates ran their normal SOP which squashed Oswald's dream like a bug, Oswald couldn't accept it. He demanded to speak to the Cuban consulate manager -- and when the manager repeated the rules, Oswald lost his temper and was kicked out. Then Oswald in desperation went to the USSR with a revolver, a sad story and tears. What a maroon. But his behavior is consistent with a naïve young man who is following instructions, but his instructions were faulty. It is therefore very clear who gave Oswald his instructions -- it wasn't the CIA. As Jim Garrison in 1968 painstakingly showed the world, it was Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier. They very carefully framed Oswald from April 1963 through September 1963, getting him on film, radio and TV, as a Communist leader of the FPCC. Why did Oswald cooperate with his framers? Because they promised him fame and fortune, obviously. Clay Shaw was very rich and ensured that Oswald always had spending money. (We are assured of this from Thomas Beckham and Dean Andrews.) Oswald was probably promised a lot of money for his Mexico City caper. His plan was to get a Cuba Visa (and the USSR Visa was only a ruse to get the Cuba Visa) and then meet a team of assassins in Cuba to assassinate Fidel Castro -- escape -- and return to the USA for a fat payroll and a parade -- and maybe a chance at being elected "Prime Minister of the USA" as he told Marina. New Orleans was a stressful time for Oswald. Richard Case Nagell told Oswald personally that if he ever got to Mexico City that Nagell himself would shoot Oswald dead. Oswald worried about getting to Cuba some other way -- perhaps by hi-jacking an airplane (as he told Marina and also Ron Lewis). In any case, Oswald successfully completed his mission to sheep-dip himself as an FPCC officer, and had "credentials" in newspaper, radio and TV. So he felt ready to go to Mexico City for this (phony) CIA mission. It is absolutely certain that Banister, Shaw and Ferrie knew for a fact that Oswald would fail in his mission to get an instant Visa to Cuba. They were probably laughing their heads off back in New Orleans while Oswald was in Mexico City. But Oswald played his role faithfully, to the best of his ability. Naturally he failed to get his instant Visa, and he was totally unaware that he was now totally framed as a Communist. Now -- getting back to the theory of Bill Simpich -- he reveals that somebody -- probably in the CIA, probably David Morales (a CIA rogue acting on his own with his small team) chose to rattle the CIA by threatening their sophisticated wiretap operation in Mexico City by impersonating Oswald and Duran in telephone calls between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate. Morales was successful and created a mole-hunt in the CIA, in which the CIA would investigate its own people to find out who was impersonating Oswald. Based on this mole-hunt, they would also camouflage Oswald's 201 file. This was (according to Bill Simpich) the payoff for David Morales. Now Morales could blackmail the CIA says Simpich. I say Simpich did some ground-breaking work by uncovering the CIA mole-hunt, the players and the twin 10/10 memos that emerged from it, which prove Simpich's case for a mole-hunt and the camouflage of the Oswald 201 file. His discovery is outstanding, and I agree that every new theory about Mexico City must now take the twin 10/10 memos into consideration. Having said that, I don't believe that Simpich fully proved his case that Morales intended to blackmail the CIA into hiding all its Oswald records. There are still too many gaps. The case against Clay Shaw brought by Jim Garrison also remains mandatory for any theory about Lee Harvey Oswald and his Mexico City episode. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Yet there was no such real guarantee. The linkage between Oswald the Communist JFK killer, and Kostikov, the Communist KGB assassin -- was exactly what the JFK murder plotters really wanted -- it was their deepest desire -- to link Oswald with the Communists so that the People of the USA would rise up in holy wrath against Cuba, invade Cuba, kill Fidel Castro in revenge for the JFK murder, and then restore the Monroe Doctrine to its rightful place. This was the demand of the John Birch Society in 1963. It was also stated in Ex-General Edwin Walker's OPEN LETTER TO JFK dated September 1962, which I will share again here: http://www.pet880.com/images/19620926_EAW_Open_Letter.JPG It was also the strong desire of the ROGUES in the CIA (almost all of whom were Bay of Pigs survivors) who supported Guy Banister and Edwin Walker (and their JBS connections) to link Oswald with the KGB, and we hear many stories in December 1963 from Johnny Roselli and Frank Sturgis to the press and to their local Congressmen, urging them to consider Oswald as a Communist supporting Fidel Castro through the FPCC, and Attack Cuba Now ! This was their desire. The right-wing and the Mafia and the CIA Rogues all wanted CUBA as their First Prize. JFK was nothing to them. The Vietnam conflict was nothing to them. This was 1963, and they had no idea what 1964 would bring -- and they didn't care -- as long as they got CUBA back in the American orbit. This is why I emphasize -- the image of a Communist Oswald was constructed by those who wanted JFK murdered to provoke US wrath against Communist Cuba. It is unlikely that James Jesus Angleton was involved in this plot -- because then he would not have kept top secret all these files that portray Oswald as a Communist. Instead, the CIA does the opposite -- it hides these files. It joins the FBI song and dance about a Lone Nut, and a Lone Gunman. Communists? What Communists? Somebody went to an extreme length to paint Oswald as a Communist. The fact that the FPCC chapter in New Orleans had only one member, Lee Harvey Oswald (and his alias, which doesn't count), is a very strong confirmation of this theory. And yet, when the rubber hits the road in the days after the JFK murder, the FBI and CIA choose to call Oswald a Lone Nut. This is hard evidence for my theory that the Cover-up Team was totally different from the JFK murder Team -- they had different goals. This, then, seems to confirm my theory that the CIA people who were confessedly involved in the JFK murder were ROGUES, while the Official CIA opposed them, and removed their Prize from them. There would be no blaming of Castro. There would be no blaming of the KGB. There would only be one single Lone Nut who had no accomplices. The past fifty years has proven that Lee Harvey Oswald could never have acted alone. in the JFK murder. That proves that the FBI and CIA and even the Warren Commission knew exactly who the accomplices of Oswald really were. For fifty years the JFK researchers have presumed that the Cover-up Team acted to protect the JFK murder Team. But they could never explain why the JFK murder Team went through seven months of framing Lee Harvey Oswald as an FPCC Communist -- and then after the JFK murder, Oswald was simply considered a Lone Nut with no accomplices. Newman does not explain this, either. I hope he is able to use his encyclopedic knowledge to come up with a different Epilogue than his current one in his book, Oswald and the CIA. The explanation, IMHO, is that the CIA and the FBI and the Warren Commission and LBJ -- all knew who murdered JFK -- but they could not name them, because in naming them they would have started a Civil War -- and that would have led to World War Three. It was a matter of National Security -- exactly as they said. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., John Newman did make a noble effort in his book, OSWALD AND THE CIA (1995, updated 2008) with nearly a thousand pages that reveal many CIA records previously unknown. However, John Newman has a flaw in his logic, in my opinion, namely, he presumes, without proof, that the Cover-up was done by the same people who murdered JFK. Given that assumption -- the result of the guesses by John Newman are fairly predictable. As Newman himself admits throughout his work, he offers guesses most of the time, to fill in the many gaps that the CIA documents don't fill. See, I can even accept Newman's guesswork that Angleton dangled LHO, a 20-year old Marine, in the face of the USSR in 1959 to see if the USSR would grab at him. If not, this would confirm they already had a mole in the USA U2 program. However, it is going too far to follow Newman in his 2008 Epilogue, which guesses that Oswald went back and forth between the Cuban Embassy and the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, losing his temper along the way, because he was ordered to. Newman says this was all planned by the CIA plotters of the JFK murder -- that if Oswald called the Soviet Embassy, he would have to talk with the KGB Agent Valery Kostikov, who was known by the CIA to be in charge of assassinations. By recording this call, the CIA would be able to frame Oswald for KGB connections. But that theory doesn't pan out, Paul B., because the CIA never used that information in making the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, the CIA kept that information Top Secret until the 1980's. So, John Newman is only guessing. He is probably right to guess than when LHO took a loaded revolver to the Soviet Embassy the next day, that his handler probably told him to do it, to make LHO look really stupid. Newman does not bother to explain, however, why Oswald was so impatient and unruly at the two Embassies in Mexico City. The most obvious reason, naturally, is that his 'handlers' told him that getting the Visa to Cuba would be easy -- and he was finding out that it wasn't easy. His loyalty to his handlers was his motivation for losing his temper at these allegedly inferior clerks who denied him his allegedly rightful Visa to Cuba. Oswald's handlers, therefore, were not the CIA, but were Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier in New Orleans. Loran Hall and Larry Howard might be included because they drove Oswald to Mexico City, but they did not need to be part of the New Orleans sheep-dipping plot -- they had their own, separate plot. Having been assured that Oswald would fail to get a Cuban Visa based on his bogus FPCC street credentials, Loran Hall and Larry Howard played along with Oswald, but offered him a seconday deal "in case the Cuba Visa deal falls through." Namely, after Oswald failed to get his Cuban Visa (as his handlers knew he would) Oswald could then visit Guy Gabaldon in Mexico City (according to Harry Dean) who had $500 for Oswald just for showing up. (Richard Case Nagell attests to the $500 part.) Guy Gabaldon (says Harry Dean) would pretend to be a CIA officer, and would pretend to offer Oswald YET ANOTHER special CIA project; this time in Dallas. In late September 1963, in Mexico City, Guy Gabaldon handed Oswald $500 (which amounts to $5,000 today adjusted for inflation) and instructed Oswald to wait in Dallas for further instructions. So, that's what Oswald immediately did. The connection between Guy Gabaldon and ex-General Walker was personally established within the John Birch Society in Southern California at a meeting also attended by Harry Dean. So, Paul B., the breakdown of Newman's logic about the Mexico City episode is that it is self-contradictory. If the CIA went to all this trouble to frame Oswald in Mexico City, then why did the CIA move heaven and earth to hide all these records as Top Secret for decades? The best explanation, IMHO, is that the JFK murder was totally separate from the JFK murder cover-up. The CIA was attempting to accomplish something completely different in its tracking of the FPCC and the Mexico City Embassies, and Oswald was not high on their list. The CIA was interested in Oswald when he was 20 years old, but when he was 22 his many flaws had already disqualified him for further interviews. He was hardly a blip on their radar. On the other hand, the ultra-right-wing in the USA -- always a running danger in this country -- found a totally different role for Lee Harvey Oswald. That's my reading of Newman, Paul B. If I missed something in his very large book, please remind me, and I'll review that, too. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I'll engage this discussion. I simply don't find enough documented evidence to convince me that senior CIA Agent James Jesus Angleton was "running Oswald" (and I take that phrase to mean that Angleton was controlling the subplot to make Oswald into the patsy for the JFK murder). Yes, we know from CIA documents that the CIA was interested in possibly interviewing Lee Harvey Oswald for a job at the CIA, but that never really materialized. IMHO, Oswald just had too many faults for the CIA to maintain interest. However, it did seem to give Oswald a swelled head (just as it gave a swelled head to Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Clay Shaw, Thomas Beckham, and countless others). So there was some CIA interest in Oswald -- but I don't find evidence of "running Oswald." What I do perceive is that all these CIA wannabes (and a few rogues) tricked Oswald into believing that he was being trained/tested for a job with the CIA all the time he was in New Orleans in the spring and the summer of 1963, including his trip to Mexico. It seems clear to me that David Atlee Phillips (alias Maurice Bishop) was part of a team to manipulate Oswald to make Oswald believe he was working for the CIA in cooperation with Alpha 66 and its leader, Antonio Veciana. The three of them met in Dallas, according to Veciana, whom I find credible. (I also believe that Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in cooperation with Guy Gabaldon, were working to convince Oswald that he was part of a CIA plot against Castro, and they gave him money to keep him interested -- this is clear from the Harry Dean memoirs.) Yet IMHO David Atlee Phillips was off the reservation -- he went rogue and was working with other rogues in this manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald specifically to fool Oswald into believing he was working with the official CIA, when these people were all scamming Oswald. David Phillips did not confess openly to being part of the plot, but he did confess with tears in his eyes to his brother that he was in Dallas on 11/22/1963. So I do think that Phillips was a part of the JFK murder plot. But that doesn't include James Jesus Angleton. Even if Angelton said some nasty things about JFK -- that still doesn't prove he was part of a JFK murder plot. While it's true that Angleton played an active role in the COVER-UP, please remember that I separate the JFK murder team from the JFK cover-up team with a giant wedge. These two groups opposed each other, IMHO. The CIA was part of the cover-up. That's clear. But if we separate the JFK murder from the cover-up, then we can't use the cover-up to make the CIA into JFK murder suspects. We need better evidence. Nevertheless -- I will grant you that some members of the CIA clearly went ROGUE and strayed from the reservation to act on their own. The culture of secrecy and independence -- and all the cash that flowed like water -- all this was an unhealthy climate in 1963. It was out of control. Even the CIA couldn't control it. However, Paul B., I'll keep an open mind. If you want to lay out your evidence that James Jesus Angleton was "running Oswald," then I'm all ears. Honestly. I'll take your evidence slow and give it a thorough and open-minded review. As for Banister and Walker -- they were out of control. By being members of the John Birch Society, which dogmatically believed that sitting US Presidents had been secret Communists -- they showed themselves to be: (1) too damn old and alcohol dependent to think straight; (2) useless to intelligent people in the FBI and CIA; (3) politically ambitious and willing to do absolutely anything for local political power; and (4) completely lacking in loyalty to anybody but themselves. So, no, they didn't answer to any higher authority than: (a.) the John Birch Society; (b.) the Minutemen; (c.) the White Citizens Councils -- and that is even an over-statement, because Banister and Walker sought to be leaders in all these groups, and not followers. Their egos, Paul B., were simply too big. Think of the race riots in Ole Miss in 1962. Think of the abuse of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas just weeks before JFK went there. These guys didn't answer to anybody except their own Southern, Confederate values. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

As usual, Larry, I appreciate your academic sign-posts. You're surprising me with your suggestion that General Edward Lansdale might not be a plotter in the JFK murder -- despite Colonel Fletcher Prouty's clear naming of Lansdale in his surprise assignment at the South Pole instead of protecting JFK in Dallas -- which seems very damning to me -- Prouty was so close to the action. Yet, I'll keep an open mind. Fletcher Prouty is a key source for me -- as he was a key source for Jim Garrison and for Oliver Stone, yet I'll suspend judgment about Fletcher Prouty and General Edward Lansdale until I've read the citations that you named, Larry. I didn't expect to read your suggestion that Edward Lansdale was in Dallas on 11/22/1963 trying to stop a JFK murder plot. I've just never read that before in the past 20 years of my JFK research. You've always got surprises, Larry. Finally, I've formed some strong opinions about Oswald and Mexico City after reading the 2003 book by Edwin Lopez: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City. But I'll keep an open mind and read Bill Simpich's new work, as you suggested. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Larry, I'm aware that General Lansdale was a US General, and not a CIA Agent -- although he served in the CIA for years, and he was also in a position to know about CIA activities and to give CIA assets orders (e.g. Colonel Fletcher Prouty). I name him as a JFK murder plotter strictly because Fletcher Prouty clearly identifies him as a JFK murder plotter. No matter how close he was to the Kennedys (which was very close) the facts told by Fletcher Prouty tell us the inner truth about Lansdale. I remember the story of Lansdale from your NEXUS (2012), Larry, yet despite all that, the claims of Fletcher Prouty win the hand. So, I agree that Lansdale was not in the official CIA chain-of-command, but he did command Fletcher Prouty, who worked within the CIA on a regular basis. It is precisely this sort of unofficial authority that I seek to explore in my theory. It seems to me that what I explore -- the unofficial story, and the street-asset story -- plays a lesser role in your methodology. Now I'll review NEXUS to focus more intently upon CIA Officers, James Jesus Angleton, William Harvey and David Morales. It's certain that David Morales was a JFK murder plotter, because he admitted this himself. William Harvey was furious with JFK over the Bay of Pigs and Harvey even sent mercenary Raiders into Cuba to spite JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis! Then, after that Cuban Missile Crisis stunt, RFK sent William Harvey to Italy forever, where Harvey reportedly drank himself to death. So, yes Larry, I agree that Harvey is very high on the suspect list. Almost certain (but without a confession, to the best of my knowledge). Yet at the same time, his anger with JFK and RFK make him less of an Official CIA plotter, than a rogue Agent with vengeance in mind. I think the case of William Harvey plays into my theory very smoothly. As for James Jesus Angleton, he is clearly part of the cover-up -- but I sharply distinguish between the murder of JFK and its cover-up. These were done by two different groups with widely different goals. So, I need more proof if I'm to blame Angleton. Yes, he knew a lot about the Mexico City episode that he kept secret -- but that proves almost nothing unless one also heaps rumors and innuendos into the Mexico City episode. I'll keep an open mind, though, and explore this further within NEXUS. You probably also suspect David Atlee Phillips (aka Maurice Bishop) who was seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in the last half of 1963. I do, too, but I still need more proof. Coincidence is not enough, especially when one sharply separates the JFK murder from the JFK cover-up the way I do. As for Allen Dulles himself -- of course in 1963 he wasn't a member of the CIA at all -- but on the outside looking in. It is possible that he was involved -- but far from proven, IMHO. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I keep driving the subject back to General Walker because I think that it's insufficiently addressed by the literature. However -- I don't regard the guilt of General Walker to be an established fact. It's not a fact, it's a theory. It's a working theory, that keeps getting stronger every year -- but it's still unproven. Also, the idea that several plots were in effect is not my idea -- it was stated by Gerry Patrick Hemming, who said that lots of people paid money to braggarts who promised to kill JFK. Then, after the deed was done, how could a donor be sure that his donation wasn't the MAIN donation? That's the reason that Hemming refused to name names -- too many paranoid donors were still out there. Also, we have DOCUMENTED evidence about a Tampa plot, a Chicago plot, a Miami plot, a Dallas Trade Mart plot, and that's only a few. So, it's really no guess on my part. Not only that, but Jim Garrison himself suspected that there were multiple plots. Remember that video? So, I'm only repeating existing JFK research that's already out there. It might be wrong -- but the facts tend to support it. There were hundreds if not thousands of people who wanted JFK dead. Finally -- why would I talk about something else besides my own theory which I am keen to pursue to the end -- to see if it's right or wrong? You yourself keep raising your own theory that Bush Sr. was involved. Don't you want to pursue it to the end? If you want to talk about your theory -- fine. I see it as purely guesswork -- and I find that younger researchers pursue it because they don't remember JFK anyway, the Cuban Crises means nothing to them, and anyway Bush Sr. dominated their political horizons from childhood into adulthood. In my view, the evidence shows that George Bush Sr. was a wealthy businessman who lived in Houston in 1963, with lots of Dallas business connections, and he sent the FBI a report that a local citizen in Houston (James Parrott) threatened to kill JFK if he got near him. That doesn't fit the profile of somebody who wanted to kill JFK. The JBS was behind the deed, by all political evidence, and George Bush Sr. was nowhere near the profile of a member of the JBS. That's clear, IMHO. Regards, --Paul Trejo