W. Tracy Parnell

I'll be attacked for this, but I woke up in a mood so here goes. It's amazing to me how the conspirators worked so hard to push the fact that Castro was behind the assassination. This was ostensibly done to get the US to invade Cuba and remove Castro. But the WC, even with the evil Dulles sitting as a member, never said that Castro had anything to do with it. Yes, maybe Oswald was a Castro agent in his own mind but not overtly. He did it alone. So the conspiracy was only 50 percent effective. They killed JFK but Castro sat there for years and years. But you think that the evil conspirators, who were smart enough to hatch this plot that had to involve hundreds if not thousands, would have foreseen that this could happen. Did they not think that the feds could take control of the investigation? I guess you guys will say 50 percent is better than nothing. Also, this presentation doesn't say one word about the Pentagon. It's all about the CIA. And the subject of this thread is Newman, so this just points to the severe fracture that exists in the community and the coming battle if Newman sticks to his guns. I think that while Newman has been blustering about how everyone needs to change their attitude and adopt a "new paradigm," that he will change his tune when he realizes his sales could dry up (he must make $20 a book easy since the thing costs $32 and is printed on demand). He will then say that key CIA assets were working with the Army. I just want to see his "proof" that Veciana was released early by the conspirators. Amazing how they still had people in place 13 years after the fact that could do this. I guess it is the same way the media still has CIA assets that work to this day to promote the coverup. OK begin the attacks.

No, he didn't and its clear to me that Carle misconstrued something Phillips said to him. After all, Phillips was a very careful individual and what would he have to gain by such an "admission" to Carle? Nothing but headaches. Amazing that Carle never said a word until years later also. There is not one person that knew of or said anything about a "Maurice Bishop" or "Jim or John Bishop," which is what Veciana also told the investigators Bishop's name could have been, before 1976. Only after Veciana's allegations did these people "remember" anything. and that was after it became a "fact" in popular culture.

I have looked into Veciana's claim that he was "railroaded" and see no evidence for that by the CIA or anyone else. His two co-defendants turned state's evidence against him (they were not the only witnesses or evidence against him though) and I guess you can say that they were paid off by the CIA (or whoever) to do it but can you prove it? Actually, I guess Newman thinks that it would be the Army brass that "framed" him (?). Veciana also told Fonzi that when he was released he just needed some time and he would prove his claims. That never happened. It seems to me at this point that most people would understand that it is dangerous to believe anything that Veciana says when there is no other evidence for it. Perhaps you can point me to something I don't know about and in that case I would be grateful. Here is an article I did that describes the situation (scroll down a couple of paragraphs). http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/05/vecianas-game.html

OK, thanks for the information.

When did he admit he lied please? I thought it was Terpil rather than Wilson who said Phillips used the alias. As far as what Fenton said, why wasn't this included in the HSCA report on Veciana? Can you provide me with a source for Fenton's statements?

Does anyone have a way to contact Wynne Johnson? I already tried to PM him here with no luck. The following message recently appeared on my website ostensibly from him: "I first learned of this page [about his story] on December 28, 2019. I immediately wrote answers to its questions addressed to me, Wynne Johnson. But when I tried to post them to this page, I found that it could not accomodate such a long post. So I decided to make another video and just reference it here. See it at https://vimeo.com/381846991." However, there is no video at that link. I am trying to determine if this is legit or a hoax. I would like to offer Johnson the chance to post his assertions at my site or at least see the video.

Phillips was probably nervous for sure. He was tired of being accused of being someone he was not and expressed this to Hardway and Fonzi. Phillips admitted in his testimony that he knew Lobo who reported to the CIA from time to time. So what? As far as charging Phillips with perjury because he said Veciana wasn't introduced to him by name but as "the driver," Blakey told Fonzi to go fly a kite and rightfully so since it was Phillips' word against Fonzi's and Veciana's (and possibly Sarah Lewis' although Fonzi doesn't mention her much in the book so I doubt she knew anything). Even if what Larry Hancock suggests is true-that Phillips used the alias "Bishop" and Veciana somehow found out about it, that doesn't prove that Veciana saw Phillips with Oswald. In fact, the evidence being developed by people like myself and Newman shows that Veciana likely lied about the whole thing. The difference between Newman and myself is that he is creating a whole new conspiracy theory that just happens to support his theory of Army Intelligence involvement in the assassination. I just see a guy that lied because he wanted to make sure he wasn't prosecuted for activities that he was involved in with Alpha 66 and maybe wanted to write history so it was favorable to him. BTW, Phillips had a couple registered pseudonyms (one was Choaden as most know) and Bishop is nowhere to be found according to the AARC and Mary Ferrell. That suggests that if he used Bishop at all, it was an alias and those came and went as they were changed for different projects. Phillips testified that he used 100 or more during his time with the CIA and the chance that anyone like Veciana could discover one is remote. Also, a fact that many seem to be unaware of or ignore is that in the first interviews with Fonzi, Veciana said he didn't believe that Bishop was necessarily an intelligence operative but could have been with a "private organization not the government." Now why would he say that if he knew that Bishop was Phillips? And why the cat and mouse game with Fonzi? Just come out in the beginning and say Phillips was Bishop. And there was no reason to be afraid-once he testified that Phillips was Bishop under oath he would be safe. Of course, he would have to have proof that Phillips was Bishop and his story would have to be checked out properly, which Fonzi did not do by the way. But Veciana had no proof, not a scrap of paper and not one other person in the world (save for the imaginative Wynne Johnson) to verify his story. And we now know (thanks to Newman) that Veciana lied about how he met Bishop in Cuba. It simply couldn't have happened the way he said.

But Phillips had spoken to them and no doubt realized what was going on and also had a conference to run. I describe the whole thing as "The Reston Ambush" in my articles and that is exactly what it was. They were hoping to get Phillips to say or do something that they could later misrepresent or at least put their spin on. So, Phillips wasn't "avoiding" them but simply saying that he would speak in an official capacity only. He testified twice and also made a statement under oath referred to by Ron above. Also, Fonzi admitted that Phillips displayed no hint of recognition when it came to Veciana who he supposedly had ran as an asset for 13 years.

David, I appreciate you posting the section from Fonzi's book. Perhaps you are unaware, but I have written a series of articles on Veciana, so I am aware of the evidence. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-maurice-bishop-story.html I was simply taking exception to your statement that Phillips "fled the room" which I do not believe was the case. As I mentioned, Phillips and Fonzi disagreed about some details of the encounter but both agreed that Phillips talked to them.

David Andrews, You originally said that Phillips "fled the room" during the HSCA encounter which is what threw me off. The information you posted above is accurate. Fonzi and Phillips disagreed about some details of the encounter which occurred at the ARIO meeting in Reston not at the HSCA. But Phillips did not flee the room-he talked to Veciana by all accounts. What he did do was return to his activities after talking to Veciana and Fonzi for a few minutes and decline to answer further questions outside of Congress which I think is understandable. He was in charge of the meeting and banquet that day and didn't have time to answer any more questions. Even Fonzi admitted that he was courteous to them.

When and where did this allegedly take place?

If Veciana is ultimately discredited in the eyes of the majority of the research community (which is coming I believe), I certainly do not expect it to be the end of the CIA-did-it theories. However, Veciana's story is brought up time and time again by authors of books that think the CIA did it and for that reason I certainly think it is long past time that Veciana is exposed. But people on my side of the debate are just as guilty as Fonzi and his followers who did little to vet Veciana's story.

We will have to see when his presentation becomes available. He states that he had to get approval from CAPA (?) to put it on his website but is promising it is forthcoming. It looks to me like he will walk a fine line and say that Lansdale and the Army brass were the masterminds with help from certain CIA elements. Looks like he will say Veciana lied at the behest of the Army (ASCI specifically) and there was no Bishop. And Fonzi was duped.

Yes, I agree.

It seems the battle lines are being drawn. Pease and others have a great deal invested in the CIA-Did-It narrative. It will be interesting as this plays out.

Newman has now posted readable versions of the presentation slides he used in Dallas: https://www.facebook.com/john.newman.1029770?fref=mentions

For those interested, Alan Dale has posted a summary of Newman's presentation on Facebook:

Until we get the details of Newman's new theory all of this is speculation. But you are correct-it certainly appears that Newman will be saying that Veciana was a part of the conspiracy in some manner. And Fonzi, rather than being an amazing investigator who uncovered evidence of CIA complicity in the assassination, was duped by the real killers of JFK. I predict that this will not go over well with some (perhaps many) in the research community.

Veciana was shot in 1979, but the assailant was never identified. Veciana always thought that Castro was behind the shooting.

Yes, many people are. Bill Kelly has said that the videos will be available "soon" but a written summary that he promised has not materialized yet.

I started a thread shortly after the presentation and there didn't seem to be much interest. Perhaps Newman has not presented any evidence for his claim that Veciana was freed from prison to speak to Fonzi (not sure who he is saying did this-Fonzi or the Army). Rob Clark was there (I presume) and he didn't seem to be sure of (or didn't care) what Newman is claiming when I listened to his podcast. I am surprised that someone who heard the presentation has not provided more detail. This topic is sure to further divide the research community (along with the Stone-Baker debacle) since Fonzi still has many supporters and under Newman's scenario he was (evidently) completely duped and did exactly what the Army brass and Veciana wanted-implicated the CIA to take the heat off them. Equally fascinating is the apparent claim that Veciana was in on the plot with the Army or at least did their biding for some unknown reason. Newman is evidently going to try and show a close relationship between Veciana and the Army. But Hubbard testified that they had little interest in Veciana beyond obtaining an interview with the frogmen who tried to plant a bomb on a Soviet ship during an Alpha 66/SNFE raid and obtaining intelligence from Veciana and other Alpha 66/SNFE members. This "incriminating" relationship had ended by 1966. It will be interesting to see what Marie Fonzi and Veciana have to say about all of this.

I received an email from Greg Parker reminding me that he worked out that the person the anonymous caller was referring to was likely Emil Gardos 10 years ago. He has a thread on the topic: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t87-the-mrs-jack-d-tippit-phone-call

Hoover's concern and all other matters about the BC are explained here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html There was a detailed discussion on the issue right here at EF which led to my article.

No John, probably not too much. That's because I'm dealing with folks that say they want a DNA test but then quickly add that they wouldn't even trust that. The evidence that there were not 2 Oswalds is overwhelming and accepted even by the majority of conspiracy-oriented researchers as a non-scientific poll here showed. However, I am a firm supporter of free speech, so please carry on. As I mentioned, I will "butt out" for the most part. Every once in a while I lose my head and start posting, but I will try to control that impulse.

No problem John.