W. Tracy Parnell

The second part of my series on the Maurice Bishop story is a list of questions for Antonio Veciana inspired by his new book Trained to Kill. Veciana’s tale now includes suicide pills, disappearing ink, lie detector tests, truth serum and other clichés that are notably absent from earlier versions of the story. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/trained-to-kill.html

I would be curious to hear how they explain these photos that are neither.

Bumped for Wynne Johnson.

Yes everyone, the evil FBI, WC, HSCA, Secret Service and whoever else is lying. Except when any of these entities provide information that can be used by John Armstrong in his "book" Harvey and Lee as proof of his theories. Then all of a sudden they are trustworthy.

All I see are photos of the one and only LHO. And I am not sure why you keep posting this image and claiming it has some relevance to the H&L theory. Jack White had his own theories such as there 3 or 4 Marguerites and several Oswalds. And this poster is meant to convince the gullible of that fact. Also not sure why you are spamming this forum with material that has been addressed already. I guess we can think of it as the "greatest hits" of Hargrove. Edit: Apparently Jim is ready to expand the H&L theory since he says a number of photos in the poster are neither "Harvey" or "Lee." Are you branching out Jim or is this approved by Armstrong?

I'll try and explain this one more time. It isn't even an argument. Gaeton Fonzi, who wrote the HSCA Volume X section on Veciana stated: The committee's interest in the relationship between Antonio Veciana and Maurice Bishop is of course predicated on Veciana's contention that he saw Bishop with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas a few months before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

That was an assumption on my part and I stand corrected if I mischaracterized what you were saying. However, the fact that the meeting was at Southland is just an assumption on Fonzi's part and not based on anything that Veciana said in the March 1976 interviews, his HSCA testimony or the Dick Russell interview. And Veciana could be expected to remember the Southland building because of its unusual height and he admits this in his book. But he never mentioned the height of the building and only said in the March 2 interview that it was "blue or white." In the March 11 interview, he said it was "blue," and in his HSCA testimony he said it had "blue marble or blue ornaments." Now, of course, Veciana is making all sorts of claims but I think his early statements are more indicative of the truth in this case.

Of course, "the committee" in this case was Fonzi so it is his argument as well.

George, I'll eventually be doing a piece to discuss Veciana's possible motivations. I believe Fonzi had it partly right when he wrote this: Veciana felt that by revealing his association with Bishop to an official representative of the U.S. Government, he would be providing himself with an element of security.

No, Bishop as Phillips means nothing without LHO. He's just a CIA guy trying to kill Castro. Don't believe me? Here's how Fonzi put it: The committee's interest in the relationship between Antonio Veciana and Maurice Bishop is of course predicated on Veciana's contention that he saw Bishop with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas a few months before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

I just say he was looking to share the blame, I don't think he knew who that was going to be at first. I think he went along with the CIA after he realized that Fonzi and others were amenable to the concept.

No, I am not saying he was hiding his anti-Castro activities-those were a matter of record. He was looking for someone to share the blame.

I could be the most biased person in the world Cliff, but a fact is a fact and Fonzi altered the facts of what Veciana told him which I suspect many people already know and have not bothered to reveal. He probably felt the end justified the means. But as I said earlier in this thread, the real "bad guy" here is Veciana who has been misleading people for years. But my article is about the altered facts rather than objectivity.

What's your evidence that Phillips was running the DRE other than Hunt's statement? And what is your evidence that LHO's contact with the DRE was at the behest of the CIA?

Ok, fair enough-I'll let him answer.

I can answer that-no he didn't. The "coffee shop" thing was in volume X of the HSCA. Johnson went public in 2014 after reading about the "coffee shop" in Fonzi's book. And Johnson has no evidence for any of this other than his word.

I have a question for Mr. Johnson. In your video you say that Veciana recalled the meeting as happening toward the end of the first week in September. Could you please give me the source for this statement?

But that is using hindsight. In 1976 he was afraid. From Fonzi's book: When Veciana was released from prison and I showed up at his door, he immediately decided he would use me to build himself a shield against another set up [like his drug arrest].

His excuse used to be he wasn't "on the Internet" but that hardly holds water at this point. I say this for Jim, he has been a faithful follower for many years.

I would ask Mr. Johnson to take a look at my article on him and answer a few questions: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/wynne-johnson.html For example, Johnson says in the self-produced video that he determined the date of the meeting was Saturday, September 7, 1963 because: · It had to be a weekend since he and the girl were students. · Veciana said it was toward the end of the first week in September. · The busses were running on Saturday. The key information allowing him to zero in on the date of September 7 came from Veciana (I assume a latter day interview he doesn't say). But Veciana did not originslly know the date with that degree of specificity as I have shown. So Johnson is "verifying" Veciana's date which he never alleged until years later. Same with Southland-if you understand that Veciana never said that (at first), it destroys Johnson's story. In other words one bad source is "verifying" the other.

What hook? He is a celebrity-this is a blurb for his book: Antonio Veciana is one of the most swashbuckling figures from the underground war against Fidel Castro in the 1960s and '70s. A former bank accountant in pre-revolutionary Havana, Veciana turned himself into a daring leader of the anti-Castro movement, organizing multiple assassination attempts and founding one of the most militant Cuban exile groups, Alpha 66, under the secret guidance of the CIA. So, I am not sure how he is going to answer for anything.

I am starting to doubt that you have actually read my article Michael. It can be assumed. It can be deduced. But everyone is presenting it as a fact which it is not. In his book, Veciana says it is hard to mistake the Southland Center. Why then did he never say it was that building until years and years later. In fact, if someone can provide a citation for when he first mentioned Southland it would be helpful but I don't think it was until after the year 2000. His first description on the record was a “big bank or insurance company” but he didn’t remember “whether it was blue or white.” Why does this matter? Because people are developing theories based on the Southland Center (Robert Oswald had an attorney there). And Wynne Johnson is wasting everyone's time by "verifying" the "fact" that it was Southland. Veciana didn't remember the building although he could be expected to remember the prominent Southland building.

Nothing is 100 percent Michael. I am saying that even if 2017 documents prove there was a Bishop and he was Phillips without the LHO connection it is meaningless. Unless the hypothetical documents also name LHO as someone Phillips was running. In that case, I will delete my article and replace it with an apology. As far as my stumbling, the facts I have presented stand regardless of the ultimate truth about Maurice Bishop. But here is something to think about. I am sure I am not the first person to see these documents. How many years have some unknown people kept silent about the Fonzi-Veciana interviews?

Veciana wanted to show he was being directed by someone else. In other words it wasn't him it was Bishop. As time went on and he realized the CIA was the number one villain in the world because of various revelations, Bishop "became" CIA.

OK, fair enough. I just ask people to be a little more skeptical considering the facts I have presented in my article especially with the Veciana book coming out: · Veciana did not originally believe that Bishop worked for the CIA or the government at all but rather a private organization. · Veciana was far from sure about key details such as Bishop’s first name. · The “late August, early September” time frame for the meeting was a Fonzi invention created to fit his own assassination theory. · The Southland Center as the meeting place was another Fonzi invention designed to fit conspiracy theories.