W. Tracy Parnell

Greg Parker offer his thoughts on this here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1393-how-many-sharks-can-one-man-jump

No, but Willcot thought the CIA murdered widows and orphans and ponies and unicorns. OK, maybe not that bad, but almost!

I found more details on how Wilcott found out about the "LHO project" and about his opinion of the agency: In September, 1978, Wilcott excoriated the CIA during an interview he gave to liberal journalist Warren Hinckle. Wilcott told Hinckle that the agency was "a perverse place of sexual blackmail, betraying friends, unleashing psychopaths, and hobnobbing with mobsters, of pseudonyms and cryptonyms, drunkards and ripoff artists, dirty money and dirty tricks and run-amok assassins, a place where error and folly were held sacred in the almighty name of secrecy." The true source of the "shop talk" that the HSCA had charitably described and which led to Wilcott learning of the LHO "project" also became clear in this interview. Wilcott claimed that the CIA made scotch available at 75 cents a bottle. "At those prices" Wilcott quipped, "you almost couldn't afford not to drink." Hinckle reported "It was during these after-hours drinking sessions that Wilcott became aware of the nature of many secret CIA operations normally hidden by cryptonyms." It is probably not surprising that Wilcott couldn't remember who told him about LHO.

Keep in mind that the idea of "Harvey" being a Russian-speaking Hungarian is completely based on a phone call. The following description of the concept is taken from Hargrove's website: Following the assassination of President Kennedy, a Mrs. Jack Tippit, of Westport, Connecticut, telephoned the FBI and said that she had just received a phone call from an unknown foreign woman who asked if she was related to police officer J.D. Tippit who was killed in Dallas. The unknown woman said that she knew Oswald's father and uncle, who were from Hungary, said they used to live near 77th and 2nd Avenue in Yorkville, New York City, and spent all of their time on "Communist activities." The identity of the woman remains unknown, but her statements about Oswald's eastern European heritage and the neighborhood in which he lived seem more and more plausible as we study and learn about the life and background of a second "Lee Harvey Oswald," the man accused of assassinating President Kennedy in 1963.

No more notes, but there are other discussions about the interviews.

No, you can't prove any of it. BTW, who's Dr. James Norwood?

This should kill the idea that the HSCA conducted no interviews regarding the Wilcott matter. These are notes from the interview of Fred Randall who was Tokyo Deputy Chief of Station: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32694#relPageId=2&tab=page Randall didn't remember much about Wilcott and had not heard of the LHO allegations. But he WAS interviewed. Unless you think CT hero Dan Hardway, who conducted the interview along with Harold Leap is lying.

Mr. Petrov was right about one thing. There's no shortage of theories in the case.

I'm sure Hargrove will come up with something, but it is, of course, unexplainable. The whole "Harvey was Hungarian" concept comes from an anonymous phone call reported by Mrs. Jack Tippit.

Well, you can certainly say that and altered evidence (without proof) is one of the common CT claims. But why not just continue to "suppress" the testimony or simply destroy it? We know from documents that Antonio Veciana apparently testified before the Church Committee but that is evidently missing. But there is no outcry about that because the odds are that the testimony would hurt rather than help his case since Fonzi made no (or little) mention of it in his HSCA writeup. The point is some things are missing but CTs do not assign sinister meaning to all of them-just some. To your other point, why no "deathbed confession" from Wilcott regarding any secret agreement? He was known for bucking the system and certainly would have done this at some point. And again, why do MFF and Newman not recognize the cryptonym?

The HSCA used the language "shop talk" Wilcott did not. But he did refer to what he heard as "speculation" just not in reference to the reason why he did not report what he heard. The notes are from an unknown source and therefore worthless regarding the cryptonym. And Wilcott certainly did say he was unable to recall the cryptonym: ------------ Mr. Goldsmith. And what did he tell you the cryptonym was? Mr. Wilcott. I cannot remember. Mr. Cornwell. Do you remember anything about it? Mr. Wilcott. Not at this time. I can't remember what it was. Mr. Cornwell. All you can recall is that, when you heard it, that was not the first occasion on which you had seen it or heard it? Mr. Wilcott. That is correct, sir.

I don’t consider my approach “character assassination.” Who Wilcott was has a bearing on what he says. My view is this. He goes in the Army and has some trouble there. He enters the CIA and soon has more trouble-he starts hanging around with left-wing types and gets arrested. Before JFK is even killed he is already disgruntled with the CIA by his own admission. When JFK is killed, he hears gossip at the station, but he never reports it or does anything about it nor does he go to the Warren Commission. Chris Dodd called him out on this at his testimony asking him as a JFK supporter if he really felt he had witnessed something sinister why not report it? Of course, the reason is he knew what he heard was just rumors. By 1968, his political views have progressed to the point where he starts talking about the JFK case to small publications. 10 years later in 1978, he has progressed to an extremist and co-founds Covert Action. By now his “memory” of the assassination has evolved (studies prove this happens with people) and he testifies before the HSCA although, of course, he has no proof. But he knows there is an audience for his allegations. So, it is not “character assassination” at all, but rather a reasonable explanation for Wilcott’s possible motives.

Wilcott underwent a progression from disgruntled employee to activist to extremist starting in the early sixties. 1978 was the year he hit the big time co-founding Covert Action and making his trip to Cuba. But he was mad at the CIA even before JFK was killed. I would probably be mad at the CIA too if I had paid off LHO and he was a covert operative. But there is no evidence of that and Wilcott himself had none. His misinterpreted what he saw and heard because of his belief system. A lunatic to me is an irrational person and I believe his later actions fit that description.

You left out a few parts like where Wilcott co-founded a magazine that outed CIA personal placing them in imminent danger. I never could understand that mindset-you hate the CIA because you think they are abusing human rights and assassinating people and so on. So what does he do? Outs CIA people and risks their lives. Makes sense. He also went to Cuba at Castro's invitation and testified before a "youth tribunal" embellishing his LHO story with details that he would not repeat under oath before the HSCA.

Wilcott article updated: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

I guess you are saying I don't have any common sense which I don't appreciate and see as unnecessary. As for the CIA, how would they know anyone wouldn't corroborate Wilcott? He testified without any problem, what was going to stop any number of employees from doing so? What's a job compared to exposing the greatest plot of all time?

Then why, when asked under other what the cryptonym was, did he say he didn't know or couldn't remember?

18 people: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104122&search="wilcott"#relPageId=17&tab=page Here is the list of 20 employees minus redactions (all of these I believe Wilcott mentioned) originally planned for interview, apparently 2 did not participate for whatever reason: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9174&search="george_breen"#relPageId=2&tab=page As you know I'm sure, the interviews themselves are not available. I wish they were as I am sure it would bolster my case. My article should be up tomorrow and I have gone from a list of sources to full endnotes.

Well, I'll have my updated article available shortly and members here can decide for themselves. My original opinion of Wilcott was that he was a harmless, well meaning person who was just wrong. Now I realize he was a dangerous extremist. As I said, if it is a documented fact that the cryptonym is for the "Oswald project" why do the leading sources of information (MFF, Newman) not mention it? Are they in on the plot too? As I mentioned, these are just notes and nothing more, similar to me writing anything I want on a piece of paper and saying it is a fact. PS-I must be getting somewhere, I have warranted an ALL CAPS response.

Jim Hargrove said: Nearly two decades ago, the Assassination Records Review Board liberated secret documents from the 1978 HSCA cover-up of … I mean hidden files on CIA accountant James Wilcott. The page below shows that a voice stress analysis was performed on Wilcott by the committee and that he passed. It also indicates that the CIA’s cryptonym for the “Oswald Project” was RX-ZIM. You are correct that a stress analysis was performed on Wilcott and he passed. Assuming the test was accurate, all this means is that Wilcott believed what he was saying was the truth, which I really don’t doubt. People can believe just about anything. However, the weight of the evidence does not back him up. The hidden files to which you refer appear to simply be notes about Wilcott from an unknown source. Your statement that RX-ZIM was a cryptonym for the “Oswald project” is an irresponsible one and without a source other than these notes. This cryptonym does not appear in two CT respected sources, namely Mary Ferrell and John Newman (Countdown to darkness). If you enter “rx-zim” with quotes at Mary Ferrell, you get 3 hits-the document to which you refer, Harvey & Lee by Armstrong and a Fourth Decade article by Armstrong. Bottom line-this is just a note from an unknown source and another example of Armstrong/Hargrove using an anomaly to further their theory. Presumably, the source for this RX-ZIM information was Wilcott. But, if this was the cryptonym, why did Wilcott say he didn’t remember the cryptonym? If the source was other than Wilcott why would they not provide it? Anticipating your answer, if they wanted to hide it, why mention it at all? Just two pages later, there are more stunning revelations. Read the last three paragraphs in the document below. To me, the most chilling sentence is, “Son refuses to testify since committee cannot guarantee anyone’s security and since witnesses are still dying.” It might be stunning if we knew who this was referring to and if it could be verified. As it exists, it is just a notation in a file with no supporting evidence. It's also surprising that the "hit squad" didn't just take out Wilcott before he testified and save a lot of time and trouble dealing with him. The HSCA’s long-suppressed transcript of Mr. Wilcott’s testimony seemed to indicate he couldn’t, or wouldn’t, remember many of the people around him at the Japan CIA station who may have had knowledge of the “Oswald Project.” As the ARRB discovered, however, Mr. Wilcott actually remembered people at the station in excruciating detail and provided them with that information. The testimony does not indicate any such thing. They ask him for names of employees and he supplies a list. But the HSCA interviewed 18 Tokyo employees and none would verify any of his information. If they were only interested in a cover-up, they would have just dismissed his allegations with no further investigation and would not have conducted 18 interviews which could have exposed the plot. The Wilcott case is an interesting one and probably should be studied more fully as an example of a well-meaning person who ran off the rails. I have too much on my plate to do it now though. EDIT: I have uncovered even more information on Wilcott (the guy was a lunatic) so I will be doing another update.

I'm sure they could have worked out an immunity deal with Congress.

I think that Wilcott's mindset and his experiences with the CIA are relevant to determining his motive in speaking to the HSCA.

No, we are not going to play any game. The purpose of the update was to address the comment by Rob Stewart that suggested I could ad more material. While in he process of looking at the source material, I noticed that previously mentioned HSCA claim wasn't fully supported and I updated the article making that change and adding the new information. If you look at the article, it says "updated March 21." For confirmation, look at the comments where I replied to Stewart-it is time stamped March 21.

The whole Wilcott matter can be summed up this way. You can believe that Wilcott was correct in his assertions and LHO was part of a CIA program. In that case, at least 18 CIA employees from Tokyo chose to lie to the HSCA. It would probably be more than that though. These people remained silent throughout the years as did any family members they would have undoubtedly told. No deathbed confessions, no seeking out of investigative journalists. Or you can believe that Wilcott, was disgruntled because of an investigation of him by the CIA that he felt was unfair. You can believe that Wilcott came to think that certain actions taken by the CIA were incorrect (as he stated in his testimony). You can believe that Wilcott became enamored of radical (for the time) left-wing views. And you can assume that as a person with all of these beliefs and ideas that he probably availed himself of the literature regarding the JFK assassination which was (and is) predominantly pro-conspiracy. This literature reinforced his beliefs regarding what happened at Tokyo. With all of this in mind, you then can understand how he could have misconstrued gossip that he heard while working at the CIA and misremembered (as we know happened in the case of one employee who was not in Japan when he said he was) some facts to arrive at his false conclusion.

No, I discovered it before your post. However, if you found an error on my site and I agreed with you that it was an error, I would change it. My primary concern is the facts. In this case, I would say that rather than an error, it was an overreach on their part.