Michaleen Kilroy

To me, it’s damning evidence of a conspiracy at the highest levels of the agency. if the DRE’s interactions with LHO were happenstance, you could see covering up the relationship to avoid embarrassment, however wrong to do. If Helms et al were lying because the agency was using Oswald for an intelligence purpose, you could also see a coverup to avoid suspicion in the case. But after 55 years neither of these explanations hold water. The relationship with the DRE that Dulles, Helms, Phillips, Kent, Joannides and finally the entire agency as an institution during the time of ARRB covered up has to be incriminating.

If you're looking for good, brief sources for your students to understand the CIA's plain treachery in the case, I'd check out these: https://www.amazon.com/CIA-JFK-Secret-Assassination-Files-ebook/dp/B01FIGY89Y https://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Doc.-156-1.-Dan-L.-Hardway-Declaration.pdf https://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/robert_blakey_aarc_9_26_letter.pdf

CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms was in charge of Phillips and George Joannides in the summer and fall of '63 and approved promotions for both during that time. I believe Phillips was promoted to running all anti-Castro operations in the Western Hemisphere in October that year from Mexico City. Joannides was promoted to Chief of Covert Operations likely in July from Miami while continuing to serve as case officer for agency's favorite anti-Castro propaganda group, the DRE. So Joannides was overseeing the DRE during Oswald's interactions with the group in NO while Phillips was based in Mexico City during Oswald's visit. Phillips then visited the CIA station in Miami in mid-October. And their boss, Helms, lied about it all to successive investigations: https://medium.com/@macgiollarua/a-jfk-assassination-question-that-still-requires-an-answer-377267b73309 As Chuck Berry once sang, that's too much monkey business for me.

Why did Helms lie? https://link.medium.com/gPbKtb2xTT

I'm thinking about posting this on Medium.com in support of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee's petition to reopen investigations into the 1960s political assassinations. Welcome any thoughts or suggestions. A JFK Assassination Question that Still Requires an Answer: Why Did Richard Helms Lie? It came to me between innings at my daughter’s softball game one lazy summer afternoon. “Helms lied,” I thought. “Under oath. Repeatedly. It’s in the record.” After spending a good five years studying the JFK assassination case, and after maintaining a steady interest since I used to pour over Life magazine issues of the tragedy as a kid, I found a disturbing fact that could not be debated down the rabbit hole of meaninglessness like so many of its anomalies. Richard Helms, deputy director of plans for the CIA during the JFK years who later served as CIA director in the late 60s and early 70s, repeatedly lied under oath to the two major federal investigations into the assassination: as the CIA’s liaison to the Warren Commission in 1964 and again to the House Subcommittee on Assassinations in the 1978 as a retired CIA official. What did he lie about? That he and the agency had provided all the material evidence they could about the assassination to federal investigators. But they hadn’t - not by a long shot. Of course, we’ve known since the early ‘70s that Helms and the CIA withheld information from the Warren Commission on the agency enlisting the Mafia’s help to try and kill Castro. (Commission member and former CIA director Allen Dulles undoubtedly knew this as well but did not tell his fellow members.) But Helms’ other omission was bigger and more incriminating to him and the agency, in my opinion. Helms withheld his personal knowledge that the CIA founded, funded and guided the anti-Castro Cuban group known as the DRE that Oswald very publicly tangled with in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Helms, in fact, personally appointed the new case officer for the group in December 1962 and had the agent, a man named George Joannides but known as “Howard” to the DRE leadership, report directly to him. Nov. 22, 1963. The president is shot dead in Dallas. A suspect is picked up within 90 minutes of the crime. Before the suspect is even charged with shooting the president, on national TV that evening is footage of Lee Harvey Oswald handing out Fair Play for Cuba fliers on the streets of New Orleans. The fact that footage existed at all can only be credited to the existence of the CIA-sponsored propaganda group the DRE. In the summer of ‘63, Oswald was acting as an agent provocateur, first approaching Carlos Bringuier, the publicity director of the DRE’s New Orleans chapter, to offer his military knowledge from his time in the Marines to help the DRE bring down Castro. Bringuier didn’t trust him and actually thought Oswald might be with the FBI or CIA. A couple of days later, Oswald is seen handing out fliers supporting the pro-Castro group the Fair Play for Cuba Committee just a couple of blocks away from Bringuier’s place of business. Bringuier and a few other DRE members confront Oswald, a fracas ensues, and all parties are arrested. The DRE members make bail but Oswald spends the night in jail (not leaving, however, until he requests and secures a one-hour conversation with the local FBI agent in his cell). The local media cover the incident and trial with Oswald interviewed at length on radio and participating in a televised debate with Bringuier. From the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia, Helms and his fellow spooks must have seen all these stories about the DRE tumbling out in the immediate aftermath of the assassination with shock and dismay. They were seeing the agency’s favorite, secretly sponsored anti-Castro propaganda outfit somehow associated with JFK’s alleged assassin. But did Helms and his CIA compatriots ask themselves, “How could this be possible?” Were they shocked and dismayed at the incredible odds that this “lone nut” somehow stumbled upon a key CIA front group being used in the propaganda war against Castro? As members of the national security community, did Helms and his fellow CIA officials immediately alert the FBI or other law enforcement to this strange coincidence to offer any insights that could be critical in a search for the truth? In a word, no. Any agent who knew anything about the agency’s relationship to the DRE kept it under wraps. Helms would later keep it under wraps under oath. In the 1990s, a former Washington Post reporter named Jefferson Morley made a surprising discovery from materials released by the AARB. The man the CIA appointed as its liaison to the HSCA in the ‘70s was none other than George Joannides. Joannides never mentioned his role managing the DRE during the time of Oswald to the HSCA investigators, even when asked directly if he knew who their case officer was in ‘63. Helms, the man who appointed Joannides to the position and who received reports from him throughout 1963, also never mentions Joannides’ role during his testimony to the HSCA. At the time, the CIA maintained it had severed all ties to the DRE by April 1963. Neither Helms or Joannides disabuse investigators of that notion. So one of the CIA’s highest ranking officers in 1963 and later agency director lied under oath and withheld material evidence from the investigations into the assassination of a president. With all his personal knowledge of the agency’s relationship with the DRE, let’s see how Helms answered the questions with key excerpts of his sworn testimony below starting with his HSCA testimony and ending with his testimony to the Warren Commission. Excerpts from Richard Helms’ HSCA Testimony on September 25, 1978 Mr. GOLDSMITH – Mr. Helms, what role, if any, did the Agency have in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy? Mr. HELMS – At the time that the Warren Commission was formed, the Agency did everything in its power to cooperate with the Warren Commission and with the FBI, the FBI having the lead in the investigation. As best I can recollect, it was the Agency’s feeling that since this tragic event had taken place in the United States, that the FBI and the Department of Justice would obviously have the leading edge in conducting the investigation, and that the Agency would cooperate with them in every way it was possible, and the same applied to the Warren Commission. ———– Mr. GOLDSMITH – What were your specific responsibilities with regard to the investigation? Mr. HELMS – As the Deputy Director for Plans, I regarded my responsibility as being one which saw to it that inquiries given to the Agency by the FBI or originated with the Warren Commission, were answered as well and as expeditiously as possible. ———— Mr. GOLDSMITH – Was the investigation of the death of President Kennedy perceived as a counterintelligence-type case? Mr. HELMS – It was not perceived in any specific terms at all that I recollect. It was perceived as a great national tragedy, and I think the feeling in the Agency was that anything it or its personnel could do to help resolve the questions that prevailed at the time, we would try to do, whether it was counterintelligence, positive intelligence, or what it was. ——– Mr. GOLDSMITH – Was all information pertinent to the Warren Commission’s work promptly given to the Warren Commission, Mr Helms? Mr. HELMS – I don’t know how to answer that question, Mr. Goldsmith. I thought we made a major effort to be as cooperative and prompt and helpful as possible. But in recent years I have been through enough to recognize that you can’t make a flat statement about anything, so I don’t know. Maybe there were some places where it wasn’t as prompt as it should have been. But I am not in a position to identify them. ——– Mr. GOLDSMITH – Are you able to state what factors governed whether information was made available to the Warren Commission? Mr. HELMS – I don’t think there were any governing factors except the necessity for us to be careful about our sources and methods in certain cases, and I believe that obstacle was gotten over by going down and having conversations with the Warren Commission at various times in order to make these points clear on what the issues were, I don’t believe we held anything back. ——— Mr. DODD – Other than the anti-Castro assassination plots, was there any other information pertaining to a possible mode or means or opportunity to kill the President that you are aware of and that Warren Commission was not told about? Mr. HELMS – I am sorry, I don’t get the— Mr. DODD – Other than the assassination plots. We know about the defector, you volunteered that. We had the voluntary turning over of the opinion with regard to Nosenko. We know today we didn’t turn over relevant information with regard to these efforts to get rid of Castro. Are there other things that you can recall that might have had relevancy–things of importance, to the Warren Commission’s investigation of the assassination of an American President. Mr. HELMS – Well, I don’t know of any others. I can’t think of what they might have been, but then we might have been guilty of some other errors of omission, I don’t know. None come readily to mind. This didn’t come readily to mind at the time. Excerpts from Helms’ Warren Commission Testimony, May 14, 1964 Representative FORD - Is the Central Intelligence Agency continuing any investigation into this area? Mr. MCCONE - So, because, at the present time, we have no information in our files that we have not exhaustively investigated and disposed of to our satisfaction. Naturally, any new information that might come into our hands would be investigated promptly. Mr. HELMS - I simply wanted to add that we obviously are interested in anything we can pick up applying to this case, and anything we get will be immediately sent to the Commission, so that we haven’t stopped our inquiries or the picking up of any information we can from people who might have it. This is on a continuing basis. ——— Mr. RANKIN - Would that be true, Mr. Helms, even after the Commission completed its report, you would keep the matter open if there was anything new that developed in the future that could be properly presented to the authorities? Mr. HELMS. Yes. I would assume the case will never be closed. End of testimony For a summary of the CIA’s subterfuge around the DRE and the assassination from someone who knows best, I recommend reading this 2014 open letter from Robert Blakey, the former chief counsel of the HSCA. If you are disturbed by any of the above and want complete answers from our government, I would also recommend adding your name to the list of prominent signatories to a petition to re-open investigations into all four political assassinations from the 1960s: JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X.

I don’t find Judyth Baker very believable but she is one of the few who have noted what jewelry LHO was wearing that day and their possible significance... http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-november-24-remember-lee-harvey.html?m=1

So the alleged commie assassin that the WC said was alienated and had a problem with America is wearing his Marine Corps ring the day he assassinates POTUS for Castro? Is there anything that makes any sense in this case?

I realize you’re being sarcastic Cory but the lone nutters are the ones who make a big deal out of LHO allegedly leaving his wedding ring at the Paines the day of the assassination. My question is - why would you leave a ring as a final goodbye to your wife but replace it with another ring?

Just what kind of ring is it? It's on his wedding ring finger... https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/lee-harvey-oswald-wears-handcuffs-after-dallas-police-news-photo/515512510

In my mind, all anyone needs to know about questioning the official story of the JFK assassination is ‘The Big Coincidence.’ - Somehow this little low-life, sociopathic nobody named Oswald stumbled across a secretly funded and guided CIA anti-Castro group when he stepped into Carlos Bringuier’s store in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. - Somehow Oswald ties the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with the communists at the exact moment David Atlee Phillips and James McCord are running a propaganda campaign in the US against the FPCC. And shows up to get a travel visa to Mexico the day after the CIA tells the FBI they’re exporting their program internationally. - Somehow Oswald’s well-publicized antics with the DRE in NO that summer are instantly seen on national TV the night of the assassination and make the newspapers the next day, immediately branding him as a pro-Castro agitator in the public’s eye. - Somehow the CIA never tells the Warren Commission that the agency founded, funded and guided the DRE. The CIA’s liaison to the WC is Richard Helms who personally hired agency’s DRE case officer George Joannides in the Miami-based station. Joannides reported directly to Helms. - Somehow the CIA lies and obstructs in its relationship with DRE again in the 70s with HSCA, telling Congress it had stopped working with the group in 1963. When young investigators start heading down the path of the nexus between the CIA, Cubans and Oswald, the agency feloniously runs a covert operation against the HSCA to subvert any further inquiry by bringing Joannides out of retirement to act as liaison, never revealing he ran the DRE. In his testimony, Helms perjured himself by saying he knows of no other information material to the case, never mentioning his hiring of Joannides to Congress. - Somehow Joannides’ files around the time of Oswald have never been released by the agency to this day. The files of DRE case officers before and after him have been released. That’s a 55-year illegal cover-up by the nation’s spy agency in the assassination of a president. The case can never be closed until the reasons for that cover-up are revealed. Also, Jim Di, curious what you think of this:

I went to read a bit more about Butler on Jim Di’s site and found this: I think "Howard" would have to be George Joannides who ran the DRE from the JMWAVE station in Miami and used Howard as his pseudonym with the group.

Not sure how John Galbraith felt about the JFK assassination, but his son is fairly clear about his POV: http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/galbraith.html https://www.statesman.com/news/20131109/advisers-son-reflects-on-jfk-after-50-years Great article, btw, Jim. I'll be sure to check out the book.

Agreed!

There’s been a lot of re-enactments of Oswald during the shooting. I’d like to see a re-enactment from the moment LHO gets out of Wesley’s car and: - gets the rifle in the TSBD without anyone even seeing him carrying a package into the bldg - gets the rifle to the 6th floor and stashed there with people all around without anyone seeing him - either finds a safe time and place to assemble the rifle before the shooting, or waits for the worker to finish eating his lunch on the 6th floor just minutes before the motorcade comes by and somehow knows when he’s done and goes to the 6th floor to assemble the rifle with no time to spare - somehow assembles the rifle without a screwdriver ever found I’d like to see the hilarity of someone trying to re-enact all that and make it look plausible.

Thanks, Michael. I have John’s book so I’ll do some searches on McCord.

I have a vague idea of McCord's possible involvement in this, Michael. Could you share a couple of good links I could review? IMO, researchers, if they are truly interested in solving this case, need to treat the American media and public like a jury. We need to provide reasonable arguments backed by compelling evidence. For me, the Helms-Phillips-Kent-Joannides connection fits the bill. You can prove all four knew about the CIA's control of the DRE and either kept quiet, lied about it or actively covered it up. And the CIA of today continues to follow their lead and withholds relevant information. That for me is incriminating and requires a full investigation.

For me, the most compelling evidence pointing to the conspirators are those CIA officials who lied and covered up the agency's involvement with the DRE during the time of LHO. Richard Helms, David Phillips and William Kent all knew each other, knew the CIA was involved with the DRE during the late summer and fall of 1963, and covered up that connection and their knowledge of it. Helms personally put George Joannides in charge of handling the DRE. And the circumstantial evidence is strong that all four officials knew or were personally involved in an anti-FPCC operation in NO and Mexico City, and that this likely included the use of LHO as a witting or unwitting asset. Helms kept the WC in the dark about the agency's DRE control and committed perjury during his HSCA questioning when he said he knew of no further relevant information regarding the assassination. Helms, Phillips and Kent all kept quiet as Joannides took over as the CIA's liaison to the HSCA. Former HSCA investigator Dan Hardway does a great job summarizing the incriminating evidence against these guys here: https://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Doc.-156-1.-Dan-L.-Hardway-Declaration.pdf For me, the main problem with the JFK research community is that it goes in so many different directions rather than focusing on the most compelling evidence of wrongdoing or suspicious behavior. That way the American media and public remain bewildered and confused rather than outraged and demanding answers. The tale of these four officers and their cover-up of the DRE-CIA connection and the anti-FPCC operations in NO and MC in the weeks before the assassination, as well as the decades-long refusal of the CIA to explain or release pertinent files regarding this issue, is the best evidence of conspiracy we have in this case, IMHO.

That’s a compelling photo and I don’t like photo analysis zaniness either. if you scroll to the left you can see a lady and man looking behind them to their left as if they are watching the President’s car still in sight. The lady appears to have her hand on her mouth in shocked horror and disbelief. Three things: 1) Would love to know who that officer is and if he gave his testimony to anyone 2) Would like to know what the object is in front of fedora man and a similar-looking object on the vertical bridge post a little further from him 3) Very few photos of Dealey if any have captured in stark relief and poignancy the magnitude of what had just occurred. The expression on the larger gentleman to the far left says if all. And the reckless bravery of the officer is also dramatic and at least one plus for the performance of the DPD that day. Also, for some reason, this photo looks more ‘present- day’ and real than any I’ve seen.

I’m curious who the “highly productive agent” is that accepts no salary that they’re trying to do a favor for...

Good point. Not proven in a court of law but you don’t commit felonies protecting information that’s embarrassing - you do that because the information is incriminating. My parents sat us kids down to watch the JFK funeral at the time telling us over and over again we needed to sit still and watch because it was ‘historic.’ They had no idea.

Yeah maybe the American public has just been naive and well-propagandized. I wouldn’t even want to think this if the CIA hadn’t been so bold with its obstruction, perjury and dissembling over the past 5 and half decades.

Didn’t see anyone post this yet. Whether you believe in conspiracy or not, this is what comes from govt intransgience on revealing intel agency secrets, especially when malfeasance is credibly suspected: http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5340472/putin-political-opponents-jfk-martin-luther-king-assasination

The story is told on this Canadian broadcast starting about 3:30 in: The JFK Files : The Murder of a President - The Fifth Estate

I don’t believe Earl Warren would buy that description of Earl Warren. Fact is we know why Warren agreed to lead the commission - LBJ told him about a little thing he learned about LHO In Mexico City that could lead the country into nuclear war - presumably Oswald’s meeting with Kostikov. Warren joined fhe commission as a duty to calm the American people with his image of integrity - not to find the truth.

As stated previously, like a lot of good reporters, Lewis ‘got weird’ over the JFKA case. You don’t have to support a conspiracy to not write about the many flaws in the official investigation that came out over the years, including: - ignoring Ruby’s mob ties - ignoring the CIA’s lies and obstruction over its relationship with DRE during the time of LHO as well as working with the mob to whack Castro - ignoring the FBI’s laissez-faire ‘investigation’ - the lack of any independent psychiatric analysis of LHO versus the armchair ‘psychologists’ of the WC - the fact that none of the occupants of the presidential car remember the shots as described in the official investigation - the fact that at least 3 members of the WC ended up disagreeing with its conclusions - Sylvia Odio’s compelling testimony - And speaking of the law, Lewis should have been doubly pissed that the suspect was murdered in police custody and the govt saw fit to write a prosecutor’s brief with ZERO defense arguments. The MSM has NEVER taken a critical view of the official story - that fact alone should tell u there’s something strange going on. They must have felt if they acknowledged one single flaw the official story would lose ALL public support. That’s because at some level avoiding the case’s many anomalies is fundamental to the continuing stability of the country. Why that is I have no idea. But I can guess...