Leslie Sharp

You make a great DJ! Considering no one on this thread seems astonished that the author of AWIK has stretched the limits beyond reason asserting that Kennedy was assassinated by a woman with a pistol in a camera (no explanation for Connally's wounds?), i thought I would toss in another candidate and role for Babushka Lady. I've never talked to Beverly Oliver, but over the past year I've communicated with several who know her personally. The incident at the Cabana Motel on Nov 21 has been verified so why invent the camera episode the following day?

Hoover’s strange note, January 18, 1964: We’re reminded that Mrs. Jane Roman had advised the FBI liaison on March 6, 1964 that her agency furnished to Hoover’s bureau information in a letter dated July 12, 1963, captioned “OAS Attempt to Enlist the Cooperation of the United States for its anti-de Gaulle Activities.” When was Hoover advised by INS that Dallas agents had expelled French nationals on Nov 22/23? Surely he was apprised prior to January 18. Is that knowledge reflected in his note? Remember that at least one official record — now supported by Lafitte’s own notes — indicates Souetre’s exit was via Mexico.

/Nov 22/ Willoughby backup team [strike through] squad —tech building —phone booth/bridge O says turn them. Silverthorne- Ft. Worth -airport Mexico —-Lafitte datebook, November 15 Nowhere in Lafitte’s notes does it indicate Skorzeny had designated Babushka Lady as one of the assassins. Jerrie Cobb does not appear on the radar of his strategy, unless she is a member of the squad or the swamp team identified in the datebook. It’s possible that plans for Oswald’s extraction were managed by someone completely outside Otto’s strategy, but to suggest pilot Jerrie Cobb was in Dealey shooting Kennedy through a camera (and how do Connally’s wounds factor in Haverstick’s scenario?) and also meant to make it out to Redbird in the ensuing mayhem seems ill conceived. Was the plot short staffed? We've since considered the possibility that BL could have been a member of one of the distraction teams. We note that Alice Lamy, whose romantic history with La Cagoule founder Jean Filiol has been confirmed and who arrived with Filiol at the Stoneleigh Hotel on November 20, had in previous operations in Europe sometimes provided effective distractions when she wasn’t actively engaged in hands on murder.

@James DiEugenio QJ/WIN, the programme, involved a number of spotters; Albarelli’s last count suggested multiples. I think you might be referring to documents that elaborate on but one of those based in Luxembourg being considered for work in the Congo. Documents pertaining to the arrest of Thomas Eli Davis in Morocco indicate another QJ/WIN pulled strings to secure his release. Considering Davis had only weeks earlier been meeting with Otto Skorzeny and his associate in Madrid — arms dealer (and former OSS asset) Victor Oswald, the likely candidate was Otto. And, considering Davis plays a pivotal role in the sightings of Lee Oswald in Mexico City two months earlier, as attested to by Garro and reinforced by June Cobb — a primary subject of Haverstick’s own investigation — one could reasonably expect Haverstick to consider Davis/QJ/WIN/Tangier before wrapping up her narrative? Claiming to have uncovered another spotter is one thing. Suggesting a thirty something untrained asset — female at that — was head of this particular programme is a leap that should at least be heavily scrutinized by veterans of this area of investigation.

To clarify, the author asserts that Babushka "Cobb" was Jerrie... I think. 🙂

@Paul Brancato I think your question speaks to the broader issue several researchers have raised with AWIK. Have you read the book? If so, are you clear who the author suggests was THE QJ/WIN? Was it June Cobb? Was it Jerrie Cobb? Was it Jerrie posing as June, or as Catherine Taaffe? Did she leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions? Another similar example: When I asked Mary about "Bobby" from the surveillance transcript at the Manhatten hotel and shared with her that a fellow researcher's takeaway from the incident was that "Bobby" was in fact Robert F. Kennedy, she laughed, "I didn't say that," to wit I asked, "but you know you inferred it?" Her response, "I can't control what the reader concludes." My response, "why would you be comfortable with the reader drawing an erroneous conclusion?" When Mary recounted the brief call she had with Albarelli -- I believe she said in May 2015, two years after A Secret Order was published -- I listened attentively all the while wondering why she waited two years to contact him. I even commiserated initially, knowing that he could be unforgiving if someone, witting or not, misstated facts. He could also be abrupt with anyone who refused to acknowledge errors. However, after further inquiry about specifics of the exchange with Hank, and having spent two years in daily contact with him including many days in his direct company, I drew an informed conclusion. I included that subjective assessment and conclusion in a previous comment on this thread.

@Michael Griffith did Mary Haverstick have the names of June’s brothers who are pictured with her? Surely she attempted to interview them as well? Or did she, and I simply overlooked the reference in AWIK. And did the photo of June in her 80s compared with photos of Jerrie Cobb The Pilot taken around the same age impact Mary Haverstick’s previous hypotheses? My interest is Mary’s suggestion in private that perhaps Hank Albarelli had been engaged with Jerrie Cobb, thinking she was Viola June Cobb. From there, one is compelled to review the relevant sections of “A Secret Order” and compare the facts Albarelli uncovered against Mary’s alternative facts and subjective conclusions. Mary’s argument that June Cobb was THE QJ/WIN should spin heads. It’s disconcerting so few in the “community” writ large have publicly challenged Haverstick or held her accountable for factual errors, inconsistencies, and misguided innuendos and assumptions found in AWIK. “Letting the reader draw their own conclusions” fuels the parlor game atmosphere and is especially reckless when you have a mainstream powerhouse editor and publisher — with the potential of reaching a wide gullible audience — standing by the material.

I might play cat and mouse with some members, but never with you, my friend! The brouhaha over the Souetre/Mertz/Roux expulsion didn’t surface until weeks later as far as I know. But, it’s possible the director had already been read in? Sullivan would be the logical liaison to INS I think. Hoover might have considered de Vosjoli / Martel a ‘spy’ but Angleton certainly didn’t — except perhaps his spy. I just find it intriguing, in context of Lafitte's notes about the MC trip, that Oswald AND the French are written ‘in the same breath.’

David, which “French espionage activities in USA” do you think Hoover is referring to?

I appreciate you taking the time to walk through this with a very plausible argument. Charles William Thomas’ letter to Sec. State William P. Rogers dated July 25, 1969 may have been effectively debunked by now, but at the time he felt compelled to inform the Secretary that “public disclosure” of Oswald’s presence at the Mexico party “could reopen the debate about the true nature of the Kennedy assassination and damage the credibility of the Warren Report.” Based on this concern, Thomas informed Rogers that since he had been embassy officer in Mexico “who acquired this intelligence information, I feel responsibility for seeing it through to its final evaluation.” His informant was also his friend, Elena Garro. He filed his first report detailing Garro’s account of the party on December 10, 1965. Several months after Thomas’ memos to Sec. Rogers, FBI top Soviet expert W. A. Branigan memoed Wm. Sullivan that State had furnished the Bureau a letter and accompanying documents received from a “recently retired” employee. By April 1971, Thomas was dead at age 45, allegedly from a self-inflicted gunshot. State and FBI couldn’t still be concerned, in 1969, that the legend of Oswald in Mexico City could trigger a war with the Soviets, right?

@David Josephs great to see you back in this saddle. Aside from, or maybe in addition to the decades long debate about MC, how do these 3 KGB guys fit in with the 1998 documentary, The KGB JFK Assassination Files which preceded a companion book,The Triangle of Death by one of the co- producers of the documentary Brad O’Leary by several years? It may seem I’m diverting from the topic of this thread, but bear with me. Roger Moore narrated the documentary filmed a good deal on location in Russia. Apparently the director/producers had been granted exclusive access to Soviet experts and their intel files from their own investigation into K’s assassination. No doubt both film and book are controversial, although I note that in the past, Larry Hancock has cited O’Leary — who hired a French speaking reporter to track down Souetre for an extended interview — as a source for having established once and for all, Jean Rene Soutre was anywhere but Dallas on November 22. Are you familiar with the Soviet’s investigation? Did these 3 MC KGB guys surface? (I confess I haven’t watched the documentary in full, but will soon because the director and one producer (O’Leary) are named in the NY AG lawsuit targeting the NRA.)

@Greg Doudna @Benjamin Cole @Jonathan Cohen @Michael Griffith The distinction between alias (meant to deceive) and pseudonym (privacy) . . . Coincidentally, I was recently compelled to respond to an email exchange on the subject of Antonio Veciana and found myself sharing the following vignette. Subject: Re. Veciana quote You might not remember, xxx, but the Veciana issue prompted my pen name. Over dinner in our home, Scott Armstrong was adamant Veciana was telling the truth. In fact, my husband had to put the meal on the back burner while we waited for Scott because he was sitting in their SUV outside our casita talking to Marie Fonzi who had just agreed to turn Gaeton's archives over to MFF. Jeff Morley, once Scott's protégé at WaPo, was involved in the transaction. As we know, Marie is confident Veciana was highly credible. Once we settled around the table, I boldly asserted I thought Veciana's story was sketchy. It wasn't a cavalier comment. I had reason to question detail about the encounter in Dallas. Following a lovable (but patronizing nonetheless) metaphorical pat on the head from Scott, I recognized that challenging the status quo as determined by the inner-sanctum would be, well, challenging. Scott's wife, my dear friend, dropped off Jeff's book the following day. I flipped to the index and noted he failed to pursue Win Scott's close ties to Al Ulmer. Russ Baker had stayed with us (another story!). I knew Jeff had missed a significant opportunity, so after twenty years of research I decided to join the public online fray at jfkfacts. I didn't want to be intimidated by the possibility my good friend Scott -- who I care for and admire deeply -- might be hovering at jfkfacts, so, Leslie Sharp took form. When I finally fessed up, his wife laughed and whispered, I understand completely. Hank Albarelli followed jfkfacts around that time; four years later, he found Leslie Sharp on FB and the rest is history. He had no idea my friend, now married to Armstrong, had years earlier been married to John Marks who was among Hank's valued interviews for ATM. Strange synchronicity.

I'm curious if you believe Hank or anyone in the field might have ever mistaken June for Jerrie in 2005-2015? Mary continued to imply if not insist that either Hank was "masking" June's real identity or "she" (I couldn't determine if Mary meant Viola June or Gheraldyn) had snookered (a veiled suggestion seduced) this seasoned investigator. Mary also reports that John Newman was unable to positively identify a photo of June. Does that suggest he hadn't spent much time with her? Hank on the other hand indicates that by 2011 he had amassed enough material, including private letters, diaries and interview notes to begin his manuscript (working title), CIA Femme Fatale: The Secret Life of June Cobb. Over the ensuing four years he continued his interviews with Viola June and developed the friendship he valued to his own passing -- which ironically was three months almost to the day of Jerrie Cobb's death.

Got it. Facetious. I happened to have been reviewing the Scott memo yesterday in context of the EF thread, “Mary Haverstick’s Important ...”. Portions of the memo can be found in my comment. In essence, Scott commits to file that Cobb is a brazen wanton hussy prone to violence against felines and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Over the weekend when the dust started to settle from an encounter with Mary Haverstick, I opined to a small group of researchers, you watch. The next related debate on EF will be along the lines, “Was Oswald Ever In Mexico City?”

Thank you.

Do records reflect Cobb was instructed to corroborate Garro’s story? Didn’t COS Scott’s late November 1964 memo to file undermine June Cobb’s credibility altogether? Would that not cancel out her earlier corroboration as (allegedly) dictated by the agency?

Greg, read your comment. If you want to rephrase, please do; otherwise I can only conclude you stand by it.

I know that Trine Day was hopeful that Hank’s M/s which is intended to set the record straight following the Errol Morris documentary (as well as his draft of the Hunter- White book in progress) was well enough along to bring across the finish line. To my knowledge, those projects are stalled.

Better still, you can review your relevant comment on this thread and clarify your meaning. Perhaps I misinterpreted.

$47 Million to repair reputational damage. Noted. https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-caused-47-million-damage-georgia-election-workers-expert-2023-12

@Greg Doudna the apology should be directed to Hank Albarelli and his family and professional colleagues, Greg.

@Greg Doudna Would you please retract your defamatory innuendo now? Many thanks in advance.

@Joe Bauer I believe a collage of photos is available. I’ll link if possible. Certainly Albarelli included one in A Secret Order. He selected an image of her interacting with indigenous youth. We used the photo above in a video promo for Coup focused on the femme fatales in the JFK case. She is as you note, quite feminine and apparently so into her later life. For that reason, I struggle with the proposition she was successfully impersonated within the milieu of arms dealers and gunrunners; the drug lords in particular could not be fooled, imo. I believe a team of documentarians hope to tell June’s story; Hank had agreed to give them access to his interview tapes. At this juncture I think they have accumulated even more material. Work in progress.

Fair enough. I think you suggested Renee might have been a figment of his imagination. I’ll make the photo public on FB tomorrow if you want to check back in. She was quite beautiful. Her large extended family who appear to be salt of the earth citizens that love our country carry the burden; navigating Hank’s commitment vs. living with my own conscience — sunlight heals all as long as it doesn’t burn — i’ve now pushed the envelope far beyond what Hank ever intended. You may not accept this, but I'm doing what I can -- staying in my lane but making sure his Cobb M/s doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Initial working title: CIA Femme Fatale: The Secret Life of June Cobb. (2011) Note: he didn't title the work in progress, The Woman Impersonated by the Woman Who Shot JFK: Revelations of the Babushka Lady