-
Posts
1,202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Profile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
Location
Texas
-
Interests
Music, Fitness, Tech, History, etc.
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
Tom Gram's Achievements
Mentor (12/14)
- Rare
Recent Badges
-
Kent, Joannides, Trouchard and Toomey
Tom Gram replied to David Boylan's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
It looks like the pseudonym he used in New Orleans is still redacted on that copy, and that’s the 2023 release of his personnel file. There are a few other redactions too, like the project, but the pseudo field looks like it’s previously sanitized so we’ll never get it. The project could help us figure out what Kent was actually doing down there, but personnel files don’t have any real operational details. We also need to figure out what Kent was doing in ‘63, but I don’t know where to get that information. A lot of critical data on CIA operations, etc. is not in the JFK Collection unfortunately, and I’m not sure we’ll ever see it. If we had the name of Kent’s project in ‘66-67 we could bombard CIA with FOIA requests or something, but without a new AARB with staff who really knew what to look for we might be screwed on a lot of this stuff. -
I forgot about this teletype but I think it’s worth posting here. It says Shaw was never remunerated by CIA. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55187#relPageId=9 The memo on the Czech conference however suggests that’s not entirely true, since the CIA wanted to pay for Shaw to go on that trip (did he actually go?), but since it was just covered expenses it might’ve been considered a separate bucket. The teletype also mentions Guy Bannister had a security status of NI(A), whatever that means, and talks about him giving CIA information on jeeps shipped to Cuba in 1960. There’s a redacted document number listed for Bannister’s report that I’ve been trying to find forever - but it looks like it’s previously sanitized on the microfilm i.e. permanently redacted. I also recall finding something that suggests the Jeep transaction might’ve been the same one Ruby was involved in, which is kind of interesting, but I’d have to dig for it. Anyway, I kinda doubt these CIA teletypes give the full story on anything, but I think it’s worth mentioning that CIA is on record explicitly stating that Shaw was never paid by the agency.
-
Yep, same guy. It’s been said that Kent was in New Orleans in the Summer of ‘63 but I’ve never seen any evidence of that. He was definitely there during the Garrison case though. I think officially he was posted in Washington on the Uruguay/Paraguay desk that summer through early June then got transferred to Plans and Operation Staff B, also in Washington, but I haven’t been through his personnel file in a while. EDIT: Here’s an old ROKC post I did on Kent if you’re interested: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2680-william-kent There is a very minor potential anomaly in his file in summer ‘63, but I’ve still never seen anything placing him in New Orleans at that time.
-
I have The Assassinations so I’ll check that out tonight, but a handful of investigators who actually worked for Southern Research have been misidentified as Wackenhut agents over the years. Carson is the most prominent example but there are a few others: Bob Wilson, Edward Parent (the guy who apparently lived in Carlos Bringuier’s old apartment in summer ‘63) and Chandler Josey come to mind. Josey actually worked for Southern Bell if I recall. If Wackenhut is in the Wegmann Papers though that settles it. That ARRB memo I posted that references the Wegmann Papers got me curious though, cause it says the papers reflect that Shaw’s defense retained SRC but doesn’t say anything about Wackenhut. It was a memo sent to SRC though as a record request so maybe they just didn’t mention it.
-
I doubt anyone cares, as this is kind of a trivial thing, but here’s the contemporaneous document where Dick Helms terminated the CIA’s 4-year relationship with Wackenhut on what looks like 4/25/67 - 19 days after Wackenhut was mentioned in connection with the Shaw case. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5Px3Xfnby4vUZEtifqJyVRX64VgLAIi/view?usp=drivesdk (Page 18) There’s also an ARRB document that says the Wegmann papers reflect that Shaw’s defense retained Southern Research, not Wackenhut. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=212587#relPageId=1 So the minor mystery here is why did Charles Carson of Southern Research tell the FBI on 4/6/67 that he was “presently connected” with Wackenhut when he informed them he’d been retained by Shaw’s defense? It doesn’t look like a mistake. Carson had informed on Garrsion previously on 2/17/67 and gave the correct company: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60404#relPageId=16 Garrison paid SRC for something around that time, I think $160, which I’m guessing was for information or maybe a minor surveillance detail on Ferrie, so that’s likely how Carson got his info. My theory was that SRC was subcontracted by Wackenhut through Shaw’s attorneys, but now I’m not so sure. This has caused confusion for years with researchers referring to SRC investigators as Wackenhut people. Even the FBI did it: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62412#relPageId=119 As far as I know, the only source for this is that one phone call from Carson. I’ve never seen any actual evidence that Wackenhut Corp had anything to do with Shaw’s defense. I also looked into some sort of business relationship with SRC, since a few HSCA docs say SRC is “presently known” as Wackenhut Corp., but from what I can tell they have always been completely separate entities. SRC actually still exists today, but Wackenhut does not. I know these aren’t particularly relevant or interesting questions, but since Robert brought it up I think it’s worth figuring out how or if Wackenhut was actually involved in Shaw’s defense team.
-
This is speculative since we don’t have any confirmation, but another thing I’m curious about with Shaw is potential involvement with funding Cuban groups. This comes from the RockCom deposition of William Sturbitts: Q. ...it is possible that some of the same Cuban organizations which were being sponsored or funded by the Agency also had activities or operations in New Orleans? A. I don't know if I can answer that, whether they had the same functions. I know that some funding arrangement for subsidizing the organizations in Miami was carried out through New Orleans. Q. Well, can you be more specific about what you mean by that? A. Well, in other words, to fund these organizations we were subsidizing there had to be some ostensible source of income for them to continue what they were doing. A great number -- well, not a great number, but a number of select people were -- well, they were selected and then they were talked to, to pose as trustees, if you would, or directors or whatever you might have of some of these organizations in order to get the funding through to the organizations. These people were normally prominent people and -- Q. And did they get funded by the Agency, then, through the medium of prominent and well-to-do people? A. These well-to-do people ostensibly would call a friend of theirs that had been made trustee of another type of activity and say, you know, we are trying to assist these Cubans in this type of thing. Could your organization give us any money, and the guy on the other end would say, sure, we can probably lend you $25,000 or something like that, or donate $25,000. This is the way the funding went into the fronts. Q. And was some of that funding arranged through people in New Orleans? A. I would think so. I believe so. Q. Were any of the people in New Orleans through whom that funding operation was effected people who turned out to be in the investigation of Jim Garrison? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. How about David Ferrie? Was he ever connected with the Agency in any manner at all in providing funds or assistance to Cubans or Cuban groups? A. I couldn't say. I am just not familiar with -- we had a great many people that did this. Q. How about Clay Shaw? Was Clay Shaw ever used as a funding source? A. This I do not know either. Q. Pardon? A. This I don't know. BY MR. MANFREDI: Q. Where would that information be available? A. Well, we have a guy that used to work with me who was down in New Orleans at that time. He would probably know. Q. Is he in the building? A. Yes. Q. What is his name? A. Bill Kent. As you know, Kent, the CIA black ops propaganda expert, was posted in New Orleans under cover of the Christian Fellowship Fund right at the start of Garrison’s investigation. Sturbitts said Kent was in the building during his deposition, so there is zero chance RockCom didn’t talk to him, but I’ve never been able to find a record of that interview. As far as I know we also do not have any information on what Kent was actually doing in New Orleans at that time. If I recall, he was there from late ‘66 through August ‘67, or something along those lines. I highly suspect Bringuier was one of these so-called trustees running CIA money to the DRE in Miami, but there aren’t any records on that either. So it’s definitely speculative, but Shaw’s DCD file might not reflect the full scope of his CIA activities.
-
I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted yet, but here’s some evidence that Shaw was a bit more than an average DCD contact: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pcwVz-N_dt3X3HGyj5K1gsxIVK2pNdmK/view?usp=drivesdk The gist is that Shaw agreed to go to an overseas conference for CIA he would not otherwise have attended, “as a CIA observer, but ostensibly of course as a representative of the International House or International Trade Mart”, provided the CIA paid for it. Maybe this is how the DCD operated, but it sure sounds like an active operation where Shaw was being used as spy and compensated for his travels. Since Shaw was paid to go on this trip, there should have been some record of that payment in his file, but I’m not aware of anything like that. Perhaps the CIA historian had access to financial documents on Shaw, and thus came to the conclusion he was a “highly paid contract source”. An all expenses paid trip to the Czech Republic probably wasn’t cheap.
-
I only have the redacted copy apparently, but basically what this says is the CIA relationship with Wackenhut was terminated in April ‘67, just weeks after Charles Carson of Southern Research told the FBI he was working for Shaw’s defense and was “presently connected” with Wackenhut: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=224415 So officially at least, the CIA had no relationship with Wackenhut at all from April ‘67 until the mid 70s. I’m not sure I believe it, and the timing of the termination is a bit curious, but that’s what the record says. The only evidence I’ve seen that Wackenhut had anything to do with Shaw’s defense at all is that FBI teletype and a few subsequent memos on Carson‘s phone call. What we need are internal documents from Shaw’s defense showing who they actually hired for investigative services. We know Southern Research of New Orleans did the actual work on the ground, and they are shady enough on their own, but I suspect they were subcontracted in a similar situation to the Ferrie Eastern Airlines investigation where EA hired a big New York firm (Tolson? or something like that) and they subcontracted to SRC, presumably because SRC had local assets and experience in New Orleans. Have you seen anything tying Wackenhut to Shaw’s defense other than the FBI stuff from Carson? Carson didn’t work for Wackenhut, and I’ve never seen anything from Shaw’s lawyers on who they actually hired.
-
The Wackenhut angle is kind of interesting. It’s not exactly crystal clear, but the actual investigators for Shaw’s defense team were Southern Research of New Orleans run by former FBI agent Charles Carson. When they were hired by Shaw’s attorneys, Carson apparently told the FBI that he was “presently connected with” Wackenhut Corp, but Carson did not actually work for Wackenhut. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62411#relPageId=99 I think what likely happened is Shaw’s defense hired Wackenhut, and Wackenhut subcontracted to SRCNO to do the local groundwork. Maybe Fred knows something about this since he’s been through the Irving Dymond papers. Note in the teletype that Carson said he was working out of the Masonic Temple Building - the same building as the CIA DCD field office in New Orleans. I haven’t been able to determine when SRC moved in there. In fall ‘67, which I believe was right around the same time the Garrison Group was spinning up at CIA, Southern Research of New Orleans was dissolved and liquidated, and Carson and at least two other SRC bigwigs got cushy government jobs with the state labor rackets commission. The Shaw case was likely their last big job as a private detective firm. I’ve mentioned this before, but the most bizarre coincidence IMO is how SRC New Orleans was founded. Carson had been running the New Orleans office since 1960 but for whatever reason SRC decided to incorporate a separate branch on 8/26/63, five days after Oswald’s debate with Carlos Bringuier. One of the partners in the new company, Edward Parent, listed his address on the articles of incorporation as 4525 Duplessis St., which was Carlos Bringuier’s old apartment in the Parkchester housing project that was still on his drivers license when he was arrested with Oswald two weeks earlier. Bringuier also didn’t rent that apartment randomly, he was placed there through a Cuban resettlement program. His literal next door neighbor was Sergio Arcacha Smith in 4523 and the next door down was a CIA asset named Manuel Blanco. All these guys were in the CRC, as was the lady administering the resettlement program in New Orleans. Blanco ran the secret CRC military committee with Arnesto Rodriguez Jr. and one other guy I don’t remember. Bringuier was on the propaganda committee. Bringuier supposedly moved out of Parkchester in late ‘62, so it’s probably just a coincidence, but it’s still a bit strange. A government subsidized housing project full of militant anti-Castro Cubans seems like an odd place for a partner in a private detective firm with a bunch of decorated former FBI agents and electronic surveillance experts to be living, IMO. 4525 Duplessis also had 2 units A and B, so it’s possible this Parent character was there at the same as Bringuier and Arcacha. An interesting note about Wackenhut proper is the CIA officially cut all ties with them in April ‘67. I think it was something like two weeks after Carson’s call to the FBI. The official reason was Wackenhut’s unwanted “notoriety” for their involvement in the governor of Florida’s highly publicized “war on crime”, but the timing is kind of interesting. The Wackenhut/SRC angle has been relatively unexplored in studies of the Garrison case. I’ve never found anything particularly concrete, but it’s an interesting topic, IMO.
-
I think this is a safe bet. Trump has zero credibility on this topic, and it’s hard to imagine him overruling the CIA. We might get a couple more “releases” where they unredact the word “and”, etc., but I think the chances of full disclosure are pretty much nil. I’d love to be wrong though. Hell I’m more interested in NARA finishing the digitization of the entire JFK collection than any of the remaining redactions. I suspect the massive amount of records that have never been online will be of much greater value to researchers than anything that’s still withheld, but I could be wrong. We’re just missing so much context with online research. Hopefully NARA finishes at some point in the relatively near future (it’s already been 3 years), and they don’t “misplace” any documents during the digitization process.
-
There should be follow up on this in ARRB records, like the formal request and the CIA’s response at least. I’m a little rusty on CIA records but whoever wrote this thought documents were missing from the 201 for whatever reason. One possibility would be if certain types of records are expected to be in all 201 files for DCD contacts but they weren’t in Shaw’s, or something along those lines.
-
Curtain rods and the framing of Oswald
Tom Gram replied to Greg Doudna's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I’m not sure this is entirely accurate regarding the Warren Report, but it could be. In the table of contents to Volume XXIII is a description of CE1952 that says: Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964 on two curtain rods received from Ruth Paine. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=29 It almost looks like whoever wrote this description was familiar enough with the Paine Exhibits to make the connection, but not familiar enough to realize the date was off. Either that or they were told the form related to Paine curtain rods. I’ve been looking for any internal WC records on exhibit numbering, etc. or anything else that mentions CE1952 but haven’t had any luck. Would you agree then that the concern about perjury etc. was based on the original DPD log form, which the WC knew existed but didn’t have access to? This is the type of thing I’m curious about regarding the “why” on the exhibit numbering theory. Your explanation makes sense, but I still find it almost unbelievably coincidental that Michael Paine spontaneously gave the WC a mechanism for erasing the March 15th rods from the record two days after they were submitted to the DPD crime lab. Also if the real concern was perjury or making false statements, wouldn’t Howlett or anyone else involved have been screwed if they were ever asked: “Were curtain rods discovered on or prior to March 15th?” You don’t think it’s possible the rods were discovered in the Paine garage, checked for fingerprints then returned? That would fit into the whole “lawyers not liking to ask questions they don’t know the answer to” thing. It also wouldn’t necessarily require cooperation of the Paines, just a little preinterview prep to get the rods on the record. I agree that the March 15th date is not a mistake. Something’s still just not quite adding up for me, but I definitely could be missing something. -
Curtain rods and the framing of Oswald
Tom Gram replied to Greg Doudna's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Overall I think a lot of the analysis here sounds plausible, but I’m still struggling with the “why” on the exhibit numbers theory. If curtain rods were discovered by Howlett or someone else, then turned into the DPD crime lab by Howlett on March 15th, how did that situation evolve into a need for the WC to artificially introduce different curtain rods into evidence and assign exhibit numbers to match the notations on the original DPD log sheet? On March 16th, the WC sent a request to the FBI asking them to determine if Oswald’s room needed curtains. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58214#relPageId=133 Pat says in his chapter that this was in response to Frazier’s 3/11 testimony, and it does look like that could be true, but the timing is kind of interesting. I guess what I’m wondering is why wouldn’t Howlett and/or Day just deep-six any evidence of the original curtain rods or change the date on the log form, etc.? This is pure speculation, but the only thing that’s making sense to me is if the WC knew right away about the 3/15 submission. The WC didn’t have access to original DPD evidence logs, only Howlett’s copy which became CE1952, so they knew there’d be a record of a 3/15 submission in the DPD’s files. That’s the only reason I can think of why the WC might try to “adapt” the Paine garage evidence to match that form. If the renumbering theory is correct, the DPD log sheet must’ve been THE primary item of concern for the WC. Right? I also think it suggests that Day was either not directly involved or he couldn’t make an evidence log form disappear once it was officially filed. On March 17th, Michael Paine serendipitously mentions in his testimony that there are curtain rods in the garage. Ruth Paine testifies three days later and lays the groundwork for the WC (and Howlett) taking custody of the rods on the 23rd. So did the WC just get ridiculously lucky here? Were the Paine curtain rods mentioned at all prior to Michael’s 3/17 testimony? I’m just having trouble making sense of this whole deal without either complicity of the Paines or something else I haven’t thought of yet. It all just seems a little too convenient. Is it possible the March 15th rods were actually found in the Paine garage, tested for fingerprints, then returned and “rediscovered” with the Paines cooperating just to get it all on the official record? I might be missing something here, but hopefully that sort of made sense. -
Curtain rods and the framing of Oswald
Tom Gram replied to Greg Doudna's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Interesting analysis Greg. I flipped through Pat’s chapter on this and have a quick question. There is a Life Magazine photo of Mrs. Johnson taken the day of the shooting that shows the top corner of the bent curtain rod by Oswald’s bed, but it doesn’t really look bent to me. It could be a perspective thing, but the rod looks straight and above the window frame compared to the Fort Worth Star Telegram photo that shows the bent rod. That same corner of the rod is slanted downward in the FWST photo and the darker curtain looks like it slid down a bit, but in the Life photo it looks neatly tucked up in the corner. What do you think? I vaguely remember running into this same thing when reading Pat’s chapter the first time and being able to see the damage in the Life photo, but now I don’t see it. I’m terrible at photo analysis though so I’m probably missing something obvious. My other thought looking at the photos is the curtains look fine. Why wouldn’t the frugal Oswald just replace the rod and reuse the same curtains vs. paying a seamstress for new ones? -
Curtain rods and the framing of Oswald
Tom Gram replied to Greg Doudna's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I did not have the Brookhout compilation report with the Dec. 31 reinterviews, which is a pretty interesting wrinkle. My first thought is why were the women reinterviewed at all? It seems like we’re missing some context here. I agree it looks possible that the purpose of the December interviews was to discredit the earlier ones. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57751#relPageId=112 Unless they were for a WC request or something, these FBI compilation reports were usually transcribed from 302s. I’ve seen meaningfully different language in the original 302s vs. the disseminated report or LHM a few times, so those reports are definitely worth looking for. I kind of doubt they exist though. My only thought on the Hernandez reinterview thing is that Hernandez was actually reinterviewed by Brookhout on Jan 8 in response to the Galvin lead, so maybe he got his reports or notes mixed up? Either that or there was another Hernandez interview we do not have. I also agree it is very odd that there is no language in any of the reports suggesting that the women were asked if they knew Oswald. I don’t think this is possible, but if we could confirm somehow that Brookhout read the Harris and/or Lopez reports it’d almost be a slam dunk that something was being covered up. It looks like Brookhout did talk to Pinkston at least, who conducted the original interviews of Hernandez and Salinas, to get the comment from Decker about deer hunting season: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=133 That’s an interesting thought on the Ruby lead. What if the ID was legit? Brookhout went through quite a bit of trouble to discredit the rifle story and come up with a plausible explanation, but your point about the photograph got my wheels turning.