Jump to content
The Education Forum

Maurice Bishop = David Atlee Phillips


Mark Johansson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Two weeks ago I was honored to conduct an interview with Antonio Veciana. Although he still denies it for the record, there is no doubt left that David Atlee Phillips was his CIA controller. Veciana had a nice way of confirming it without confirming it. You will know what I mean once you see the interview.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Two weeks ago I was honored to conduct an interview with Antonio Veciana. Although he still denies it for the record, there is no doubt left that David Atlee Phillips was his CIA controller. Veciana had a nice way of confirming it without confirming it. You will know what I mean once you see the interview.

Wim

Mark,

Kudos. Will you publish the interview somewhere that we can see it? I am amazed that Veciana is still living.

(Given the attempts on his life, he is likely amazed as well). He must be quite elderly by now.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that Phillips was Bishop, like his buddy Hunt was Knight.

They considered the aliases erudite.

I believe Phillips was the mastermind behind the plot scenario. I believe

Phillips had longtime ties to LBJ as a fellow Texan. The Phillips family and

the Connally family were longtime neighbors in west Fort Worth and were

in the same social circles. Connally was known here as Lyndon's Boy John.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago I was honored to conduct an interview with Antonio Veciana. Although he still denies it for the record, there is no doubt left that David Atlee Phillips was his CIA controller. Veciana had a nice way of confirming it without confirming it. You will know what I mean once you see the interview.

Wim

Mark,

Kudos. Will you publish the interview somewhere that we can see it? I am amazed that Veciana is still living.

(Given the attempts on his life, he is likely amazed as well). He must be quite elderly by now.

Dawn

Dawn, It's Wim posting under Mark's name, cause I lost my password and John Simkin does not react thusfar to my requests to get me a new one. Anyway, Veciana is still very much alive with an electic energy and James is not out of jail but remains very much incarcarcerated. I will publish the interview when I feel like it, but I will give you some gems here:

It was in Spanish , and I do not have the tape yet, let alone the transcription. But I will give you the gist of how he answered some questions, as best as I recall.

One question I asked is: So if Bishop was Phillips, the confirmation for that would not come from you?

He said: No because the CIA knows, and the confirmation should come from them. Also he was very interested in the cancer project that Lee Oswald, Ferrie and Judyth Baker worked on. I don't know why, maybe because his wife died from cancer. So I gave him the DVD of my interview with Judyth, which apparently he watched the same night. Because the next day in the interview he quotes the DVD. He said that Lee told his girl friend (su amante) never to forget the name David Atlee Phillips, in case he would not survive. So in effect Veciana uses other people's testimony to stress that Bishop = Phillips = Oswald's CIA controller.

I started the whole issue with the question: Tony, is there any chance that in your lifetime you will change your statement that David Atlee Phillips was not Maurice Bishop? He said no, because he "made a promise". Then he said something that Tony Jr translated as maybe he would write something up for after his death.

Likewise, he also quoted a statement of Fonzi, that when David Atllee Phillips died that Maurice Bishop died too. So I asked him if he found that a good statement, and he said yes. He added that everyone around Phillips recognized the sketch as being him, including his family, his brother and niece. And he described how extremely nervous Phillips was when Veciana and he met at the luncheon.

Anyway, body and and facial language is also important.

I had a little debate with my producer who handled the camera, about whether this was a confirmation. In Veciana's presence he said "Yes, he confirmed it, he just did." And Veciana just watched and didn't make a comment and smiled. I think his loosening up also has to do with age, and that he liked me.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim, can you tell us if Veciana was paid for the interview? I fully believe that Phillips was Bishop. But the thought occurs that Veciana is still denying that Phillips was Bishop in hopes he can stretch this out awhile.

Another thought, one from a few years back... I've always wondered if the Knight/Bishop angle was a reference to J.C. King, the head of the CIA's Western Hemisphere division. King was, I believe, the original impetus behind both the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala and the assassination plots on Castro. He was heavily connected to men like Pawley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago I was honored to conduct an interview with Antonio Veciana. Although he still denies it for the record, there is no doubt left that David Atlee Phillips was his CIA controller. Veciana had a nice way of confirming it without confirming it. You will know what I mean once you see the interview.

Wim

Mark,

Kudos. Will you publish the interview somewhere that we can see it? I am amazed that Veciana is still living.

(Given the attempts on his life, he is likely amazed as well). He must be quite elderly by now.

Dawn

Dawn, It's Wim posting under Mark's name, cause I lost my password and John Simkin does not react thusfar to my requests to get me a new one. Anyway, Veciana is still very much alive with an electic energy and James is not out of jail but remains very much incarcarcerated. I will publish the interview when I feel like it, but I will give you some gems here:

It was in Spanish , and I do not have the tape yet, let alone the transcription. But I will give you the gist of how he answered some questions, as best as I recall.

One question I asked is: So if Bishop was Phillips, the confirmation for that would not come from you?

He said: No because the CIA knows, and the confirmation should come from them. Also he was very interested in the cancer project that Lee Oswald, Ferrie and Judyth Baker worked on. I don't know why, maybe because his wife died from cancer. So I gave him the DVD of my interview with Judyth, which apparently he watched the same night. Because the next day in the interview he quotes the DVD. He said that Lee told his girl friend (su amante) never to forget the name David Atlee Phillips, in case he would not survive. So in effect Veciana uses other people's testimony to stress that Bishop = Phillips = Oswald's CIA controller.

I started the whole issue with the question: Tony, is there any chance that in your lifetime you will change your statement that David Atlee Phillips was not Maurice Bishop? He said no, because he "made a promise". Then he said something that Tony Jr translated as maybe he would write something up for after his death.

Likewise, he also quoted a statement of Fonzi, that when David Atllee Phillips died that Maurice Bishop died too. So I asked him if he found that a good statement, and he said yes. He added that everyone around Phillips recognized the sketch as being him, including his family, his brother and niece. And he described how extremely nervous Phillips was when Veciana and he met at the luncheon.

Anyway, body and and facial language is also important.

I had a little debate with my producer who handled the camera, about whether this was a confirmation. In Veciana's presence he said "Yes, he confirmed it, he just did." And Veciana just watched and didn't make a comment and smiled. I think his loosening up also has to do with age, and that he liked me.

Wim

Wim pollutes the mind and memory of another important wintess with the JBDVD cancer virus.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn, do you read ANY assassination books? Talbot interviewed Veciana just last year and I discussed the interview with Talbot.

Of course, if Phillips was Bishop, and if Veciana was telling the truth about seeing Bishop with Oswald, that IMO totally exculpates Phillips from any role in the assassination.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn, do you read ANY assassination books? Talbot interviewed Veciana just last year and I discussed the interview with Talbot.

Of course, if Phillips was Bishop, and if Veciana was telling the truth about seeing Bishop with Oswald, that IMO totally exculpates Phillips from any role in the assassination.

Well, what would be the role of violating tradecraft by meeting two different operatives in Dallas in August of 1963 shortly before one of them goes to the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City, where Phillips is overseeing certain related Cuban operations, and sets him up as the Castro loving FPCC patsy in the assassination?

Judas? A little kiss on the cheek before getting on the bus to Dealey Plaza, via Mexico City.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, your post might suggest that Veciana is not telling the truth about seeing Veciana with Bishop.

Obviously it is a violation of tradecraft (well, presumably it is--I do not have intelligence training and I assume you do not either) for a case officer to allow one "asset" or "agent" to see him with another.

I know it is very difficult for anyone who has a POV re the assassination to look with sceptism on any reported fact that supports his or her POV, but I believe serious consideration must be given to the possibility that Veciana is not a teller of the truth.

I also know that Veciana claims that Diosdado interviewed him shortly after the assassination and Diosdado denied that. Obviously, either Veciana or Diosdado was a xxxx.

Now, to your thought: it would obviously be far less dangerous for Bishop to let Veciana observe him with LHO if LHO was on a CIA mission that did not involve the assassination of the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To summarize (someone can correct me if I am wrong):

1. There is no support for the Veciana story (including any kind of documentary support) other than Veciana's word.

2. If Veciana is telling the truth, then both of the following must be true:

A. Bishop violated a fundamental rule of tradecraft; and

B. Diosdado lied.

I do not necessarily take the position that Veciana invented his tale but I do submit that it is at least a possibility mertiting consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Tim... Bishop is almost certainly Phillips, as demonstrated by Fonzi. This suggests the rest of Veciana's story is true. And Phillips lied to the HSCA about not knowing Veciana.

One would have to ask then why Veciana would invent this "lie" about Phillips. There's no evidence he tried to profit from it. The only innocent explanation could be that Veciana saw Phillips with someone other than Oswald, and Phillips, filled with the contempt for congress and oversight so common in men of his profession, decided that they (and therefore we) were undeserving of the truth. Not exactly innocent, is it?

I think your presumption that Phillips would not let Veciana see Oswald is, well, presumptuous. It could very well be that Phillips wanted the opposite--for Oswald to see Veciana. Veciana's cousin Guillermo Ruiz worked in the embassy where Oswald was headed. Perhaps Oswald was supposed to contact him. If so, being able to describe Veciana would have been to his advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, was not the HSCA dubious of the veracity of Veciana's story?

And re whether Veciana had a MOTIVE to make up the story, was it not clear that Veciana had had a falling out with Bishop and did not like him? If that is the case, then Veciana indeed had a motive to lie to throw Bishop in to the middle of things.

Veciana never expressly identified Phillips as Bishop. So if Phillips was indeed Bishop, how does that add any credence to Veciana's story? Assume that Phillips was Bishop and that Veciana no longer liked him so he made up a story to mix Phillips up with the assassination Again, how does the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that Phillips was Bishop offer any support for the story?

Assume that Bishop was say E Howard Hunt and Veciana came to despise Hunt and wanted to dirty him so he made up his story. How would the fact that Hunt was Bishop offer any support for the allegations of Veciana?

If Bishop (Phillips if you will) wanted Veciana to see him with LHO, well then that certainly is a complete exoneration of Bishop from any role in the assassination--whether Oswald was a guilty participant or simply a patsy.

Also let's consider that Veciana is by his own statements a xxxx. He claims that Diosdado interviewed him a few days after the assassination and asked if he had any relevant information and Veciana (per AV) told Diosdado he did not. So either Veciana lied at the very outset of the investigation (when his truth-telling could have been of great importance) or years later he lied to Fonzi.

Again, I submit that if Veciana's story is true it exonerates Phillips. But I do have doubts that it is true--and so should you.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I do not have a FIRM opinion that Veciana made up the Bishop/Oswald meeting but consider these facts:

1. He did have a motive to lie.

2. The story first came out years after the assassination.

3. The story directly contradicts his earlier version of events which was essentially contemporaneous.

4. The story does involve an implausability if not an impossibility (that Bishop would allow Veciana to observe him with another agent in violation of intelligence tradecraft).

Again, I have no horse in this race: I just think there is a need to approach the Veciana story with caution, and I do not see that happening by those who want to use the story to indict Phillips as a conspirator (as I said, I think it does exactly the opposite anyway).

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I do not have a FIRM opinion that Veciana made up the Bishop/Oswald meeting but consider these facts:

1. He did have a motive to lie.

2. The story first came out years after the assassination.

3. The story directly contradicts his earlier version of events which was essentially contemporaneous.

4. The story does involve an implausability if not an impossibility (that Bishop would allow Veciana to observe him with another agent in violation of intelligence tradecraft).

Again, I have no horse in this race: I just think there is a need to approach the Veciana story with caution, and I do not see that happening by those who want to use the story to indict Phillips as a conspirator (as I said, I think it does exactly the opposite anyway).

Tim said:

Obviously it is a violation of tradecraft (well, presumably it is--I do not have intelligence training and I assume you do not either) for a case officer to allow one "asset" or "agent" to see him with another.

But are you controlled by the PGU unaware of the control?

Was Lee a serzhant?

Think about it.

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago I was honored to conduct an interview with Antonio Veciana. Although he still denies it for the record, there is no doubt left that David Atlee Phillips was his CIA controller. Veciana had a nice way of confirming it without confirming it. You will know what I mean once you see the interview.

Wim

Mark,

Kudos. Will you publish the interview somewhere that we can see it? I am amazed that Veciana is still living.

(Given the attempts on his life, he is likely amazed as well). He must be quite elderly by now.

Dawn

Dawn, It's Wim posting under Mark's name, cause I lost my password and John Simkin does not react thusfar to my requests to get me a new one. Anyway, Veciana is still very much alive with an electic energy and James is not out of jail but remains very much incarcarcerated. I will publish the interview when I feel like it, but I will give you some gems here:

It was in Spanish , and I do not have the tape yet, let alone the transcription. But I will give you the gist of how he answered some questions, as best as I recall.

One question I asked is: So if Bishop was Phillips, the confirmation for that would not come from you?

He said: No because the CIA knows, and the confirmation should come from them. Also he was very interested in the cancer project that Lee Oswald, Ferrie and Judyth Baker worked on. I don't know why, maybe because his wife died from cancer. So I gave him the DVD of my interview with Judyth, which apparently he watched the same night. Because the next day in the interview he quotes the DVD. He said that Lee told his girl friend (su amante) never to forget the name David Atlee Phillips, in case he would not survive. So in effect Veciana uses other people's testimony to stress that Bishop = Phillips = Oswald's CIA controller.

I started the whole issue with the question: Tony, is there any chance that in your lifetime you will change your statement that David Atlee Phillips was not Maurice Bishop? He said no, because he "made a promise". Then he said something that Tony Jr translated as maybe he would write something up for after his death.

Likewise, he also quoted a statement of Fonzi, that when David Atllee Phillips died that Maurice Bishop died too. So I asked him if he found that a good statement, and he said yes. He added that everyone around Phillips recognized the sketch as being him, including his family, his brother and niece. And he described how extremely nervous Phillips was when Veciana and he met at the luncheon.

Anyway, body and and facial language is also important.

I had a little debate with my producer who handled the camera, about whether this was a confirmation. In Veciana's presence he said "Yes, he confirmed it, he just did." And Veciana just watched and didn't make a comment and smiled. I think his loosening up also has to do with age, and that he liked me.

Wim

Wim pollutes the mind and memory of another important wintess with the JBDVD cancer virus.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...