Willem Oltmans

[John Simkin]

John, I must respectfully disagree with your statement that Oltmans reflected a consistent left-wing position. I found numerous instances in which he was trying to obtain audiences with prominent American politicians to warn them of various threats from communists and national liberation movements. He was indeed all over the map. I find Oltmans an enormously contradictory character, almost as deep and operationally conflicted as de Mohrenschildt himself. The de Mohrenschildt "confessions" to Oltmans must be considered in the context of Oltmans' own murky identity and motives, and Oltmans' claims to the authorities were often inconsistent and surprisingly vague and inarticulate for someone who claimed to be serious journalist.

I would be interested in receiving more information about Oltmans “trying to obtain audiences with prominent American politicians to warn them of various threats from communists and national liberation movements”. Of course, I did not mean that Oltmans’ left-wing journalist was “pro-communist”. Radicals in the 1960s and 1970s often took a liberation socialist position and were often very critical of communist regimes such as the Soviet Union.

What interests me about Oltmans (De Mohrenschildt) claims against H. L. Hunt and the oil industry was that they mirrored what was said by Joachim Joesten (Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy? and Thomas G. Buchanan (Who Killed Kennedy?) Both these books were published in 1964.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjoesten.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuchananT.htm

As a result of these books being published the intelligence services engaged on a smear campaign against both these authors as being “communist agents”. We now know because of declassified documents that Mark Lane was also targeted in this way. In Plausible Denial (1991):

More than a decade after the assassination, when I won a lawsuit against various police and spy organizations in the United States district court in Washington, D.C., pursuant to the order of the court, I received many long-suppressed documents.

Among them was a top-secret CIA report. It stated that the CIA was deeply troubled by my work in questioning the conclusions of the Warren Report and that polls that had been taken revealed that almost half of the American people believed as I did. The report stated, "Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results." This "trend of opinion," the CIA said, "is a matter of concern" to "our organization." To counter developing opinion within the United States, the CIA suggested that steps be taken. It should be emphasized, the CIA said, that "the members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.

The purpose of the CIA secret document was apparent. In this instance, there was no need for incisive analysis. The CIA report stated "The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments." The commission had been chosen in such a fashion so that it might subsequently be asserted that those who questioned its finding, by comparing the known facts to the false conclusions offered by the commission, might be said to be subversive.

Who were these people who wished to throw suspicion upon the leaders of the land? The CIA report listed them as Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, as well as a French writer, Leo Sauvage. Most of the criticism was directed at me. The CIA directed that this matter be discussed with "liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)," instructing these persons "that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition." The CIA continued: "Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation." The CIA was quite specific about the means that should be employed to prevent criticism of the report:

"Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Edward Jay Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background." According to the CIA, my book, Rush to Judgment, was "much more difficult to answer as a whole." The agency document did not list any errors in the book.

Just in case the book reviewers did not get the point, the CIA offered specific language that they might incorporate into their critiques. "Reviewers" of the books "might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the Report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics."

Among those who criticized Rush to Judgment and other books along lines similar to those suggested by the CIA were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and, especially, Walter Cronkite and CBS. Among those who did not march in lockstep with the intelligence agencies' effort to destroy the First Amendment were the Houston Post; Norman Mailer, who reviewed Rush to Judgment in the United States and Len Deighton, who reviewed it in London.

The question persists, in view of the elaborate and illegal program undertaken by the CIA to malign American citizens and to discourage publishers from printing dissents from the Warren Commission Report, as to the motivation for these efforts. Again, we turn to the CIA dispatch: "Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation." Yes, the CIA was directly involved and it did make its contribution to the investigation. What else the CIA did to constitute its "direct" involvement in the assassination was left unsaid by the authors of its report.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlaneM.htm

Is it possible that Oltmans is a victim of this same CIA smear campaign?

[William Kelly]

Whatever became of Oltman's nine hour filmed interview with DeMohrenschildt?

BK

[William Kelly]

HSCA Transcript of Oltmans Testimony

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=48774

As Robert has noted earlier, and quoting G.R.Blakey that Oltmans' testimony is worthless, it is clear that you cannot obtain an understanding of George DeMohrenschildt through Oltmans. It was like Tannenbaum was pulling his teeth trying to get a straight answer out of the guy.

Despite being an apparently reputable journalist, Oltmans is a bit of a ego maniac, like DeMohrenschildt himself, and being Dutch, may have had a bit of a language problem.

Oltmans also had an impulsive and abrasive attitude and approach, much like our friend Wim, and cuts to the heart of the question rather than setting it up properly to obtain the correct answer.

For instance, DeMohrenschildts told Oltmans that he was asked to participate in a plot to kill JFK in the office of Lester Logue of Dallas. So Oltmans immediately picks up the phone and calls Logue and says that he has a witness who claims to have been asked to particpate in a plot to kill JFK in his office, what does he have to say about that?

Well, of course Oltmans never got any more information out of Logue, and we don' hear about that any more.

Rather than try to figure out what DeMohrenschildt was about through Oltmans, its much more valuable and entertaining to read DeMohrenschildt's own story, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!", which is on line at Mary Ferrell.

Besides working for Dutch TV (with Karl Lenklloyd?), Oltmans used CBS TV crews and equipment when in Dallas and claims to have a nine hour interview with DeMohrenschildt that gets into many details.

What became of this film?

And did the HSCA obtain copies of films and notes Oltmans kept in Holland and offered to HSCA?

Apart from DeMohrenschildt, Oltmans says that he also interviewed Loren Hall on film, which should be part of JFK Collection at NANA, and could have valuable info if anybody checks.

BK

Bill, I lived for quite some time in the Netherlands, all educated Dutch speak Excellent English! I also just spent 30 minutes listening to Oltmans being interviewed IN DUTCH about JFK and DeMohrenschildt and must say he seemed completely honest, in control of his senses, saying the same in Dutch as in English, and sincere....I detected no major ego problems. Comparing him to Wim is really IMO below the belt. I'm trying to locate the film - if it exists....you can hear Oltmans' excellent English here

While his 'information' is a bit 'odd' he was told it by DeMohrenschildt, apparently. Other parts of what he was told don't seem so strange to me at all.

Peter, My point is that Oltmans only knows what DeMohrnschildts told him, and he patiently developed DeMohrenschildt as a source for over two decades.

But when it came to Lester Logue, he calls him on the phone and accuses him of being a suspect and co-conspirator in the assassination without even trying to gain his confidence or find out what Logue really knows. Wim does the same thing.

Why sift what we want to know from Oltman's hearsay when we have DeMohrenschildt's own testimony and manuscript, and if anybody can find it, nine hours of DeMohrenschildt interview on camera with Oltmans?

Has anybody even tried to locate the Oltmans interview with DeMohrenschildt?

BK

[Greg Burnham]

Never mind--

I think he got the point? I hope--

Edited December 1, 2011 by Greg Burnham