Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination by Larry Hancock

[Larry Hancock]

Nathaniel, after rereading this I decided I should elaborate a bit more on my reply to your post - especially in regard to:

"the same names of the guys that were running around in Latin America, particularly in Cuban policy, end up in the Far East Division. Very strange coincidence. There were three -- it wasn't just one -- there were several. A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys."

As it turns out, that is accurate on two counts. First off the senior case officers and paramilitary advisers for the new Artime, off shore autonomous group project of 1963 were old SE Asia hands. That would include both Hecksher and Jenkins, not to mention Artime's good buddy Hunt who was serving a liaison role with him in Washington (and would later go really undercover to Spain).

In 1963 Artime was receiving logistics support at JMWAVE from folks like Morales and Sfoza and Felix Rodriquez jointed Artime's project - as described in his own book Shadow Warrior.

Later, we find virtually all of the same people in both SE Asia and then again in Latin America.

For what its worth, my current and future research is a long term study of many of these covert warfare folks (some who alternated between assignments with the CIA and service in conjunction with US military assistance activities) beginning around 1950 and continuing on through the Iran/Contra period.

-- Larry

"After reading a pre-galley copy of JFK and Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg called (author John) Newman one night very excitedly. Ellsberg had worked with Lansdale and knew him extremely well. He said, "This is the first time I've ever thought that (Gen. Edward) Lansdale might have been involved in the assassination." Ellsberg based this on Lansdale being removed from Vietnam planning and moved to Operation Mongoose.81

By February 1963 Lansdale had no position in Cuban policy and was focusing on Latin America. He was traveling to countries like Bolivia and elsewhere. The U.S. had a lot of personnel in South America under Kennedy. And a lot of them ended up going to Vietnam. According to Newman there is a blind spot as to exactly what they were doing and how many people the U.S. had in Latin America.82

"I can tell you," Newman said, "that in the collateral research that I did, names that I came across, I found a correlation between -- I don't say this is definitive but I got a lot of hits -- the same names of the guys that were running around in Latin America, particularly in Cuban policy, end up in the Far East Division. Very strange coincidence. There were three -- it wasn't just one -- there were several. A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys."

----------

The fact that Lansdale "had no position" on Cuba policy in 1963 should, perhaps, be taken with salt. The positions were becoming more and more ambiguous each day, as the CIA and white house were on various pages at different times. Reassignments could be corrected in Mexico City?

" A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys."

One person who would seem to meet this criteria is Desmond Fitzgerald. Given his other activities during 1963 I have found it interesting that he made the SE Asia Cuba Switch around the same time as Lansdale. Is he among the group being alluded to here, or did you mean more overtly triggery citizenry?

One of the things that makes it complicated is that there were a couple of generations of SE Asia guys. There were the folks like Fitzgerald

and Lansdale that had been all around SE Asia before being inserted into the Cuba project. Included in that group, and actually of more interest to me are folks like Hecksher. Then there is the second generation who went to SE Asia after the Cuba project and ended up operationally back in

Latin America afterwords - like Morales. And there were the Cuban exiles who went directly to Latin America to challenge Castro and the

ones who went there first via SE Asia. On top of all that, there is the fact that a number of the Agency logistics fronts and the financial

networks that supported them, were first set up in SE Asia and then expanded into the Caribbean to support Latin American activities - Paul

Helliwell (sp) is a major name that comes up there.

If you want to talk paramilitary operations guys, Morales, Sforza and their trusted exile assets certainly show up in Latin America.

But its also clear that many of their activities were enabled there at a much higher level by folks like Phillips and Hecksher.

And of course, just to make matters worse, it appears that a lot of the later nasty Latin American stuff began to move outside the

CIA itself and into some of the Army counter insurgency contacts - which of course corresponds to the fact that Morales moved

into a major counter insurgency role as a consultant to Joint Chiefs staff.

I'm not trying to be coy in naming names and there is certainly a larger story that extends beyond 1963, maybe we will get a handle

on it at some point but for right now Nexus and 1963 is as far as can get my own head around it. Well that and the chapter 20 in

SWHT - because I do feel that Underhill had come across the existence of this particular network/clique sometime in 1963.

-- Larry

[Michael Hogan]

.....Later, we find virtually all of the same people in both SE Asia and then again in Latin America.

For what its worth, my current and future research is a long term study of many of these covert warfare folks (some who alternated between assignments with the CIA and service in conjunction with US military assistance activities) beginning around 1950 and continuing on through the Iran/Contra period.

-- Larry

I have always believed there were internecine relationships between certain elements of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense (DIA) that led to great internal conflicts.

There was a huge intelligence power shift after the DIA was created and both agencies were cross-infiltrated, in my opinion.

Wise and Ross described this in a sparse and rudimentary way.

Larry, in an unrelated matter, have you ever researched Michael Colin?

[Larry Hancock]

Talk about a brain twister - one one hand you have CIA covert wars "for the President" and then you have CIA

covert wars "with the President."

And behind door three we have Iran/Contra which is today's pick up tag team match featuring whoever has an

appointment with Ollie North...sub titled, whose off shore bank do we make the deposits to this afternoon Ollie...

BTW Larry, if you do this, don't forget about Watergate: Hunt, Helms, McCord, Sturgis etc.

The Secret Team takes out another president.

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Michael, although I know the name and very general information I've never researched him nor really come across anything

on him...sorry.

As you say, there were numerous "intelligence wars" but to me they seem to pale against the dramatic confrontations

you find between between the various National Security Advisers and elements of the NSC vs. the State Department.

Heck, when Kissinger held both positions he consistently ran two track programs which drove everybody nuts...nobody

could understand what US policy really was....talk about bipolar. For almost 50 years you find individual country

CIA chiefs in direct confrontation with their US Ambassador and often the only tie breaker was who the Military Assistance

team in country decided was really in charge, or whom they wanted to actually support.

My favorite example is Hecksher's cable from Laos (when the Ambassador was asking for his recall) asking if HQ was still

in friendly hands...

.....Later, we find virtually all of the same people in both SE Asia and then again in Latin America.

For what its worth, my current and future research is a long term study of many of these covert warfare folks (some who alternated between assignments with the CIA and service in conjunction with US military assistance activities) beginning around 1950 and continuing on through the Iran/Contra period.

-- Larry

I have always believed there were internecine relationships between certain elements of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense (DIA) that led to great internal conflicts.

There was a huge intelligence power shift after the DIA was created and both agencies were cross-infiltrated, in my opinion.

Wise and Ross described this in a sparse and rudimentary way.

Larry, in an unrelated matter, have you ever researched Michael Colin?

[Scott Kaiser]

BTW Larry, if you do this, don't forget about Watergate: Hunt, Helms, McCord, Sturgis etc.

The Secret Team takes out another president.

[John Simkin]

Jim, I've taken the liberty of reproducing your post here. The lack of discussion was even more disappointing considering Larry Hancock is one of the authors

that always sticks around to answer questions and expand on his research. In fact, the last post here was over three months ago and made by Larry.

Maybe your post will prompt some more discussion. That would be nice. I'd like to read what John Simkin has to say about NEXUS.

I consider Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked" the best book on the assassination. I have not read his latest book because I am no longer involved in research into the JFK assassination. I am too busy writing a biography of Charles Dickens.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I do respect Larry Hancock; and I do learn a lot from him. But any book that leaves out the critical role of Lyndon Johnson and the Texas oil men is not going to make it to the very top of my list. In my opinion, that is the absolute CORE of the JFK assassination, everything else is "details." John Martino is a detail.

"Someone Would Have Talked" - indeed. And that someone was Lyndon Johnson in his comments to Madeleine Brown, both before and after the JFK assassination.

In the night of 12/31/63, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those ______ renegade intelligence bastards in Washington."

[said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendezvous’ with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

Lyndon Johnson is confirmed by his schedule as having been at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, TX, on the night of 12/31/63, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination. LBJ and his group made their rounds to parties around town and ended up at the last stop of the evening at a New Year's Eve party for journalists at the Driskill.

I have no doubt that Madeleine Brown was waiting for him in room #254, a room LBJ kept permanently rented at the Driskill for his affairs and mistresses.

Beside LBJ Mastermind, the book to read to understand Lyndon Johnson is "Power Beyond Reason: The Mental Collapse of Lyndon Johnson" (2002) by D. Jablow Hershman. Read or skim that book and you will understand that LBJ was a psychopath capable of anything.

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Beyond-Reason-Collapse-Johnson/dp/1569802432/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329879385&sr=1-1

Edited February 22, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Scott Kaiser]

No book is "the best book ever on the JFK case."

Never happened and IMO, never will.

This is why i placed a top ten at CTKA.

This case, as Weisberg so memorably put it, is beyond the reach of any one person. THat is because the cover up was so huge. In every direction. Therefore, one has to acquire the skills of os many disciplines that it would take a lifetime to reinvestigate the whole thing.

The best thing to do is to pick books from each generation and after that to take the best books from each camp--CIA, LBJ, Mafia, etc. and then make up your own mind.

Again I have to disagree, IMO... I think that there are lots of "good books" out there. Mark Lanes "Rush to Judgement" has sold over a million copies. Now is there a book out there that really captures who, what, where, when, and why Kennedy was assassinated? Sure there are, how accurate are they?

By the way, everyone here in Miami says hello!

Also, I haven't forgotten about you Jim! As I said, you'll have my answer shorty, so stay turned, sit back and relax, its going to be a "bumpy" ride.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Scott Kaiser