David Morales

[Wim Dankbaar]

Tosh, You still don't believe that Files was in the military and the Bay of Pigs?

Edited July 25, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Steve Rosen]

Mr. Plumlee:

I have a few questions for you regarding your original post in this thread:

" ... [F]ollowing is information that was given to an investigative committee in 1991 Senator John Kerry's Iran Contra Re-Supply network ref; Dick Mc Call and John Winner.., close door session..." classified Top Secret Committee Sensitive".

Question: How do you know that Morales was not involved in the Kennedy assassination?

I was told by Tracy Barnes, John Martino, William "Wild Bill Harvey", and John Rosellie shortly after the assassination, that David was in Miami. The early records shows that Morales was in the JMWAVE complex at the University of Miami campus at 10am that day.. He signed in on the duty log sheet at 9:20 A.M. and at the gate at 8:45 A.M. He was checked in at the Green Mansions Resort Motel/Hotel the evening of the 22nd. Rm 102. "

(1) Is the above statement a quote from Senate testimony transcripts, or is it your summary of that testimony?

(2) Who asked the question "How do you know that Morales ... " ?

(3) Are you the person giving the answer ("I was told by Tracy Barnes ... ") ?

(4) If yes to (3), when and where did you first meet Bill Harvey? What prompted him to disclose to you David Morales' whereabouts on 11/22/63? When and where did this occur? What else did Harvey reveal to you about Morales and/or JFK's assassination?

(5) Have you ever met David Morales?

(6) You said that "I have the certified sign in sheets as well as other documentation from The Senate of the United States." Do these "sign in sheets" contain Morales' signature or name? If so, can you please post them here? That way they could be compared to his known signature.

(7) The original question "How do you know that Morales was not involved in the Kennedy assassination?" implies that there was prior discussion of David Morales in that same testimony session. Did you bring up his name or did the Senate investigator? Can you quote the prior question(s) or discussion(s) of Morales from that same testimony session?

Thank you for your time and efforts. I look forward to your book.

Best,

Steve Rosen

[William Plumlee]

[x

Edited March 21, 2008 by William Plumlee

[Steve Rosen]

Mr. Plumlee,

Thank you for your detailed and informative responses. I don't think anyone here wants classified material posted on this forum that would get you in trouble.

I have a question and a few comments about your responses.

(1) What can you tell us about your personal knowledge of Bill Harvey and David Morales that is not classified?

(2) Regarding my question about posting David Morales' signature on JM/WAVE "certified sign in sheets" from 11/22/63, you wrote:

Yes... confirmed signature. Why would I want to post them? I am not even suppose to have them. Your a Lawyer. strange you should ask.

Not so strange at all. In fairness, I do not see that you wrote anywhere in this thread that the "certified sign in sheets" are classified. If they are, obviously they cannot be posted at this time.

(3) Regarding my request for you to "quote the prior question(s) or discussion(s) of Morales from that same testimony session", you wrote:

Yes I can, but will not because its classified. ( no offence; your an attorney and that is a leading question which could incriminate me as to releasing detailed classified information.

No offense taken, but my question was not leading. A leading question is one that suggests the answer, which mine did not. Also, I could not incriminate you to release classified information; you either would or you would not on your own. Again, I do not want classified documents posted.

More to the point, your initial post in this thread already quoted a portion of the Senate transcript.

I assume it was permissible for you to post that quoted portion, and so I think it was a reasonable request for you provide additional quotes from the same transcript, in order to provide further context.

After all, no one here (except you) would know which portions are classified and which are not.

(4) I'll send you a FREE copy. Thanks for your dedicated research into this delicate subject.

Thank you, but I'll gladly purchase one to support your efforts. I may ask you to inscribe it though.

Best,

Steve Rosen

[John Simkin]

John,

On paper, those who provided negative identifications could be accused of having vested interests but ultimately, I was persuaded they were being honest and open with me. I was particularly impressed by how helpful Chavez, Fernandez, Roman and the Morales family were in answering my questions and providing new images (Rita and Sandra are pseudonyms, by the way).

I now believe the two figures in the ballroom are Michael Roman and, probably, Frank Owens. The Bulova connection and the actions of Roman after the shooting are a bit strange but I don't now believe the man with him is Joannides.

The "Morales" identification is so disputed at this stage, I prefer to emphasise that Morales confessed he was in Dallas and Los Angeles and, after talking to his family, they have no alibi for his whereabouts on June 5, 1968. This is significant because generally Morales' family lived with him wherever he was posted, with the exception of his tour of Vietnam and his first year in Laos.

Brad Ayers, Wayne Smith and Ed Lopez are all highly credible and I found their IDs persuasive for a long time. While I personally now doubt it is Morales in the video, the new images of Morales his family provided made Ayers and Smith even more sure of their original IDs. Even if it isn't Morales in the video, his statement that he was there and his implication that he was involved must be followed through as far as possible. What more can be done to pin this down, I'm not sure.

I found the interviews with Morales’ two eldest daughters interesting. On page 462 Rita Morales claims that David Morales was at home on the evening of the assassination of JFK and showed no reaction to the death. This sounds very abnormal and suggests that he was keeping himself under tight control (something that all spooks have to do when the subject matter of an issue concerns their work).

Rita said in the interview that “when he wasn’t drinking, he was a good guy”. The only problem with this assessment is that he was an alcoholic.

Rita also says: “If my father got a direct order to do it, I’m sure he did it. He knew the people who could get the job done.” Doesn’t sound like a “good guy” to me.

[Shane O'Sullivan]

I found the interviews with Morales’ two eldest daughters interesting. On page 462 Rita Morales claims that David Morales was at home on the evening of the assassination of JFK and showed no reaction to the death. This sounds very abnormal and suggests that he was keeping himself under tight control (something that all spooks have to do when the subject matter of an issue concerns their work).

Rita said in the interview that “when he wasn’t drinking, he was a good guy”. The only problem with this assessment is that he was an alcoholic.

Rita also says: “If my father got a direct order to do it, I’m sure he did it. He knew the people who could get the job done.” Doesn’t sound like a “good guy” to me.

John: From speaking to the family, Morales was distant and would never talk about work or reveal his political views. His daughters didn't find out he was a Republican until much later in life. So, this sort of non-reaction to the assassination would fit that pattern. Having said that, I'm not sure I believe Morales was at home that evening because Rita's recollection is vague and a bit non-descript. Sandra Morales couldn't remember where her father was that day.

Rita acknowledged Morales was an alcoholic and she didn't see as much of the "good guy" (i.e. good family man) as she'd have liked.

Re: “If my father got a direct order to do it, I’m sure he did it. He knew the people who could get the job done.” The family attitude seems to be: he was in the military, he was very loyal and very good at his job and he followed orders. Joining the CIA rescued Morales from the barrio. If he was told to do something, he'd do it but he'd never jeopardise his status by operating without agency clearance. He may have done a lot of things we don't want to know about, but those were the times.

[Steve Rosen]

On September 23, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon granted summary judgment in favor of the State Department and dismissed Jefferson Morley and David Talbot's Freedom of Information Act requests for State records on David Morales and George Joannides.

Morley and Talbot had asked for passport information, visa papers, code names, and aliases. The State Department released three unredacted passport applications for Joannides and one for Morales, but refused to confirm or deny the existence of any pseudonyms.

Judge Leon ruled that the State Department properly cited two FOIA exemptions in failing to comment as to whether or not the requested records even existed in State archives. First, Judge Leon held that pursuant to Executive order governing "Secret" material, the mere confirmation or denial by State of the existence of such alias information would reveal sources and methods and damage national security. Judge Leon agreed with the assertion by Margaret P. Grafeld of the State Department that revealing whether State granted such aliases would undermine the "covert nature" of "intelligence-gathering activities". Second, Judge Leon ruled that the State Department is not compelled to come clean merely because the CIA has already "officially acknowledged" aliases for Morales and Joannides in documents released under the JFK Act.

It is unknown if Morley and Talbot are appealing this ruling to the Circuit Court level.

Note: The above suit arose from routine FOIA requests from Morley and Talbot. In December 2006, David Talbot filed FOIA requests with the CIA for temporary duty travel records for 1968 and all photographs of George Joannides, Gordon Campbell, and David Morales. (Those proceedings were granted a stay by Judge Leon in August 2007. Their current disposition is unknown but is not affected by Judge Leon's ruling.)

Judge Leon's opinion can be found here: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p...c?2007cv0277-34

This article by Michael Doyle at http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/law/20...d-alias--1.html summarizes the lawsuit.

Will Hilary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State effect such future similar requests, in light of her

that "I will do whatever I can consistent with legitimate concerns about national security to release information"?

Steve

[William Kelly]

On September 23, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon granted summary judgment in favor of the State Department and dismissed Jefferson Morley and David Talbot's Freedom of Information Act requests for State records on David Morales and George Joannides.

Morley and Talbot had asked for passport information, visa papers, code names, and aliases. The State Department released three unredacted passport applications for Joannides and one for Morales, but refused to confirm or deny the existence of any pseudonyms.

Judge Leon ruled that the State Department properly cited two FOIA exemptions in failing to comment as to whether or not the requested records even existed in State archives. First, Judge Leon held that pursuant to Executive order governing "Secret" material, the mere confirmation or denial by State of the existence of such alias information would reveal sources and methods and damage national security. Judge Leon agreed with the assertion by Margaret P. Grafeld of the State Department that revealing whether State granted such aliases would undermine the "covert nature" of "intelligence-gathering activities". Second, Judge Leon ruled that the State Department is not compelled to come clean merely because the CIA has already "officially acknowledged" aliases for Morales and Joannides in documents released under the JFK Act.

It is unknown if Morley and Talbot are appealing this ruling to the Circuit Court level.

Note: The above suit arose from routine FOIA requests from Morley and Talbot. In December 2006, David Talbot filed FOIA requests with the CIA for temporary duty travel records for 1968 and all photographs of George Joannides, Gordon Campbell, and David Morales. (Those proceedings were granted a stay by Judge Leon in August 2007. Their current disposition is unknown but is not affected by Judge Leon's ruling.)

Judge Leon's opinion can be found here: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p...c?2007cv0277-34

This article by Michael Doyle at http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/law/20...d-alias--1.html summarizes the lawsuit.

Will Hilary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State effect such future similar requests, in light of her

that "I will do whatever I can consistent with legitimate concerns about national security to release information"?

Steve

Go Steve, Go!

BK

[Robert Howard]

On September 23, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon granted summary judgment in favor of the State Department and dismissed Jefferson Morley and David Talbot's Freedom of Information Act requests for State records on David Morales and George Joannides.

Morley and Talbot had asked for passport information, visa papers, code names, and aliases. The State Department released three unredacted passport applications for Joannides and one for Morales, but refused to confirm or deny the existence of any pseudonyms.

Judge Leon ruled that the State Department properly cited two FOIA exemptions in failing to comment as to whether or not the requested records even existed in State archives. First, Judge Leon held that pursuant to Executive order governing "Secret" material, the mere confirmation or denial by State of the existence of such alias information would reveal sources and methods and damage national security. Judge Leon agreed with the assertion by Margaret P. Grafeld of the State Department that revealing whether State granted such aliases would undermine the "covert nature" of "intelligence-gathering activities". Second, Judge Leon ruled that the State Department is not compelled to come clean merely because the CIA has already "officially acknowledged" aliases for Morales and Joannides in documents released under the JFK Act.

It is unknown if Morley and Talbot are appealing this ruling to the Circuit Court level.

Note: The above suit arose from routine FOIA requests from Morley and Talbot. In December 2006, David Talbot filed FOIA requests with the CIA for temporary duty travel records for 1968 and all photographs of George Joannides, Gordon Campbell, and David Morales. (Those proceedings were granted a stay by Judge Leon in August 2007. Their current disposition is unknown but is not affected by Judge Leon's ruling.)

Judge Leon's opinion can be found here: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p...c?2007cv0277-34

This article by Michael Doyle at http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/law/20...d-alias--1.html summarizes the lawsuit.

Will Hilary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State effect such future similar requests, in light of her

that "I will do whatever I can consistent with legitimate concerns about national security to release information"?

Steve

Go Steve, Go!

BK

98 Docs @ NARA on Morales under simple search; in circa 1961 he was associated with Margie Cate* an address in Long Beach, CA

Home/Archive/Documents/JFK Assassination Documents/JFK Documents - Central Intelligence Agency/HSCA Segregated CIA Collection/HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 44/

NARA Record Number: 104-10121-10337

PROVISIONAL CRYPTOGRAPHIC CLEARANCE: DAVID MORALES....104-10121-10320 .........1950

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2

PROCESSING SHEET - "NO FLAG BE ISSUED" : 104-10121-10290...9/25/63

* http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2

ASSIGNED TO CIA IN A MILITARY CAPACITY Signed Ermal P Geiss

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

A couple of the above docs, I have not found corresponding links at Mary Ferrell, and those are taken from NARA.

[Steve Rosen]

Recently there was an anti-climatic coda to David Talbot's lawsuit against the CIA and Jeff Morley's lawsuit against the State Department.

See Michael Doyle's Suits and Sentences blog at: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2009/09/s...ey-for-you.html

As discussed in prior posts within this thread, Talbot and Morley jointly sued for passport records for David Morales and George Joannides, along with code names and pseudonyms for the two deceased covert operatives. The information was ruled properly withheld as protected "sources and methods".

Talbot sought the recovery of about $400 in attorney fees. Judge Richard Leon - who currently presides over Morley's unrelated lawsuit against the CIA for Joannides service records - emphatically denied the request, using an exclamation point to underscore his decision.

Judge Leon's decision: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p...c?2007cv0277-48

- Steve

[Thomas Graves]

Tosh,

One ballistics expert who has checked out the area believes that the fatal head shot came from atop the south end of the triple underpass. The bullet would have gone right over the windshield and under the crossbar (or whatever it's called) in the limo. Would that shooter location be consistent with your hearing a shot that came, as you put it, "from the south parking lot just over the left side of my head"? (The end of the underpass adjoins the parking lot, as I understand it.) Or do you feel the shot was more likely from the parking lot itself? (Seems to me that this more eastward position would put Jackie in the way of a shot.) Thanks.

Ron

_____________________________________________

Excellent question. Too bad Tosh deleted all of his posts from this thread... Do any forum members think the fatal bullet could have passed between the windshield and the "crossbar" if it had originated from the south end of the triple underpass? (Sounds plausible to me.)

--Thomas

P.S. Sorry if this has already been covered on another thread. If so, would someone please refer me to it?

_____________________________________________

Edited February 18, 2010 by Thomas Graves

[David Andrews]

Tosh,

One ballistics expert who has checked out the area believes that the fatal head shot came from atop the south end of the triple underpass. The bullet would have gone right over the windshield and under the crossbar (or whatever it's called) in the limo. Would that shooter location be consistent with your hearing a shot that came, as you put it, "from the south parking lot just over the left side of my head"? (The end of the underpass adjoins the parking lot, as I understand it.) Or do you feel the shot was more likely from the parking lot itself? (Seems to me that this more eastward position would put Jackie in the way of a shot.) Thanks.

Ron

_____________________________________________

Excellent question. Too bad Tosh deleted all of his posts on this thread... Do any forum members think the fatal bullet could have passed between the windshield and the "crossbar" if it had originated from the south end of the triple underpass? (Sounds plausible to me.)

--Thomas

P.S. Sorry if this has already been covered on another thread. If so, would someone please refer me to it?

_____________________________________________

See the last couple pages of the thread on the windshield hole. I suspect that the throat shot was a head shot spoiled by the diminishing availability of Kennedy's head below the windshield top frame, as seen from the South Knoll. Would the same shooter's next option be it's availability between the frame and the crossbar?

What does your ballistics guy make of the throat shot and the windshield?

Edited February 18, 2010 by David Andrews

[Thomas Graves]

Tosh,

One ballistics expert who has checked out the area believes that the fatal head shot came from atop the south end of the triple underpass. The bullet would have gone right over the windshield and under the crossbar (or whatever it's called) in the limo. Would that shooter location be consistent with your hearing a shot that came, as you put it, "from the south parking lot just over the left side of my head"? (The end of the underpass adjoins the parking lot, as I understand it.) Or do you feel the shot was more likely from the parking lot itself? (Seems to me that this more eastward position would put Jackie in the way of a shot.) Thanks.

Ron

_____________________________________________

Excellent question. Too bad Tosh deleted all of his posts on this thread... Do any forum members think the fatal bullet could have passed between the windshield and the "crossbar" if it had originated from the south end of the triple underpass? (Sounds plausible to me.)

--Thomas

P.S. Sorry if this has already been covered on another thread. If so, would someone please refer me to it?

_____________________________________________

See the last couple pages of the thread on the windshield hole. I suspect that the throat shot was a head shot spoiled by the diminishing availability of Kennedy's head below the windshield top frame, as seen from the South Knoll. Would the same shooter's next option be it's availability between the frame and the crossbar?

What does your ballistics guy make of the throat shot and the windshield? (emphasis added by Thomas G.)

_____________________________________________

Thanks for the reference, David.

--Thomas

BTW, I don't have a "ballistics guy." Apparently, Ron Ecker had one back in October of 2004. So you'll have to ask him that question, I guess.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Thomas Graves

[Ron Ecker]

Thomas Graves! Back from the grave? Just kidding. Welcome back.

The "ballistics guy" was Al Carrier, who unfortunately no longer posts.

The fatal head shot coming from the south knoll area makes the most sense to me. Much better trajectory for a shooter than the north knoll, plus I've never been able to buy a shot from the north knoll (particularly the hat man position) hitting JFK in the right temple, then turning right to blow out the right rear of his head, instead of basically continuing straight. But what do I know about ballistics? I guess bullets can do anything, especially when you don't want them to.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas Graves! Back from the grave? Just kidding. Welcome back.

The "ballistics guy" was Al Carrier, who unfortunately no longer posts.

The fatal head shot coming from the south knoll area makes the most sense to me. Much better trajectory for a shooter than the north knoll, plus I've never been able to buy a shot from the north knoll (particularly the hat man position) hitting JFK in the right temple, then turning right to blow out the right rear of his head, instead of basically continuing straight. But what do I know about ballistics? I guess bullets can do anything, especially when you don't want them to.

____________________________________________

Thanks Ron. I too think that it was the most likely place from which the fatal shot came. Especially since Tosh Plumlee and Sergio heard a shot come from that direction and smelled gunsmoke there, too.

--Thomas

Edited February 19, 2010 by Thomas Graves