Bill Simpich's State Secret

[David Josephs]

Civilians killed JFK -- not the Government.

Simply not true Paul... they were either in the Military or they were foreign nationals... please name a few "civilians" involved who did not have ties to the military either directly or via the CIA

what you have yet to do to date is to put forth a coherent argument to support your conclusions - only your conclusions.

You don't know who the JFK cover-up team was, exactly

You don't know who the JFK Kill Team was, exactly

Yet you can state they were enemies and 180 degress apart from each other. How does one do that without any of the relevant info other than to make a guess?

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, at the risk of sounding less than humble I have to assert that I have offered a unified hypothesis, not sure its up to being a theory but there are certainly a number

of testable elements in it. In NEXUS I describe where, when and who promoted the idea that JFK was a growing national security risk, how that concern was passed down the chain

to the people with operational contacts who were capable of organizing a attack on JFK. I name names at all levels and give a timeline. I also cite the motives for each level,

which were somewhat different the further down the chain you go.

In SWHT I describe a detailed scenario for the attack itself including how Oswald was brought into it. I also offer a very specific scenario and timeline as to how a true

investigation of conspiracy was aborted and evidence manipulated. Beyond that I offer speculation with some circumstantial evidence as to how their might have been

a tenous linkage between the two. I don't see conclusive evidence for that so I offer it as an option to the overall hypothesis.

Now I might well be wrong on all those elements but since I did go out on the limb with it in two separate books I think its only fair to acknowledge that. And just to raise a point,

yes I do offer names for at least some of the tactical (street) team in Dallas so there is that too...right, wrong or just plain foolish.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Larry Hancock

[Paul Trejo]

Paul... I have to assert that I have offered a unified hypothesis, not sure its up to being a theory but there are certainly a number of testable elements in it. In NEXUS I describe where, when and who promoted the idea that JFK was a growing national security risk, how that concern was passed down the chain to the people with operational contacts who were capable of organizing a attack on JFK. I name names at all levels and give a timeline. I also cite the motives for each level, which were somewhat different the further down the chain you go.

In SWHT I describe a detailed scenario for the attack itself including how Oswald was brought into it. I also offer a very specific scenario and timeline as to how a true investigation of conspiracy was aborted and evidence manipulated. Beyond that I offer speculation with some circumstantial evidence as to how their might have been a tenous linkage between the two. I don't see conclusive evidence for that so I offer it as an option to the overall hypothesis.

Now I might well be wrong on all those elements but since I did go out on the limb with it in two separate books I think its only fair to acknowledge that. And just to raise a point, yes I do offer names for at least some of the tactical (street) team in Dallas so there is that too...right, wrong or just plain foolish.

Yes, Larry, and I've acknowledged your Unified Field hypothesis of the JFK murder on this Forum. Your work continues to stand up through all these FOIA revelations, and I'm impressed.

My issue is still that the Civilian aspect (and perhaps the Civilian leadership) of the JFK murder, receives a minor role in your hypothesis, while in my hypothesis, Civilians receive the major role.

No proofs one way or the other are available today -- perhaps proofs will become available in 2.5 years because of the JFK Records Act.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Civilians killed JFK -- not the Government.

Simply not true Paul... they were either in the Military or they were foreign nationals... please name a few "civilians" involved who did not have ties to the military either directly or via the CIA

what you have yet to do to date is to put forth a coherent argument to support your conclusions - only your conclusions.

You don't know who the JFK cover-up team was, exactly

You don't know who the JFK Kill Team was, exactly

Yet you can state they were enemies and 180 degress apart from each other. How does one do that without any of the relevant info other than to make a guess?

Well, David, until all the facts and Top Secret material on the JFK murder are finally revealed, everybody is guessing -- either well or poorly.

You may well disagree with my hypothesis -- but you can't simply declare that it's "not true" when you yourself have no proof for your own hypothesis.

As for Civilians -- do you imagine that no Civilians have Military training or experience? What about retired (or resigned) US Generals?

As for the Foreign Nationals, nobody doubts their participation -- but at a lower level.

You asked me to name a few Civilians involved in the JFK murder who have "no ties to the military either directly or via the CIA."

But that's a loaded question. Most of the Civilians who murdered JFK, in my hypothesis, were former military personnel, with World War Two or Korean War experience.

Also, I've continually maintained that Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen overstated their case for CIA involvement, because most of the people they identified in the New Orleans coven of the JFK murder were street-level fodder for the CIA -- and not actually CIA Officers.

I call them Civilians. I also declare that it is nonsense to imagine that they obediently took orders from the CIA without any thoughts of their own. They received no regular salary, so they had no regular duties in that regard.

I still like the CIVILIANS named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen for the New Orleans branch of the JFK murder -- Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard - yet I underscore in bold letters that they were all CIVILIANS.

The blind spot for Garrison/Mellen, IMHO, is that they failed to extend the coven to Dallas individuals -- including local Dallas Police (whom I also categorize as CIVILIANS).

Jack Ruby named Ex-General Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society as the main culprits in the JFK murder -- and ATF agent Frank Ellsworth named Ex-General Edwin Walker and the Minutemen (who extended JBS extremist ideology with paramilitary training). I say they were both correct.

Even though Ex-General Walker was once a respected US Military leader, he rashly resigned from the Army, and became a CIVILIAN.

As for people named by Larry Hancock in his Someone Would Have Talked (2010), they include Frank Sturgis (a civilian), Johnny Roselli (a civilian) and Johnny Martino (another civilian).

Only two officers of the CIA 'confessed,' namely David Morales and Howard Hunt. IMHO, they were merely rogues who supported a CIVILIAN operation.

All these people who are well-known in the literature are actually CIVILIANS -- but the sloppiness of many JFK Researchers (including Garrison and Mellen) just calls them all CIA and won't look back. MAJOR ERROR.

I repeat -- Bill Simpich's "State Secret" is solid evidence that the CIA high-command had no clue about the JFK murder.

As for the JFK Cover-up Team -- I think that they are EASY to identity: I start with J. Edgar Hoover, then LBJ, then Allen Dulles, then Earl Warren, and then all their subordinates -- including Bethesda Nava Hospital staff -- and the list goes on.

That is, the JFK Cover-up Team was entirely comprised by the US Government. That's precisely why I say that they were *opposed* to the JFK Kill Team.

One hundred and eighty degrees opposed.

How do I figure that? I have said repeatedly -- the JFK Kill Team set-up OSWALD as an FPCC Communist. The JFK Cover-up Team framed OSWALD as a "Lone Nut."

That's 180 degrees, David. And that's quite a bit better than just a "guess".

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Ok Paul. At least you stick to your guns.

As for your lists of civilians... Hemming a civilian? Banister? Intel assets, ex-CIA/FBI and ex military are not, in this situation, civilians.

Good luck with your theories though Paul... We will just disagree and continue searching.

Take care

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - your definition of civilian is way too narrow.

Please supply the reference to Frank Ellsworth naming Walker and the Minutemen.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - your definition of civilian is way too narrow.

Please supply the reference to Frank Ellsworth naming Walker and the Minutemen.

Well, Paul B., I think your definition (and Garrison's and Mellen's) of "CIA Agent" is way too broad.

As for the reference about ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth naming Ex-General Edwin Walker and the Minutemen to the Warren Commission, my reference is the MEMO dated 4/16/1964 from Burt Griffin to David Slawson.

Burt Griffin and SAC Bill Patterson spoke with Frank Ellsworth at his Dallas home in early 1964. Frank's specialty was illegal traffic in firearms. Here's what Frank Ellsworth told Burt Griffin and Bill Patterson:

1. At the time of the JFK murder, there was almost no data available to the ATF about Dallas Cubans in illegal firearms.

2. The Minutemen organization was the right-wing group in Dallas most likely to have been associated with any effort to assassinate President Kennedy.

3. The Minutemen were closely tied to "General Walker" and H.L. Hunt.

Frank Ellsworth, in the course of his ATF investigations, learned that Manuel Rodriguez, a Bay of Pigs survivor, tried to buy firearms in Dallas for Alpha 66 using his connections with the DRE.

Later, Ex-General Walker would admit to the Warren Commission that he donated money to the DRE, and attended some of their meetings. Walker would also appear with DRE leader Carlos Bringuier in speaking engagements for Billy James Hargis.

IMHO, Bill Simpich's "State Secret" (2014) absolves the CIA high-command of guilt in the JFK murder plot -- and so we should be tracking down our CIVILIAN leads at a higher priority.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

WELL PAUL - in your view was Allen Dulles a civilian on Nov 22 1963?

[Paul Trejo]

WELL PAUL - in your view was Allen Dulles a civilian on Nov 22 1963?

Well, Paul B., Allen Dulles was a special case, since being the Director of the CIA for so long, he was an icon of the US Government.

Nevertheless, since JFK fired Dulles in November 1961 for his major screw-up of the Bay of Pigs, then one could argue that, technically, Dulles was "civilian" in 1963, when JFK was murdered.

But I don't see Allen Dulles as a Civilian. For one thing, Dulles was too important in the CFR and other advisory institutions to be regarded as just another "armchair general."

More urgently, when I say that CIVILIANS killed JFK, I am speaking of street-thugs, mainly -- like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Tom Beckham, Carlos Bringuier, and all these CIA wannabes who never made the grade.

One can't compare a genius like Allen Dulles with these mercenary types.

Another odd case is Ex-General Edwin Walker. Trained from childhood in military school, a graduate of West Point and seasoned by victories in WW2 and challenges in the Korean War, it is difficult to consider Walker a Civilian.

However -- Walker rashly and boisterously resigned from the US Army in 1961, to make right-wing speeches against the Civil Rights movement, and to run unsuccessfully for Texas Governor -- and to lead a race riot at Ole Miss in 1962.

Edwin Walker started his career at the higher level, like Allen Dulles -- but he ended his career at the lower level -- like David Ferrie.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Reviewing Gaeton Fonzi's impressive book, The Last Investigation (1993), which has always been one of my favorite books in JFK conspiracy research, I'm struck by how well Bill Simpich's book, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City and the Framing of Lee Oswald (2014), has responded to Fonzi 21 years later. (Gaeton Fonzi died in 2012 at 77 years of age.)

Fonzi had concluded that the CIA killed JFK; more precisely, that David Atlee Phillips (DAP) killed JFK with the help of three powerful CIA officers, Ted Shackley, David Morales and William Harvey.

The first key for Fonzi's theory was the Mexico City episode in the saga of Lee Harvey Oswald. For Fonzi, DAP completely planned the Mexico City story from start to finish. The Impersonation-phone-call linking Oswald to Kostikov was, according to Gaeton Fonzi, entirely the work of DAP. (No proofs were offered, just the suspicion.) Further, Fonzi doubted whether Oswald ever set foot in Mexico City at all (based on the lack of photographic data, and the shaky evidence of Cuban consulate witnesses).

For Fonzi, DAP had no plausible business with Oswald of any kind, except for the murder of JFK.

The second key for Fonzi's theory was Antonio Veciana, who saw Oswald with DAP in Dallas in September 1963. DAP always denied this, but Fonzi regarded it as 100% true, and DAP's denials convinced Fonzi that DAP was hiding his role in the JFK murder.

Fonzi was rightly suspicious that DAP would offer Veciana's cousin a large amount of money to lie about Oswald in Mexico City. Yet the timing of this request is important -- at a certain point the CIA caved in to Hoover's FBI and the "Lone Nut" theory of Oswald (thus contradicting a Communist Oswald). We need a key detail of that proposed lie-for-money -- was it that Oswald was a Communist, or that Oswald was a "Lone Nut?"

Everything, IMHO, depends on that distinction. If DAP wanted to pay Veciana's cousin to portray Oswald as a "Communist," then DAP was part of the JFK Kill Team. But if it was to portray Oswald as a "Lone Nut," then DAP was part of the JFK Cover-up Team, and was innocent of the JFK murder. Fonzi omitted evidence for that crucial detail.

Like most 20th century JFK Researchers, no distinction was ever made between the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up Team -- though logically they were radical opposites.

The third key for Fonzi's theory was Silvia Odio, whom Fonzi regarded as an unassailable witness. Remembering how certain he was about Sylvia Odio, I'd forgotten that Fonzi had actually wondered if David Morales was the "Angelo" at Odio's doorstep; not Loran Hall. For Fonzi, Loran Hall was just one more xxxx in the works.

Yet Fonzi failed to explain why he dismissed Loran Hall. Yes, Loran Hall was a xxxx, but to what end? Was Hall trying to prove Oswald was a Communist? No. Was Hall trying to prove that Oswald was an Anti-Communist? No. Then what?

Why would Loran Hall first admit to the FBI that he and Larry Howard visited Sylvia Odio during the final week of September 1963, but not with Oswald, rather with Will Seymour? And then why would Loran Hall later lie that he never met Sylvia Odio before in his life?

I agree that Loran Hall was a xxxx -- but the point of his lies escaped Gaeton Fonzi, and I think he missed a key element in his theory.

Well, Bill Simpich doesn't respond to the Sylvia Odio saga, so perhaps that discussion doesn't belong in the current thread. So, let's return to the Mexico City episode instead, which is the main link in the works of these two writers.

As I read Bill Simpich, the Mole Hunt started by the CIA in response to the Oswald Impersonation of Tuesday 1 October 1963 adequately addresses 95% of Gaeton Fonzi's doubts regarding the Mexico City incident. The false photograph of Oswald. The false middle name of Oswald. The false description of Oswald. The missing photographs of Oswald. All are explained by the Simpich Mole Hunt.

The other 5% consists of the Cuban consulate worker's physical descriptions of Oswald; and these can be explained, IMHO, by ESL and by cultural differences between Mexicans and Americans in 1963, and by the leftist tendencies of workers at the Cuban Consulate, who didn't want to be blamed for the murder of JFK.

In other words -- thanks to Bill Simpich, the main doubts of Gaeton Fonzi about the sloppy CIA work on Oswald in Mexico City, can safely be laid to rest.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I'm afraid you are going a bit further in terms of Gaeton Fonzi's convictions than warranted. I did not recall his having specifically stated what you cite in his book or in my conversations with him so I checked in with his wife Marie and asked her - she has had reason to review his notes as well as reread his book several times. She responded that Gaeton had never reached a definitive conclusion beyond his belief that David Phillips had a role in the conspiracy. While he was suspicious of Morales, he could never produce enough research on that to reach a firm conclusion on Morales' involvement - he and I exchanged many messages on that since I had reached that view myself. Fonzi also did not name either Shackley nor Harvey as being a part of the conspiracy and Marie reviewed notes where he was specifically asked about other names and declined to give anything concrete beyond Phillips.

As to Loran Hall, I can answer your question there. Gaeton felt that he was an inveterate xxxx and simply tried to insert himself into situations for notoriety and possible profit. That was something we both agreed on and Fonzi felt his whole connection to the Odio story was dubious and had ultimately been disproved. As to what Hall might have been trying to gain by his statements at any given time, I'd suggest anything that might gain him some "street credit" or attention. I know you will disagree on Hall so that's fine, but I think you have pushed Fonzi's views on individuals beyond what he would have found acceptable.

[Paul Brancato]

Larry - nice rebuttal to Trejo's latest reiteration of his unified field theory, posted by him not for most of us members (who have read his theory umpteen times) but for the casual passerby who might be impressed with the authoritative tone with which he delivers it.

By the way, for the record, I find Shackley and Harvey (and Morales) perfectly logical extensions of a theory which posits that David Atlee Phillips was involved in both the assassination and the coverup. Nor would I call such a conspiracy "rogue".

Paul continually harps on his view that the JFK kill team and the coverup team were "radical opposites", a position he views as unassailably logical. Repeating this ad infinitum does not make it any more likely to be true. The reason so many "20th century JFK researchers" failed to make such a distinction is that it is inherently illogical.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I'm afraid you are going a bit further in terms of Gaeton Fonzi's convictions than warranted. I did not recall his having specifically stated what you cite in his book or in my conversations with him so I checked in with his wife Marie and asked her - she has had reason to review his notes as well as reread his book several times. She responded that Gaeton had never reached a definitive conclusion beyond his belief that David Phillips had a role in the conspiracy. While he was suspicious of Morales, he could never produce enough research on that to reach a firm conclusion on Morales' involvement - he and I exchanged many messages on that since I had reached that view myself. Fonzi also did not name either Shackley nor Harvey as being a part of the conspiracy and Marie reviewed notes where he was specifically asked about other names and declined to give anything concrete beyond Phillips.

As to Loran Hall, I can answer your question there. Gaeton felt that he was an inveterate xxxx and simply tried to insert himself into situations for notoriety and possible profit. That was something we both agreed on and Fonzi felt his whole connection to the Odio story was dubious and had ultimately been disproved. As to what Hall might have been trying to gain by his statements at any given time, I'd suggest anything that might gain him some "street credit" or attention. I know you will disagree on Hall so that's fine, but I think you have pushed Fonzi's views on individuals beyond what he would have found acceptable.

Thanks, Larry, for responding to my post. I always appreciate your contribution, and as usual you impressed me with your solid connections.

For example, you have a personal relationship with Marie Fonzi, the widow of Gaeton Fonzi. How impressive is that?

FWIW, I agree that I might have gone "a bit further" than the literal text in Gaeton Fonzi's famous book (The Last Investigation, 1993) might have warranted -- and I sincerely appreciate that you asked Marie Fonzi about what I thought was a reasonable surmise about the "ground crew" used by David Atlee Phillips (in the opinion of Gaeton Fonzi).

To be more specific, I named Ted Shackley, David Morales and William Harvey as the three CIA officers who would have been closest to David Atlee Phillips in his hatred of the JFK policies and decisions about Cuba -- and would have gleefully followed any CIA plot to kill JFK -- just in case somebody as bold as David Atlee Phillips chose to lead the charge.

In other words, I named those three as the "accomplices of DAP."

I agree that Gaeton Fonzi did not use words as strong as those, or as blatant as those. Yet, I think I'm not too far from Fonzi's own texts when I read the chapters he dedicated to these men, as he concluded those chapters with powerful suspicions about their behavior with regard to Cuba and JFK Cuba policies in connection with the JFK murder.

I have always agreed firmly with Gaeton Fonzi's work regarding this proposition; that the politics of Cuba were precisely the politics that got JFK killed.

For one thing -- David Morales basically "confessed" to participating in the murder of JFK. I think we have a genuine member of the ground crew -- and I believe that any legitimate theory of a JFK conspiracy must always include David Morales.

As for William Harvey, I've expressed my doubts about his participation -- not because of his heart, but because of his body -- he was stationed in Italy, and he was basically drinking himself to death in Rome, as I recall. Still, his personal politics about Cuba, and his expertise in assassinations would have been invaluable to any JFK Kill Team.

As for Ted Shackley, his close relationship with DAP would make it virtually impossible for DAP to hide anything from Shackley, and why would he want to, since they both thought alike as two peas in a pod.

So, based on the spirit -- if not the letter -- of Gaeton Fonzi's text, I formulated these four as a CIA "Ground Crew" and I named Gaeton Fonzi as the author of this theory.

Well -- you're right -- that was indeed "a bit further" than Fonzi would have gone. Gaeton Fonzi, as you and Marie Fonzi both confirmed, only named David Atlee Phillips with that sort of CERTAINTY.

Fonzi's words about DAP were crystal clear -- especially in his concluding chapter, "The Last Note."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

P.S. Regarding Loran Hall, I grant that he was an incorrigible xxxx who became a drug dealer later in life. Yet even if he lied about the Silvia Odio affair for money, why would he then take back his story, and deny the whole thing? That makes no sense. And remember, Hoover used his story anyway!

Just because somebody is a xxxx doesn't mean they are somehow disqualified from being a suspect. On the contrary, it seems to me that criminals are most often liars.

--PT

Edited May 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, my connections are probably more a reflection of my being at this a very long time than anything else....we won't just the word "obsessive" as I reserve that for my wife's use...grin. I did know Gaeton for some time and do know Marie and very much hope she will be able to be with us in Dallas this fall. Actually serving as speaker chair for Lancer for many years also explains why I know a number of folks as well....but that has been useful in giving me a lot of insights and also allowing me to bounce ideas off a number of very good researchers - some who you see infrequently or never on line or even at conferences.

Actually in contacting Marie I wanted to make sure that I had understood Gaeton correctly myself and that perhaps he had not gone beyond what I understood so actually I was testing myself as well.

Also, I certainly agree that liars are not except and can still be suspects; I would just maintain they are going to require an extra dose of confirmation and corroboration.

-- Larry

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, my connections are probably more a reflection of my being at this a very long time than anything else....we won't just the word "obsessive" as I reserve that for my wife's use...grin. I did know Gaeton for some time and do know Marie and very much hope she will be able to be with us in Dallas this fall. Actually serving as speaker chair for Lancer for many years also explains why I know a number of folks as well....but that has been useful in giving me a lot of insights and also allowing me to bounce ideas off a number of very good researchers - some who you see infrequently or never on line or even at conferences.

Actually in contacting Marie I wanted to make sure that I had understood Gaeton correctly myself and that perhaps he had not gone beyond what I understood so actually I was testing myself as well...

-- Larry

Interesting, Larry. Which brings me to my next question, and back to the theme of this thread. Considering the work of Gaeton Fonzi, one of the most level-headed of the 20th century JFK Researchers, how would you estimate the impact of the 2014 work of Bill Simpich (State Secret) with regard to the prevailing theory that the CIA killed JFK?

Because, in my reading, the Simpich Mole Hunt throws a monkey-wrench into the machinery of all CIA-did-it theories.

That is, because there was a CIA Mole Hunt at all, in searching for the Oswald Impersonator in Mexico City, this tends to absolve the CIA high-command from this attempt to set-up Oswald as the Communist Patsy.

What's your take on "State Secret"?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 28, 2015 by Paul Trejo