Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

Answer to Q1: Yes.

Answer to Q2: Can't say, but can say there more straightforward ways to deal with an agent who has been turned or otherwise has become suspect or unreliable. The first is to stop dealing with the agent.

Someone, it appears, set up Oswald. If Oswald was set up, it was surely by someone who knew all about him. Such a person would not have had to know Oswald personally. Such a person could have been a trained observer -- someone who spotted and assessed Oswald at a distance.

[Thomas Graves]

PS It's also my understanding that "544 Camp Street" was not found stamped on any of the flyers per se, but rather on one or two of Corliss Lamont's pamphlets "The Crimes Against Cuba." The fascinating thing is that the copies of "The Crimes Against Cuba" being handed out by Oswald had apparently come from the CIA's first-edition batch order.

You're usually pretty accurate and sensible, TG, but: Gus Russo prints one of Oswald's flyers with the 544 address on it, and indicates that it came from the widow of NOPD officer Francis Martello.

The CIA-source thing is a misreading of evidence. There is a solid paper trail. Oswald wrote to the FPCC and requested those specific Lamont pamphlets, and the FPCC noted on that letter that they had been sent. The idea that the FPCC would wait until ALL copies of the first (and various) printings were gone before ordering reprints is silly. If anyone had copies of the various printings on hand, it was the FPCC. And the idea that the CIA would supply an undercover agent from an order openly made by the CIA's reading room is equally silly.

Thanks, Stephen.

I personally think it's important to keep "details" like these straight for other students and researchers, and that's why I don't mind being corrected on factual matters, but in fact welcome and encourage it.

Besides, I'm always correcting other people, so "What's good for the goose is good for the gander!"

So thank you for setting me straight!

Now I would like to ask you some questions because I do respect your opinions and your approach to JFK assassination research (the Bannister-Ferrie-Oswald "angle" in particular), and because I don't know the answers, myself:

1 ) Do you think Oswald associated with Guy Banister or people who were close to him? If so, with whom?

2 ) Do you think Oswald rented, or tried to rent, an office at 544 Camp Street?

3 ) Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Oswald stamped some of his FPCC fliers and Corliss Lamont pamphlets with the Camp Street address?

4 ) If so, why do you think he did that? And last but not least.........

5 ) Did you finish writing your book?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited February 24, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Andrews]

Jon,

What is your opinion on the late Gaeton Fonzi's revelation, confirmed in the last year by Antonio Veciana, that Veciana witnessed a meeting between Oswald and David Atlee Phillips in September 1963?

It has been much discussed on the Forum. Here's a link to another article:

http://www.ctka.net/2013/veciana.html

[Jon G. Tidd]

DAVID,

As I understand, Veciana at first identified the individual in question as Maurice Bishop, Veciana's case officer, and later said Bishop and DAP were the same person.

It's hard for me to believe DAP would meet overtly with Oswald if Oswald was working under DAP's direction -- i.e., acting as DAP's agent. Any such meeting would be arranged carefully in advance, according to some concealed signal given by DAP to Oswald indicating DAP wanted to meet. The place of encounter would be secure from observation by enemies, and the meeting itself would take place surreptitiously.

Put a somewhat different way, if DAP was running Oswald, DAP would have to assume Oswald was being watched; and DAP would take measures to ensure his encounter and meeting with Oswald could not be watched.

For DAP to meet openly and publicly with Oswald would be to let anyone watching Oswald know that Oswald had a relationship with a well-known CIA officer. DAP just wouldn't have done this, IMO. Nor would any case officer.

[Thomas Graves]

DAVID,

As I understand, Veciana at first identified the individual in question as Maurice Bishop, Veciana's case officer, and later said Bishop and DAP were the same person.

It's hard for me to believe DAP would meet overtly with Oswald if Oswald was working under DAP's direction -- i.e., acting as DAP's agent. Any such meeting would be arranged carefully in advance, according to some concealed signal given by DAP to Oswald indicating DAP wanted to meet. The place of encounter would be secure from observation by enemies, and the meeting itself would take place surreptitiously.

Put a somewhat different way, if DAP was running Oswald, DAP would have to assume Oswald was being watched; and DAP would take measures to ensure his encounter and meeting with Oswald could not be watched.

For DAP to meet openly and publicly with Oswald would be to let anyone watching Oswald know that Oswald had a relationship with a well-known CIA officer. DAP just wouldn't have done this, IMO. Nor would any case officer.

Bear in mind that Veciana is on record as saying that he showed up for the meet with Phillips / "Bishop" about 15 minutes early.

So maybe it was a case of poor time management on Phillips' part? He was a busy man, with irons in a lot of different fires.

Why would he meet with Veciana in such a public place, Jon? If he was willing to meet with Veciana there, wouldn't he be willing to use equally-sloppy tradecraft and meet with his other agents / informants / contacts there, too?

--Tommy

Edited February 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

I don't believe Veciana. He says Maurice Bishop was his case officer. He says he went to meet Bishop in a public venue in Dallas. I don't believe any of this. Veciana's statements do not match up with real-world intelligence operations.

Sure, one can assume Bishop/Phillips was sloppy. Just as one can assume other professionals such as lawyers and physicians are sometimes sloppy. But there are certain things as to which a professional is not sloppy, assuming the professional is not incompetent. For an intelligence officer, the process of setting up a meeting with an agent, encountering an agent, meeting with the agent -- these acts are the core of handling an agent. To be sloppy with these acts is to put one's agent in danger and possibly oneself.

[Stephen Roy]

1 ) Do you think Oswald associated with Guy Banister or people who were close to him? If so, with whom?

2 ) Do you think Oswald rented, or tried to rent, an office at 544 Camp Street?

3 ) Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Oswald stamped some of his FPCC fliers and Corliss Lamont pamphlets with the Camp Street address?

4 ) If so, why do you think he did that? And last but not least.........

5 ) Did you finish writing your book?

Thanks,

--Tommy

1) There are enough people who claim a Banister-Oswald relationship that it is possible that there was one. On the other hand, some of the claimants are not impressive: I'm not sure the Campbell brothers really knew Banister. I don't know why Delphine Roberts changed her story so dramatically in 1978. I have so many reservations about the tales told by Prof. Michael Kurtz, that I can't accept his claims without corroboration. You see my point??

2) Yes, I do think Oswald probably arranged to rent an office at 544 Camp, and when Newman and Arthus found out the purpose, they begged out of the deal. And that they "misremembered" to the authorities after the assassination.

3) Yes, like I said above, Russo printed an Oswald FPCC flyer with the stamp in his "Live By The Sword." Inquiries indicated that the flyer originated with Frank Martello's widow.

4) I don't know. I think he really expected to have an office there, at one time.

5) Getting close! I've been spurred on by several factors: A friend who simply has been gently pushing, another researcher who has traded some great Ferrie stuff with me, and the unauthorized use of a lot of my material by a crazy person. I've adopted the Rick Nelson philosophy about the Ferrie project: "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself."

[Jon G. Tidd]

Stephen Roy,

In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963?

[Thomas Graves]

Stephen Roy,

In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963?

Stephen Roy,

In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963?

In other words, Stephen, do you think Oswald was just an Odd Duck doing one of his Odd Ducky things, or was it perhaps a little more sinister that that? Hmmm?

--Tommy

Edited February 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Stephen Roy]

Stephen Roy,

In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963?

To me, there is something odd about it, but it's hard for me to define or articulate. I don't think, however, that my "vibes" about it are the standard ones that most observers have.

What do you find odd about it?

[Thomas Graves]

Stephen Roy,

In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963?

To me, there is something odd about it, but it's hard for me to define or articulate. I don't think, however, that my "vibes" about it are the standard ones that most observers have.

What do you find odd about it?

.....if anything, Jon?

--Tommy

Edited February 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Stephen Roy]

Stephen Roy,

In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963?

Stephen Roy,

In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963?

In other words, Stephen, do you think Oswald was just an Odd Duck doing one of his Odd Duck things, or was it perhaps a little more sinister that that? Hmmm?

--Tommy

Wow! Some serious deja vu there, man...

The whole thing is hard to explain. Under the mirror-reading scenario, the 'Oswald was actually an agent' scenario, the leafletting makes absolutely no sense to me. But under the prima facie scenario, the 'Oswald was what he said he was' scenario, it makes no sense either. He clearly seems to have been going for publicity.

[Paul Trejo]

Let's get real about Oswald.

Paul Trejo is right, Marina's husband was a man of action. How many young military vets "defect" to the Soviet Union in 1959. That was remarkable. Yet although Oswald was a man of action, he was not a soldier of fortune like Gerry Hemming. Oswald settled down with a wife and family.

As a young man, he was blessed with energy, energy to leaflet on the streets of New Orleans. And filled with fire, which is seen in his NOLA radio debate broadcast. He was filled with fire but disciplined.

Clearly, he did not have powerful friends who could help him achieve stability with a satisfying job. He appears always to have been on the edge as far as his job went.

Marina said she thought he played games. I interpret this to mean he was somewhat detached from reality.

Oswald is a blank slate on which any picture can be painted. He was a commie. He was anti-communist. He worked for the CIA. He worked for the FBI.

Ultimately, Oswald did nothing of note. He was charged with JFK's murder, but that was not of his own doing. He was simply someone whom it was easy to charge.

IMO, figuring out why Oswald was set up is the same as figuring out who killed JFK. Clue: Neither the CIA nor the FBI would set up their own agent.

Well, Jon, you say that, "although Oswald was a man of action, he was not a soldier of fortune like Gerry Hemming. Oswald settled down with a wife and family."

(1) I think you're largely mistaken there -- OSWALD was in no way "settled down."

(2) OSWALD's wife and baby were living with STRANGERS for heaven's sake.

(3) OSWALD had held *four* different jobs in the past 12 months (Leslie Welding, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Reily Coffee Company, and TSBD). That cannot be called, "settled down."

(4) More, during many of those 12 months, OSWALD was "between jobs." He spent weeks leaving home early and coming home late, without telling Marina that he had been fired (or quit) his previous job.

(5) OSWALD was living alone in a rooming house and making $1.25 an hour hauling boxes of books.

(6) Back in New Orleans, OSWALD's actions went beyond his family and job at Reily Coffee Company -- he was associated with Guy Banister's offices and staff, and a fake FPCC, for many months in New Orleans.

(7) IMHO you should explore the people seen with OSWALD in New Orleans -- especially Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler -- and how quickly their stories fall apart.

(8) You rightly note that OSWALD was playing games as Red, Anti-Red, CIA, FBI and so on. I would propose that this is the opposite of "settled down."

(9) I agree with your formula: that to know *why* OSWALD was framed is the same as knowing *who* killed JFK. That's a strong formula, and I highly recommend it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...I don't believe Veciana. He says Maurice Bishop was his case officer. He says he went to meet Bishop in a public venue in Dallas. I don't believe any of this. Veciana's statements do not match up with real-world intelligence operations.

Well, Jon, although I'm accustomed to suspecting David Atlee Phillips (Maurice Bishop) of complicity in the JFK murder, Larry Hancock asks me to suspend judgment on that, so I will.

Based on this reservation, I do believe Antonio Veciana, the leader of Alpha 66. We know that Alpha 66 was funded by the CIA, because Alpha 66 was fanatical about killing Fidel Castro and taking Cuba back.

Therefore, SOMEBODY had to be Veciana's CIA case officer, and Phillips (Maurice Bishop) is a likely choice in that context.

Also -- remember what Veciana claims, and keep it in context, please. Veciana didn't say that he was meeting Phillips and OSWALD in the context of a JFK murder -- but simply meeting Phillips in the context of business-as-usual -- which in this case would have been supporting the AMWORLD/AMTRUNK/AMLASH package of CIA plots to kill Fidel Castro.

Nor was there any suggestion that anything sensitive was mentioned at that meeting. It was evidently a 'business lunch' in which OSWALD was merely present at this status meeting. Veciana merely says he saw OSWALD in the company of Phillips -- that's it -- that's all. It might be sloppy, or it might not.

It was only later JFK Researchers who *presumed* that it was a meeting about the JFK murder. There is no evidence of that at all. On the contrary, in his bio-fiction, "The AMLASH Legacy," Phillips confesses that he had hoped OSWALD could be used to kill Fidel Castro -- that was his involvement, he says, until "somebody" stole OSWALD for the JFK murder.

This is where Jim Garrison's work comes in handy. We can name that "somebody" today, namely, the group of Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Tom Beckham, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

There us no evidence at all that Phillips was handling or had ever handled Veciana in a standard case officer role. He had met Veciana in Cuba and worked with his group under a commercial cover until exposed by Cuban intelligence. Later, when Veciana arrived in the US, Phillips reconnected with him and established what may have been a very personal relationship. His work with Veciana and Alpha 66 would have been on direct conflict with Special Group and CIA policy of the period in that Phillips was pushing for Alpha 66 military confrontations with the Russians in Cuba. How he may have continued the relationship is purely speculative at this point. In early 1963 when there was some thought towards the CIA working with Alpha 66, the documents show no sign of any prior contact with the group by Phillips or the CIA rather it had been Army Intelligence who had contacts with Veciana and the group.

The question is really whether Phillip's relationship with Viciana was an Agency one at all, and if it was, whether it was reported above Phillips own level. A Phillips meeting with Veciana in Dallas would have been completely outside the operations you listed Paul as that was not at all Phillip's assignment....the closest you might get is a meeting based on Phillips documented interest in recruiting Veciana's cousin who worked in the Cuban diplomatic missions in Mexico City. But it is very important to keep in mind that Phillips entire post Cuba connection to Veciana appears to have been off the books and may well have reflected Phillips own personal anti-Castro agenda.