Jefferson Morley and Anthony Veciana

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Jefferson Morley recently announced on his JFK Facts site that he would be posting a video

of Anthony Veciana's presentation at last year's AARC conference.

As some of you know, I believe Lee Oswald knew nothing about the assassination and had

nothing to do with any intelligence agency, so it follows that I never believed a word Veciana said.

I have always had the highest regard for Jefferson Morley and the extreme caution he normally

displays in approaching controversial subjects, so I was surprised that he seemed to be

endorsing the latest version of Veciana's bunch of lies.

I recently sent this message to Jeff, which is awaiting moderation before he posts it on his site:

A word of caution about Anthony Veciana. He testified under oath that Phillips was NOT Bishop. Now he says he lied under oath.

Most people will not accept the word of a self-admitted perjurer.

I would also suggest that Veciana’s revised story leads to no new evidence, an indication that it is disinformation!

Note also that Lee Oswald was in New Orleans at the time when Veciana claims he saw him in Dallas, that Veciana condoned the murder of JFK, according to his own AARC presentation, and that Veciana was convicted on Federal charges of smuggling cocaine.

All in all he is not someone the JFK research community should be standing behind, IMHO.

Edited June 11, 2015 by J. Raymond Carroll

[David Andrews]

I believe Lee Oswald knew nothing about the assassination and had nothing to do with any intelligence agency

James Wilcott's HSCA testimony:

http://harveyandlee.net/Wilcott/Wil_full.htm

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I believe Lee Oswald knew nothing about the assassination and had nothing to do with any intelligence agency

James Wilcott's HSCA testimony:

http://harveyandlee.net/Wilcott/Wil_full.htm

Thank you David. Wilcott's testimony is good for a laugh, especially his claim that Marina was a secret agent.

Of course the HSCA did not believe him, and neither did John Newman, who had access to a great deal more

of the CIA's secrets than the HSCA did.

Newman's book proves beyond doubt that the CIA, namely Angleton's group, was watching Lee very carefully

over a long period leading up to the assassination, but when he writes "Oswald was probably involved in CIA operations" he should have added "he was involved without his knowledge."

https://books.google.com/books?id=17AtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=james+wilcott+hsca+oswald+cia&source=bl&ots=Y20O_fh_TV&sig=pngoZ-pPUWGN56OAcItwvVn3_I8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAmoVChMIgf3O2MKHxgIVSyCsCh0pNwCo#v=onepage&q=james%20wilcott%20hsca%20oswald%20cia&f=false

I have earlier stated that Newman's book should have been entitled The CIA Vs. Lee Oswald.

[Glenn Nall]

"Most people will not accept the word of a self-admitted perjurer."

Just curious - is that true? Not disputing or verifying the veracity of this person's presentation, but objectively, can one really speak for "most people" and whether they will or won't believe an admitted xxxx?

I have lied before. I have had what I considered to be good reasons to lie, and I would be more than willing to accept as honest a person's testimony who has lied in his life, depending upon the reasons for his dishonesty.

Perhaps I'm the only person who is willing to hear a man's words knowing that he's lied in the past. Perhaps it's because I have lied in the past.

Just curious.

[Paul Brancato]

I have leaned towards believing Veciana now, rather than in his dealings with Fonzi. But I find Mr. Carroll's objections compelling.

Raymond - just to be clear - you believe that Oswald, as Newman proves, was being closely watched and perhaps used by Angleton and his group for several years. But you think Oswald knew nothing about the CIA operation following him. Do you also think he knew nothing about FBI or ONI? Also, do you think, as Mr. Simpich suggests, that Angleton's Oswald project was diverted by operatives working out of Miami CIA station without Angleton's knowledge?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

But you think Oswald knew nothing about the CIA operation following him.

Yes Paul, I have seen no evidence --in Newman's book or elsewhere-- that he knew or suspected that he was being monitored by the CIA.

Do you also think he knew nothing about FBI or ONI?

He was well aware of the FBI's interest, and he resented it. In 1962 the FBI interviewed him twice, decided he was harmless,

and closed its file. In 1963 Hosty opened a file on Marina and came to the Paine house on two occasions, if I am recalling correctly. Lee was angry and felt that Hosty was harassing his wife, and he wrote the note that Hosty famously destroyed.

I must admit that the involvement of ONI is news to me. Could you please elaborate?

[Edit} Since posting the above I remembered the interview in New Orleans by FBI agent Quigley, which Newman discusses. According to Officer Martello, the interview was conducted at Lee's request, something I find hard to believe. Apparently he told Quigley that he was passing out the FPCC handbills as "a patriotic duty."

Also, do you think, as Mr. Simpich suggests, that Angleton's Oswald project was diverted by operatives working out of Miami CIA station without Angleton's knowledge?

I am not familiar with Bill Simpich's thoughts on this issue.

Edited June 11, 2015 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Thomas Graves]

"Most people will not accept the word of a self-admitted perjurer."

Just curious - is that true? Not disputing or verifying the veracity of this person's presentation, but objectively, can one really speak for "most people" and whether they will or won't believe an admitted xxxx?

I have lied before. I have had what I considered to be good reasons to lie, and I would be more than willing to accept as honest a person's testimony who has lied in his life, depending upon the reasons for his dishonesty.

Perhaps I'm the only person who is willing to hear a man's words knowing that he's lied in the past. Perhaps it's because I have lied in the past.

Just curious.

But have you ever perjured yourself during a legal proceeding? That's a bit more serious than telling the occasional "white lie" or an itsy bitsy little lie that you thought you had "good reasons" for.

--Tommy

PS Personally, I never ever ever ever lie.

Unless it's absolutely necessary.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Right on, Raymond Carroll.

[David Andrews]

Cripes.

[Glenn Nall]

my point was really in the notion that people are so able to speak for "most" others. and according to Vincent Bugliosi (and my own observations) perjury happens in court more often than is realized. he clarifies that there are really two kinds of perjury - an understandable kind and a more egregious kind (in And The Sea Will Tell he describes this). And i'm not arguing whether Veciana is reliable or not, just that i'm not so sure that the fact that he's admitted to committing perjury is a good reason to doubt him all the way around.

i can surely imagine myself lying about a CIA member's identity IF it meant putting myself in a life-threatening situation by these people. Pretty understandable to me...

I was simply commenting on that maybe others are not so quick to doubt someone based on that. of course, i could be wrong. i've been wrong before, i ain't scared...

[Glenn Nall]

i DO find it intriguing that LHO may not have known what de Morenschildt was up to, that he wasn't aware of his being "assessed"...

and the point someone made about his not even KNOWING what was up 11/22/63... very interesting thoughts...

what a tangled web...

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jeff Morley is a good guy. A good guy who does not understand intelligence operations. He uncovered some stuff about George Joannides. Some valuable stuff. He wrote a good book about Win Scott. But he does not understand the JFK assassination, because he does not understand intelligence operations.

Not understanding intelligence operations means following false trails.

[Greg Parker]

Jeff Morley is a good guy. A good guy who does not understand intelligence operations. He uncovered some stuff about George Joannides. Some valuable stuff. He wrote a good book about Win Scott. But he does not understand the JFK assassination, because he does not understand intelligence operations.

Not understanding intelligence operations means following false trails.

I agree. What sort of intel operation would Harvey and Lee be, Jon? What precedent similar operations are there?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It may interest readers to note that one of the original promoters of the Veciana story has now been exposed as a fraud.

HSCA attorney Robert Tannenbaum is NOT the best-selling author he claims to be:

http://www.leegoldberg.com/michael_gruber_/

Edited June 15, 2015 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg Parker,

I have difficulty believing that Harvey and Lee were recruited by the CIA (or anyone else) as boys. An intelligence service, to my knowledge, does not except in the most extra-ordinary circumstances recruit children. On the other hand, if the child is relatively mature and has access to information the intelligence service wants, maybe. But that's a risky operation for many reasons. I'm writing here about the collection of information to which the child has access. It's quite possible to plant (false) information with an unsuspecting child, knowing he or she will carry the information to a target. That's the sort of thing a counter-intelligence operation might seek to do. I am distinguishing here between collection and counter-intelligence.

I find it easy to believe that there were two young men (old enough to become marines) who looked somewhat alike, who had the same names, and who lived at various times in the same venues. The look-alike part is unremarkable. The identity of names is interesting. Living in the same venues is somewhat interesting. The identity of names jumps out at me. It's a big question mark.

I also find it easy to believe an intelligence service, if it found there were two such boys, having similar appearance, identical names, and overlapping childhood venues, would focus on these boys. Not to recruit them but to monitor them. For whatever purpose. Such a pairing could have value for a variety of purposes.

I don't have the depth of knowledge to judge the quality of John Armstrong's research or conclusions. For me, the chief weakness in his presentation concerns the existence of two Marguerite Oswalds. The good-looking Marguerite (Lee's mother), and the short, fat, dumpy Marguerite (Harvey's mother). That part is an entertaining and enlightening read. But I'm not convinced, given the disappearance of the good-looking Marguerite.

I believe the FBI was capable of and willing to merge Harvey and Lee life stories, if in fact there were two such stories.

Basically, Greg, I seek to be persuaded by the facts.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd