Did the USN et al, believe LBJ's WWIII scenario?

[Tom Neal]

I think the plan was to pin the assassination on a lone perpetrator.

- multiple sniper teams

Chris,

Blaming only a LN, but with multiple shooters used to assure success, removing the body from Dallas for a controlled autopsy was mandatory and would have been pre-planned, as you've said.

However, 'they' could have allowed the public to believe multiple shooters were used, and still blamed it on Castro/KGB/USSR. Do you think that the LN scenario was chosen because it's easier to kill one shooter than several? If the public believed any conspirator 'escaped' the pretense of a search/investigation would have to continue indefinitely. Rather than allow this, the additional complexity of a controlled autopsy would have been less of a risk.

I think the act of pointing a gun (and possibly firing it) out the sixth floor window is, in fact, part of the setup (no real sniper is going to do that).

Absolutely. The police had to have a reason to go to the TSBD and find the weapon, so they could blame the designated patsy who worked in that building.

I don't think it was intended that Oswald be captured alive. I think that was a screw-up that Ruby was probably responsible for and therefore it was his responsibility to "fix".

The fact that Ruby had assured access to LHO while in custody, has never entirely convinced me he was chosen to silence LHO for that reason alone. Certainly DPD could have arranged access to LHO for anyone, or it could have easily been an inside job by them. I'm certain they had the 'talent' inhouse. If you had to bring in an outsider would Ruby have been the obvious choice?

At the midnight press conference, DA Wade stated that LFO was affiliated with the wrong Pro-Castro group, and Ruby corrected him. How would Ruby have known about LHO and the FPCC if he wasn't in on the plot? For a considerable time, I have been convinced that Ruby was in on the plot, and like you, I suspect that Ruby was somehow responsible for unintentionally preventing LHO's elimination by the DPD. If true, this would certainly explain why Ruby would be willing to take out LHO: 'You do have a choice, Jack. You can either be a hero for killing the Presidents assassin, or be executed as a conspirator.'

I can't convince myself that Ruby himself was supposed to kill LHO immediately following the assassination. Did Ruby perhaps provide the cop who failed to kill LHO after the assassination?

Tom

[Tom Neal]

He further stated that he turned it over to his "close personal friend", Admiral Burkley. As far as I know, it was never seen again.

Admiral Burkley stated that all the fragments he was given were handed over to the autopsy doctors for the purpose of trying to reconstruct the skull to help determine the wounds. I think there were a total of three fragments. None of these were the Harper fragment. After the autopsy, Burkley states the fragments were put back in Kennedy's skull.

Chris, I believe you're talking about several small fragments received from Burkley. Sam Kinney states that the single skull part he handed to Burkley was equal in size to the large hole in the rear of Kennedy's skull. He has further commented that 'people have been looking for this for all these years...'

Tom

[Tom Neal]

Thanks for the kind words Tom - I hope you enjoy it.

My pleasure, Larry. There is no doubt in my mind that I will enjoy it!

I don't see it available as an eBook... Did I miss it?

I'll look forward to discussing it as you read.

As will I.

On your question, as Noel related it to me, Hemming's brother - who was present with Hargraves for the interview - was the one who raised the objections with Noel. I only dimly recall it but I think there was supposed to be a read and approve agreement in place but the pair had shown no interest in reading the transcript and after a goodly time Noel assumed they had just moved on. That's a fairly dim memory at this point. Anyway, Noel was concerned over possible legal action and certainly I honored his request. Later, in talking with Hemming's brother at a Lancer conference in Dallas, the subject came up and again, strictly from memory, he downplayed the whole thing essentially saying there were some minor things discussed during the interview which they felt could be used in the event Hargraves himself faced some rather dated legal problems. Nothing to do with JFK but of course Hargraves did have a lengthy history including suspicion and investigation related to bombings in L.A. That's pretty much the gist of it.

Thanks Larry. Very interesting. Presumably, with the demise of both Gerry Hemming and Roy Hargraves there would no longer be any objections?

As I recall only one day of the interviews ever got transcribed and when I asked Noel he stated the transcription had been really expensive and the tapes of the other part were in deep storage, not something he wanted to get back into.

I just re-read what was transcribed. This interview has always intrigued me, and I had no idea there was more... After a quick search online, I have found no indication that Noel Twyman is deceased. Do you suppose he would allow a transcription of the tapes by me for free?

Tom

[Greg Wagner]

Larry,

Any idea why Hargraves agreed to such an interview in the first place? I'm grateful that we have it, but curious about his motives for divulging the information. What was in it for him?

BTW... I found that I had the original spiral-bound version and the 2006 version. Ordered the 2010 version. I look forward to reading it.

[Larry Hancock]

Greg, I've studied Hargraves character a great deal but of course it would be a huge guess. First off we have to realize that first Hemming agreed to talk to Noel first. Maybe that was just to talk - which he loved to do - and to pass on some misinformation, which even Hargraves and Hemming's brother said was important for Hemming to continue in order to ensure others that he was not a threat. Hemmings was a talker, so was Hargraves. Hargraves had already talked too much way back in 63 and been investigated and cleared by the FBI in 64. Both Hemming and Hargraves had been involved in helping abort the Garrison inquiry and by the point in time they talked to Noel it was pretty clear no official body would ever challenge them on the JFK crime....under any circumstances. They were safe. And Hemming had seen Noel would only push so hard. Why not talk a bit, what could it hurt. But it is risky as Roselli learned because people may think you are saying more than you are and if you have a conscience it just may kick in when you least expect...as it may have done for Hemming with his remark about changing his sons name and Felipe Vidal. Probably best for Noel that he was to cautious to follow that lead and push at the time. Noel certainly felt that way. As to Hargraves, always a risk taker, no doubt about that and one of the most successful of the outsiders in independent Cuban missions. Why not talk a little, finally. Don't say too much....which he almost did in naming Vidal, but he backed off quick in confirming him as the guy on Elm. And afterwards you probably sit back and say, hey, maybe I said too much anyway.

-- Just rambling but its pretty interesting that the point both Hemming and Hargraves stopped talking and pulled up short was when Vidal's name surfaced.

[Greg Wagner]

Larry... I could certainly see Hemming agreeing to spin some yarns (misinfo) with Noel for awhile. (I didn't know the man but his posts on here were intriguing, head-scratching and funny all at the same time - grains of truthishness sprinkled amongst his ramblings. Interesting guy.) And then Roy following suit with Noel... you get to talking and maybe take it a step too far. I can buy that. Certainly a credit to the interviewer for being able to tease out some hard truth. The Vidal ID is what had me wondering about his motives because I believe it's true. Quite a thing to just come out and say it to a writer. If I recall correctly, there may have been some concern about Hargraves talking in the days/weeks leading up to his death. Until some long lost family suddenly came into the picture. What an amazing coincidence.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Greg Wagner

[Larry Hancock]

On the Vidal ID, I think its important that both Hemming and Hargraves were not just friends with Vidal but respected him immensely. Hemming names a son for him, Hargraves went on missions with him, almost lost his life in that mysterious boat explosion after the assassination along with him. And both respected him a great deal. What we sometimes fail to appreciate is that especially in the first decades those involved with the attack and conspiracy were very proud of what they had done, felt those involved should be honored and sincerely believed they had acted for patriotic motives and were morally right - regardless of what the rest of the world believed. There was no shame, later there was some suspicion they might have been manipulated but that was only suspicion. So why not mention your friend, whom you still honor. Not too much, but enough to keep him remembered.

-- as Garrison said, in looking at this its like looking at a mirror, the morality is reversed - and black is white, we need to get our head around the fact that those we consider villains viewed themselves the ultimate patriots

[Tom Neal]

Any idea why Hargraves agreed to such an interview in the first place? I'm grateful that we have it, but curious about his motives for divulging the information. What was in it for him?

Greg,

In the interview transcript Hargraves makes it clear that 'the commies did it.' He may have agreed to the interview to push that story. Of course, once they get talking, they talk to each other as much as they talk to Twyman. It appears that they kinda forget he was there, and spill some interesting stuff as it occurs to them.

Tom

[Larry Hancock]

Tom, that's an interesting point, those guys never missed a chance to push the commie/Castro line....they want conspiracy to circulate, just with the appropriate sponsor. We should remember that Hemming and Hargraves tried for years to push that story and even engaged in plans for others types of attacks inside America which would stimulate retaliation against Cuba. It was sort of a mantra. As with Bernardo de Torres, they actively sought opportunities to encourage conspiracy talk and even investigations....it was just important to steer it back to the commies and whenever possible, Cuban connections. As you say though, once you get them talking, sometimes things do spill. Noel told me that on a couple of occasions he would pass by the room where they were set up and he heard comments about being cautious and not going to far in certain areas, they even made calls back to Hemming.