Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

So if Joannides was a disburser of funds to the DRE in the summer of 63, and possibly Oswald (?) it doesn't mean he ever met him.  If O was working for the CIA he would not have been paid not by George but an intermediary.  O was observed receiving envelopes outside the garage used by the FBI near the Riley Coffee Co and Bannisters two fronted building/office.

It would be interesting if Joannides was paying the DRE and Oswald even indirectly, considering their confrontation(s).  That would be a conflict of interest so to speak.  Unless Ozzie was a test, checking up on their investment.  And maybe he was being sheep dipped/set up as a patsy.

Why after over 50 years do the files on this need not be released?  National Security?  Really?  Times have changed.  Methods and sources?  C'mon it's beyond a cyber world now.  Personal concerns?  He's been dead 30 years.

What do they have left to hide?

Link to post
Share on other sites

David, thanks again.  This is Gold to me.  I've never read it.  Dan Hardway is an impeccable source.  He was there facing Joannadies or his accolades while the HSCA happened.  He has already made significant statements on/around the 50th Anniversary, coming clean so to speak.

This is significant.  I never knew David Phillips was the first case officer for the DRE in the late 50's in Cuba, that he in essence helped create it.  Or after the Bay of Pigs, dissatisfied with their current one Helms appointed Joannides as such.

' the after the CIA notice, Oswald applied for a Mexico Visa in new Orleans, standing in line behind an acknowledged CIA agent."

But he was a lone nut the CIA or FBI knew nothing about...

Was Joannadies Oswald's case officer in New Orleans? 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 3:30 PM, David Josephs said:

I don't know...  lol

I get a bit cross-eyed too after 2000 pages...  :cheers

This is page 9...  Where is the NEWBY /s/?  It's under Employee signature on page 8 and the other pages where it says Employee Signature

Below that is page 11 which looks like all the other signature pages... I think.  

I wonder if it is strange to have an internal document which connects a person with their AKA... yet he surely had more than just one alias...

I just don't see NEWBY on this top page #9







Is it possible that the two sheets you provided here are for two different people?

I ask that for two reasons:

1) On the first page, there is a different employee serial number that has been crossed out in the upper right hand corner.

2) On the first page, there is a date of January 16, in the bottom left hand corner, but a date of January 19 alongside the employee name on the second page.

Did the first page actually belong to someone else originally?


Steve Thomas


PS: Is there a way to search files by employee ID number?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read on, his acceptance that Oswald was there bothers me.... (the duh is silent)

Choaden is Phillips.  He gets a bulk materials in a pouch Oct 1... He arrives as antiCastro ops Mexico - Cuban Desk on Oct 7 or 8.

The Goodpasture LADILLINGER memo goes out the 8th about OSWALD.    Goodpasture works for Phillips and Win Scott.

He is a CI specialist.  

Connect some dots....  Oswald aka Mystery Man known to JCKing... Is born... Alvarado is controlled by Phillips


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Josephs said:




re: the French espionage activities:


I just happened to run across this April, 1968 Life Magazine article from Philippe Thyraud de Vosjoli. Fascinating stuff. "Martel" is, of course, Anatoli Golitsyn.

After JFK's assassination. Vosjoli would flee to the Acapulco estate of Frank Brandstetter - another one of those blankety-blank colonels.



Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 2:28 PM, David Boylan said:

So I did a little more digging and found this.



104-10170-10027: AMSPELL STATUS

11/15/62: A secret letter from AMSPELL to AMBARB delegates was sent about this date, laying the groundwork for recalling in AMBARBs in early December due to conflict with CIA. AMHINT-53 (Luis Fernandez-Rocha) cited AMSPELL policy "against coexistence". "On 5 December 1962 Walter D. Newby (George Joannides) was introduced to AMHINT-53 and succeeded Harold D. Noemayr (Ross Crozier) as the responsible case officer for the project."


And this - In the fall of 1962, George Joannides was hand picked by Richard Helms to replace Ross Crozier as the CIA’s DRE case officer in Miami after DRE’s public opposition to the government’s policies during the October, 1962, missile crisis. 11 Joannides reported directly to Helms. 12 Joannides’s registered pseudonym was Walter D. Newby. His supervisor was Robert K. Trouchard. Up to 90% of the DRE’s operating funds came from the CIA. 13 The ARRB managed to force the CIA to declassify a few ofJoannides’sfitnessreports. 14 


Thanks for this, David.  I went to Dan Hardway's article in the third link and then tracked down the memo he cites where Helms promises the DRE a new CIA liaison that he will personally appoint and manage.  Here is a link to that memo: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=18923#relPageId=1&tab=page (Memorandum for the Record, Mr. Helms’ Conversation with Luis Fernandez Rocha...., RIF 104-10170-10022)

For me, this memo should be of incredible interest and meaning for assassination researchers.  In it, Helms, the second in command of the CIA, tells the Cuban group:

o Helms will essentially manage them through his intermediary - the soon-to-be-chosen Joannides - who will report directly to Helms. 

o Helms expresses intense interest in continuing the agency's the group despite the fact the US policy toward Cuba was then unknown and might be disagreeable to the DRE when a decision was made.

o Helms also told the group's leaders that whatever that policy was, they would have to maintain it under strict confidence.  He was concerned about a new policy toward Cuba being spread among the exile community.

o Rocha stated that he could not guarantee the DRE would be able to continue the relationship for a change in U.S. policy toward coexistence would differ from what the DRE believes is a duty to their country.

o Rocha gave Helms his "word of honor" he would inform his contact or Helms when the DRE felt they could no longer cooperate with the Agency because of the difference in what the believed in and U.S. policy. 

o Rocha claimed they were still anxious to cooperate with the Agency, and it was "foolish to think" that without Agency support they could continue their present level of activity.  He in fact stated that "80 to 90 percent of their activity would cease" if Agency funds were discontinued.  This would be "suicide," and according to Rocha, this he did not want provided a satisfactory arrangement could be reached.

o Helms also tell the DRE that if they appear on TV, they should immediately contact him or the liaison.  

o Helms again assured Rocha of his continuing personal interest in this relationship. He wanted Rocha to deal with his Agency contact in Miami with this in mind, but he warned Rocha that although this is the case, he did not want the DRE running "end runs" on their contact on matters they can deal with in Miami.  Rocha said he understood.

Ten months later, Oswald interfaced with the DRE in New Orleans, securing TV,  radio and print coverage.  Joannides maintained a personal residence in NO.

After the assassination, Helms serves as the liaison to the Warren Commission and never tells them the CIA coin-operated the DRE.

During the HSCA hearings, with Joannides serving undercover as the agency's liaison to Congress (and with the CIA maintaining the agency broke contact with the DRE in 1963), Helms is asked:


Are there other things that you can recall that might have had relevancy–things of importance, to the Warren Commission’s investigation of the assassination of an American President.

Mr. HELMS – Well, I don’t know of any others. I can’t think of what they might have been, but then we might have been guilty of some other errors of omission, I don’t know. None come readily to mind. This didn’t come readily to mind at the time.

[source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/hscahelm.htm[mcadams.posc.mu.edu]

To my mind, Helms' blatant obstruction of justice to the WC, and obstruction and perjury to the HSCA, is THE smoking gun of the Kennedy assassination.  

More documents released would be nice.  But the problem with the assassination is that everyone gets distracted and pulled off into different directions based on the minutiae of the case.  The document releases have served as more shiny objects for the media and public to ooh and ahh over, and get misunderstood usually.

But we don't need more than the above.  Helms' obstruction is the thread that leads to everything else.

Why is the second-in-command of the CIA withholding critical evidence on the assassination of the president from the WC and HSCA?

We need a full investigation into what is described above if we want to get to the bottom of what truly happened, how and why, IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the most interesting thing in the Hardway article to me is "Deputy Chief of Station Frederick K Inglehurst was most likely David Morales - 9/64".  The Joannides fitness report for 1/1/63 - 7/31/63 was signed by Deputy COS Frederick K Inglehurst in pseudo Fla.  So based on Mr. Hardway's expertise there is a good chance that while Joannadies supposedly reported directly to Helms, on the ground in Florida at JMWAVE and maybe in New Orleans he at least dealt with Morales as technically a superior.  I don't think I've ever read of the possibility Morales rose to that level position. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...