Jefferson Morley on A Major Break Coming in the JFK Assassination Story

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Yes - but I’m not exactly sure how the record keeping on that worked. From the documents I’ve seen, it looks like a provisional informant would usually be assigned a temporary designation like T-2 for the body of an FBI report, then on the report cover page they’d just be referred to by name, like “informant T-2 is PSI Dick Johnson”, etc. Once the informant was approved their name would no longer appear in FBI reports. The cover page would say something like “T-2 is NO-1269S” or the informant number would just be used in the body of the report.

My point is I have not seen any kind of tracking/record keeping information on PSI/PCIs. I’d assume that a list or something would be kept in the acting field office and a file kept on each provisional informant but  I’ve never seen anything like that. If you ever come across that sort of thing let me know. 

A good example is Arnesto Rodriguez. He was a PSI for a while back in 1961/62 before getting assigned an informant number. I forget the exact date range when this happened but all of a sudden he got a number and his name stopped appearing in FBI reports. 

Thanks, that's really helpful info.

I take it that "provisional" means the same thing as "potential". 

So in New Orleans, LHO would have been a PSI (Potential Security Informant) because he was providing intel on pro-Castro individuals at Tulane for example rather than a PCI (Potential Criminal Informant) which has more to do with crime such as narcotics etc.  

So you think its a possibility that the only place LHOs name was showing up as a PSI was in the files at the New Orleans FBI Field Office and being managed by Warren DeBrueys? And it would not be until DeBrueys wanted to make LHO a fully fledged informant that he would need to contact FBI HQ in order to get an informant number assigned to LHO and conditions/reimbursement for work etc laid out.  

 

 

[Gerry Down]

On 12/12/2022 at 2:34 PM, Larry Hancock said:

As far as the agencies, both FBI and CIA go (as well as ONI, AFOSI) etc, there was a good bit of differences between "sources" (some witting but some used through cut outs not revealing an agency connection), informants (who were closely involved with some activity to provide detailed information, not just suspicions, rumors, gossip), informants who could be used supporting arrests and charges and assets (people who were approved for use in actual intel operations).  Oswald could have been any of these at certain times, he did volunteer information to the FBI and in the case of the ONI he could either have been a witting or  unwitting source (perhaps just offering information on his bar contacts to a third party who was cleared as an actual ONI source and turning up in a file because of that). 

 

 

10 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Allen, I did and that was actually the reason for my post.  One of the things we have to consider is that Oswald could show up in an ONI file (or any agency file) as a source when he was simply in contact with a third party contact and totally unwitting.  We see Cuban names show up all the time in CIA documents when the individual is simply the subject of information being passed on and has no idea the person he was talking to was a voluntary source - not even a paid informant, an asset etc.

In recent presentations I've been outlining a broader picture of Oswald, who admittedly frequented bars and engaged in conversations with not just women but as he himself said, young Japanese with his general political views who really expanded and reinforced his own ideas.  My friend Jack Swike, a Marine CI officer at Atsuki, wrote that the military was quite aware of what was happening in those bars and clubs and conducted surveillance and placed its own informants to identify military personnel who would be monitored as security risks.

All of which means Oswald could very well be showing up in ONI files - and very likely did - and being talked about by name for a number of reasons.  Oswald actually "working" for ONI as an informant would be something else entirely and that claim would need some sort of corroboration. It would not be at all out of the question for ONI to be playing Oswald as an unwitting dangle - or even arranging to test him in the case he decided to be more active in passing on actual intelligence. 

Given Oswald's personality and proven history of not taking orders and doing his own thing from his teen years on, personally I could see him being used unwittingly more than as some sort of actual "asset", tasks by ONI and making reports or taking specific assignments.

As usual the devil is in the details...

Very useful info. Thanks Larry. 

Not everyone would be aware of these finer points.

[Larry Hancock]

This is just a guess but the way I understand it the sequence would be a Potential CI would be a source either providing info direct or even through a third party (makes them a prospect).  Offices were measured each month by how many potentials and provisional they had in their reports - identification and recruitment were part of the office's job.  

Once it became clear that a potential source was willing - or actually involved on some action of interest they would be bumped up to provisional and given some support (if not money, equipment).  Ruby was bumped to a provisional for two years, likely due to association with gun running and Cuba - which is why the FBI totally stonewalled anything other than admitting he had been on board with them.  But after a time (and the arrest and conviction of the gun runners he may have associated with he was dropped - we have no idea if he actually provided anything to that prosecution, if so they would have had to pay him but that would be another reason for their stonewalling).

Its only if the provisional informant has testimony that would be useful in an actual prosecution that they were bumped up to informant level, and actually had to be paid since they could have been called to provide either sealed or open testimony.  Its interesting that Hoover at one point chided someone about calling Oswald an FBI informant, saying that the fellow in question was familiar with FBI practice and what would constitute a true informant.  Hoover was of course very pick about terminology so he could get away with that even if Oswald had been either potential or provisional.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I could find nothing about the room rates at either hotel in 1959, but they aren't that expensive today (roughly $200 for the Torni, $120 for the Klaus Kurki). I doubt seriously they put much of a dent in $700 in 1959.

 

Why would cheapskate Oswald pay $200 and $120 for four star hotels when he could have stayed at a cheap hotel for $60, or hostel for $6? (Today's dollars all.)

 

[Gerry Down]

39 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

This is just a guess but the way I understand it the sequence would be a Potential CI would be a source either providing info direct or even through a third party (makes them a prospect).  Offices were measured each month by how many potentials and provisional they had in their reports - identification and recruitment were part of the office's job.  

Once it became clear that a potential source was willing - or actually involved on some action of interest they would be bumped up to provisional and given some support (if not money, equipment).  Ruby was bumped to a provisional for two years, likely due to association with gun running and Cuba - which is why the FBI totally stonewalled anything other than admitting he had been on board with them.  But after a time (and the arrest and conviction of the gun runners he may have associated with he was dropped - we have no idea if he actually provided anything to that prosecution, if so they would have had to pay him but that would be another reason for their stonewalling).

Its only if the provisional informant has testimony that would be useful in an actual prosecution that they were bumped up to informant level, and actually had to be paid since they could have been called to provide either sealed or open testimony.  Its interesting that Hoover at one point chided someone about calling Oswald an FBI informant, saying that the fellow in question was familiar with FBI practice and what would constitute a true informant.  Hoover was of course very pick about terminology so he could get away with that even if Oswald had been either potential or provisional.

So the FBI informant hierarchy would be as follows:

• Potential Informant 
• Provisional Informant
• Full Informant

I think LHO might have only got as far as the potential informant category in New Orleans under DeBrueys. While he may have done work for them at Tulane, I dont think they trusted him enough to push him up to "provisional" status. This may have limited how much he appeared on FBI files, especially calling into question if he appeared in any FBI HQ files at all. 

I would imagine what FBI clerk William Walter saw was probably some file on LHO in relation to Oswalds "potential" informant role and consideration within the New Orleans FBI field office. 

[Larry Hancock]

I would follow you on that Gerry,  probably the right thing to do would be to look back at the documents on Oswald's sessions with the FBI in New Orleans - he might well have offered information on the FPCC, on the anti-Castro Cubans (important since it was a top priority for FBI to obstruct military action or weapons buys by anti-Castro groups) and potentially even on ultra right figures in the area who might have helped get weapons for the Cubans..... 

I suspect we have not seen the full record - or a true record - of the info. Oswald provided to the FBI in New Orleans and given what Hosty destroyed in Dallas any formal records probably did not exist for all that long.

And yes I suspect Walther saw a potential informant file - given Oswald's approach to the FBI it seems to me it would have been a violation of practice not to have a file on him as a potential informant. You just don't ignore "walk ins"...

 

[James DiEugenio]

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Why would cheapskate Oswald pay $200 and $120 for four star hotels when he could have stayed at a cheap hotel for $60, or hostel for $6? (Today's dollars all.)

 

Nice one Sandy.

Ian Griggs wrote about some of the people who stayed at the Torni: Kosygin, former president Herbert Hoover, General Mannerheim, the president of Finland, Jean Sibelius, Count Folke Bernadotte.

According to Lance, there is nothing unusual about Oswald staying with that class of people.😜

In 1997, that hotel had an American cocktail bar, a Rooftop Bar, five conference rooms, four saunas, an outside terrace bar, and an Irish pub.  With marble staircases.

Again, Lance says "What me worry?"

 

[James DiEugenio]

Please look at this:

 

https://www.klauskhotel.com/en/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA4uCcBhDdARIsAH5jyUnsYlNfI6_W3X3FngBD7hSaKQHi16bGrUxsi-kM0xgzlcTkZxLhCGwaAlxfEALw_wcB

[James DiEugenio]

How anyone could say that is the kind of hotel Oswald would stay at, I mean c'mon! Those people are wearing 700 hundred dollar suits and have wide screen TVs in their rooms. And look at that food!

Especially not knowing-at least theoretically-- what fate awaited you in Russia.

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Gerry Down]

31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

How anyone could say that is the kind of hotel Oswald would stay at, I mean c'mon! Those people are wearing 700 hundred dollar suits and have wide screen TVs in their rooms. And look at that food!

Especially not knowing-at least theoretically-- what fate awaited you in Russia.

 

I think LHOs strategy was to spend up all his money so that he would be stranded in Russia with no money by the time he told them he wanted to be a soviet citizen. He then would have no money to go home if they refused and so the soviets would be stuck with him.  

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Again, Lance says "What me worry?"

 

Well maybe Lance doesn't have to worry. But people who grow up poor learn to hold on tight with what little money they have. They're not gonna needlessly waste a hundred bucks for a brighter room with thicker carpeting.

(Think of all the great burger upgrades you could buy for $100. Mmm... burgers. )

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

I think LHOs strategy was to spend up all his money so that he would be stranded in Russia with no money by the time he told them he wanted to be a soviet citizen. He then would have no money to go home if they refused and so the soviets would be stuck with him.  

 

Surely he could have found a way to hide his excess cash.

 

[Tom Gram]

10 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I would follow you on that Gerry,  probably the right thing to do would be to look back at the documents on Oswald's sessions with the FBI in New Orleans - he might well have offered information on the FPCC, on the anti-Castro Cubans (important since it was a top priority for FBI to obstruct military action or weapons buys by anti-Castro groups) and potentially even on ultra right figures in the area who might have helped get weapons for the Cubans..... 

I suspect we have not seen the full record - or a true record - of the info. Oswald provided to the FBI in New Orleans and given what Hosty destroyed in Dallas any formal records probably did not exist for all that long.

And yes I suspect Walther saw a potential informant file - given Oswald's approach to the FBI it seems to me it would have been a violation of practice not to have a file on him as a potential informant. You just don't ignore "walk ins"...

 

One thing I’ve always thought was a little strange about this is the following. You’ve probably seen these: the New Orleans Field Office i.e. Warren DeBrueys and Regis Kennedy put out a semi-annual report on informant coverage of pro and anti Castro Cuban exile group activities in New Orleans. The first group listed on every report was the FPCC. Every single report - at least that I’ve seen - tracing back to at least Jan ‘62, reported no information obtained by anyone relating to the FPCC in New Orleans. One of the reports was written on 8/7/63, two days before Oswald’s arrest. The only difference in this report is that instead of “no information” they wrote “no corroborative information” had been received on the FPCC in New Orleans. Maybe it exists, but I have not seen any FBI document referencing even an unsubstantiated claim of FPCC activities in New Orleans dated any earlier than late August ‘63. Also, DeBrueys did not submit an investigative report until Oct. 25th. 

By Aug. 7th, Oswald had supposedly obtained his FPCC flyers, leafletted the Wasp, exchanged several letters with V.T. Lee using a New Orleans return address, etc. etc.

It just seems a little odd that the FBI allegedly didn’t hear anything about the FPCC in New Orleans until Aug. 9th.

Also, the official story is that not a single letter from Oswald’s correspondence with FPCC from New Orleans was ever intercepted or even noticed by the FBI or the informant infested New Orleans and New York Post Offices. The New York FBI also supposedly waited 69 days to inform Dallas that Oswald had mailed a letter to the FPCC in April ‘63, but they told New Orleans that Oswald had sent a letter to The Worker within 10 days of receiving it. Even the FBI IG thought the 69-day delay was inexplicable and he reprimanded the agents involved. 

Basically, the NOLA FBI were allegedly completely blind to anything FPCC related until Oswald’s arrest. They wrote the following in their 8/7/63 semi-annual report: 

While there are no known branches of the FPCC or of the 26th of July Movement nor any pro-Castro type organizations in the New Orleans area, New Orleans, nevertheless, canvasses all sources in Cuban matters on a continuing basis to be alert for any activity indicating efforts to establish such groups in the New Orleans area. 

The above coverage has proven adequate in Cuban matters; however, New Orleans is consistently alert to the possibility of developing new sources to provide pertinent data regarding both anti-Castro and pro-Castro matters. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Gerry Down]

30 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

One thing I’ve always thought was a little strange about this is the following. You’ve probably seen these: the New Orleans Field Office i.e. Warren DeBrueys and Regis Kennedy put out a semi-annual report on informant coverage of pro and anti Castro Cuban exile group activities in New Orleans. The first group listed on every report was the FPCC. Every single report - at least that I’ve seen - tracing back to at least Jan ‘62, reported no information obtained by anyone relating to the FPCC in New Orleans. One of the reports was written on 8/7/63, two days before Oswald’s arrest. The only difference in this report is that instead of “no information” they wrote “no corroborative information” had been received on the FPCC in New Orleans. Maybe it exists, but I have not seen any FBI document referencing even an unsubstantiated claim of FPCC activities in New Orleans dated any earlier than late August ‘63. Also, DeBrueys did not submit an investigative report until Oct. 25th. 

By Aug. 7th, Oswald had supposedly obtained his FPCC flyers, leafletted the Wasp, exchanged several letters with V.T. Lee using a New Orleans return address, etc. etc.

It just seems a little odd that the FBI allegedly didn’t hear anything about the FPCC in New Orleans until Aug. 9th.

Also, the official story is that not a single letter from Oswald’s correspondence with FPCC from New Orleans was ever intercepted or even noticed by the FBI or the informant infested New Orleans and New York Post Offices. The New York FBI also supposedly waited 69 days to inform Dallas that Oswald had mailed a letter to the FPCC in April ‘63, but they told New Orleans that Oswald had sent a letter to The Worker within 10 days of receiving it. Even the FBI IG thought the 69-day delay was inexplicable and he reprimanded the agents involved. 

Basically, the NOLA FBI were allegedly completely blind to anything FPCC related until Oswald’s arrest. They wrote the following in their 8/7/63 semi-annual report: 

While there are no known branches of the FPCC or of the 26th of July Movement nor any pro-Castro type organizations in the New Orleans area, New Orleans, nevertheless, canvasses all sources in Cuban matters on a continuing basis to be alert for any activity indicating efforts to establish such groups in the New Orleans area. 

The above coverage has proven adequate in Cuban matters; however, New Orleans is consistently alert to the possibility of developing new sources to provide pertinent data regarding both anti-Castro and pro-Castro matters. 

Stuff like DeBrueys Oct 25th report did not go anywhere outside the FBI I presume before the assassination? If it didnt, these documents could have been altered by the FBI after the assassination to hide the fact lho had been a potential fbi informant in new Orleans for a time. Some stuff was sent to the CIA, for example the stuff that arrived on Jane Romans desk about lho being arrested in new Orleans, but most of the fbi documents on lho and the fpcc never went outside the fbi I presume before the assassination. And so could have been altered after the assassination as the fbi saw fit.

The fbi could only alter a document they had not sent to another agency. Otherwise that other agency would have a copy of the true original document the fbi would now be trying to alter.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Gerry Down

[Larry Hancock]

Tom, some great points there and one thing jumped out at me:

"One of the reports was written on 8/7/63, two days before Oswald’s arrest. The only difference in this report is that instead of “no information” they wrote “no corroborative information” had been received on the FPCC in New Orleans"

If Oswald did ask for someone specific at the FBI following his arrest, it would imply he had already had some contact with the NO Office...it that were the case Oswald might have given them some info about the FPCC - which as of the 8th they might still be trying to corroborate.  It would not be at all unusual not to mention a source name in a summary report, especially if it was a new source for them.   There may be a simpler explanation for the use of the word but it certainly is interesting.

Given the restrictions on DeBureys testimony its pretty evident they were shielding something about Oswald and what would have been really embarrassing is not just his being on file but the actual destruction of file documents on him - I tend to see the FBI destroying documents rather than faking them, especially if other agencies had not been copied (not unusual since they tended to poach each ours sources).