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

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, David Boylan said:

For those that like to read docs:

Warren DeBrueys report. His PSI was Arnesto Rodriguez. Copies sent to Miami and INS.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=80631#relPageId=2

Bringuier and Rodriguez as FBI informants.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=193664#relPageId=2

Bringuier has sign from Arnesto 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95624#relPageId=65

 

Arnesto and Bringuier with tape and transcript of LHO and Butler

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=542

 

Arnesto Sr - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8890#relPageId=2

 

Arnesto Rodriguez getting help from Americans and weapons. Good doc. Needed money.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=25527#relPageId=5

 

Arnesto files, Gerry Hemming file 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81672#relPageId=2

What does the Mary Ferrell - Gerry Hemming file show or suggest?

I clicked on the Hemming file link above but all I saw were a few numbers.

[David Boylan]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

What does the Mary Ferrell - Gerry Hemming file show or suggest?

I clicked on the Hemming file link above but all I saw were a few numbers.

Joe,

I can only speculate that this has to do with Hemming setting up a camp in 1962 with the help of A-Rod.

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

For the record, in 1959 the Finnish Markka (Pre-Euro currency) was 320FM to $1 USD. Researching old newspaper records back in 1958-59, First Class Hotels in Helsinki were going for $7.50 USD a night. I haven't found the cost for one night stay in the Torni or the Klause Kurki, but it's patently silly to believe it was anywhere near $100/night in 1959.

 

Your $7.50 for "first class hotels in Helsinki" is in 1959 dollars.

Lance's $200 for Torni  and $120 for Klaus Kurki are in 2022 dollars.

 

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I think the scenario you’re proposing is very plausible since DeBrueys, Smith, and Roache, etc. did coordinate frequently since they were the investigators for their respective agencies assigned to Cuban exile activities. DeBrueys cc’d INS and Customs on basically all of his FBI reports on Cubans, and they even shared informants. 

The issue I have is with the FPCC business, the Canal St. incident, and Oswald’s use of 544 Camp St. Everything about it reeks of being a propaganda op. The evidence is pretty compelling IMO that Oswald didn’t just dream that up on his own and decide one day to dedicate a massive amount of his time and energy to advocating for a defunct pro-Castro organization. 

The evidence for Oswald knowing Banister personally might be questionable, but the evidence for Oswald knowing David Ferrie is very credible and corroborated  independently by several witnesses, the most significant of which IMO is Wendell Roache. Ferrie worked with Banister, though I think he wasn’t a formal employee, and he was pretty much the perfect choice for managing a totally deniable operation. With Ferrie’s background and habits he could be easily leveraged and/or discredited if necessary, plus he was a fanatic, an effective leader, and had a prior connection to Oswald. 

The CIA (and the FBI) definitely had an interest in discrediting the FPCC, and I believe they formed a joint initiative to do exactly that in foreign countries right around the time of the Mexico City business. If Oswald was indeed being manipulated and/or told what to do in New Orleans with his FPCC “chapter”, the MO seems to fit the CIA better than the FBI - but I really have no idea. I assume there’d be several layers of insulation and compartmentalization for any domestic op since it would violate the CIA charter, which I’d guess in this case would look something like CIA > primary contractor > Banister > Ferrie > Oswald. 

You said:

"I think the scenario you’re proposing is very plausible since DeBrueys, Smith, and Roache, etc. did coordinate frequently since they were the investigators for their respective agencies assigned to Cuban exile activities. DeBrueys cc’d INS and Customs on basically all of his FBI reports on Cubans, and they even shared informants."

Do you have handy the documents showing that DeBrueys worked with Smith and Roache and especially that they shared informants? Such documents would add an extra layer of veracity to Orest Penas claim. Perhaps you will be writing an essay on this at a later date and including footnotes to such documents. I think the members on here would benefit from such an essay judging from your last essay on Oswalds mail. 

I'm pretty sure your correct about the FPCC. There is something there we have never been told. 

With regarding to the "Oswald In New Orleans" document...

Fred Litwin makes the case that David Ferrie was not at the Newman building in 1963, that basically his activity there ended in 1961. However the "Oswald In New Orleans" document from a few years ago seems to indicate that INS Wendall Roache thought Ferrie was at the Newman building in 1963 around the same time as Oswald. 

I think its highly probably that Oswald had an office at the Newman building for 3 days in early June 1963 and that he stamped his flyers there with 544 Camp Street. When he was kicked out of the building after 3 days, he was stuck with all his flyers stamped 544 Camp Street and rather then dump them, he proceeded to give out some of these 544 Camp Street stamped leaflets at the Wharf later that month. When he ran out of these flyers, he then stamped his new leaflets with his new address of PO Box 30061, which are the ones that tend to be in evidence now. If the INS saw Oswald go in and out of the Newman building for 3 days, and found that Oswald was still handing out leaflets stamped 544 Camp Street at the Wharf in late June, they could have formed the mistaken impression that Oswald was connected to 544 Camp street much longer than he actually was. For example they might have thought he was there for maybe even as long as a month. Because Banister was involved in ferretting out pro-Castro individuals at universities, the INS might have formed the opinion that Oswald was part of Banisters (and maybe Ferries) operation of ferreting out pro-Castro individuals and this is what Wendal Roache was talking about in the "Oswald In New Orleans" documents. But that might only be a mistaken assumption on the part of INS. In other words, Oswald could possibly have had no connection to Banister, Ferrie or Banisters office at all, but the above sequence as i've laid out could have misled the INS into thinking Oswald was part of the "group" at the Newman building as the "Oswald In New Orleans" document asserts. 

That in my opinion is a reasonable explanation for what we read in the "Oswald In New Orleans" document that does not require Oswald to actually have had anything to do with Banister and/or Ferrie.

[Tom Gram]

11 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

You said:

"I think the scenario you’re proposing is very plausible since DeBrueys, Smith, and Roache, etc. did coordinate frequently since they were the investigators for their respective agencies assigned to Cuban exile activities. DeBrueys cc’d INS and Customs on basically all of his FBI reports on Cubans, and they even shared informants."

Do you have handy the documents showing that DeBrueys worked with Smith and Roache and especially that they shared informants? Such documents would add an extra layer of veracity to Orest Penas claim. Perhaps you will be writing an essay on this at a later date and including footnotes to such documents. I think the members on here would benefit from such an essay judging from your last essay on Oswalds mail. 

I'm pretty sure your correct about the FPCC. There is something there we have never been told. 

With regarding to the "Oswald In New Orleans" document...

Fred Litwin makes the case that David Ferrie was not at the Newman building in 1963, that basically his activity there ended in 1961. However the "Oswald In New Orleans" document from a few years ago seems to indicate that INS Wendall Roache thought Ferrie was at the Newman building in 1963 around the same time as Oswald. 

I think its highly probably that Oswald had an office at the Newman building for 3 days in early June 1963 and that he stamped his flyers there with 544 Camp Street. When he was kicked out of the building after 3 days, he was stuck with all his flyers stamped 544 Camp Street and rather then dump them, he proceeded to give out some of these 544 Camp Street stamped leaflets at the Wharf later that month. When he ran out of these flyers, he then stamped his new leaflets with his new address of PO Box 30061, which are the ones that tend to be in evidence now. If the INS saw Oswald go in and out of the Newman building for 3 days, and found that Oswald was still handing out leaflets stamped 544 Camp Street at the Wharf in late June, they could have formed the mistaken impression that Oswald was connected to 544 Camp street much longer than he actually was. For example they might have thought he was there for maybe even as long as a month. Because Banister was involved in ferretting out pro-Castro individuals at universities, the INS might have formed the opinion that Oswald was part of Banisters (and maybe Ferries) operation of ferreting out pro-Castro individuals and this is what Wendal Roache was talking about in the "Oswald In New Orleans" documents. But that might only be a mistaken assumption on the part of INS. In other words, Oswald could possibly have had no connection to Banister, Ferrie or Banisters office at all, but the above sequence as i've laid out could have misled the INS into thinking Oswald was part of the "group" at the Newman building as the "Oswald In New Orleans" document asserts. 

That in my opinion is a reasonable explanation for what we read in the "Oswald In New Orleans" document that does not require Oswald to actually have had anything to do with Banister and/or Ferrie.

I don’t know about that last part. Roache said, unambiguously, that Oswald was observed with Ferrie and that he was “known to be a member of Ferrie’s group.” He also said that Jim Garrison’s newspaper reports, which had Oswald milling around with Ferrie, were based off of correct intelligence information. 

When you combine that kind of statement from a federal agent with all the other evidence placing Oswald with Ferrie that Summer, I think it requires a hell of a stretch of the imagination to think that they didn’t know each other. 

[Gerry Down]

23 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I don’t know about that last part. Roache said, unambiguously, that Oswald was observed with Ferrie and that he was “known to be a member of Ferrie’s group.” He also said that Jim Garrison’s newspaper reports, which had Oswald milling around with Ferrie, were based off of correct intelligence information. 

When you combine that kind of statement from a federal agent with all the other evidence placing Oswald with Ferrie that Summer, I think it requires a hell of a stretch of the imagination to think that they didn’t know each other. 

What creates doubt about Oswald knowing Ferrie at the Newman building for me is Jack Martin. On the weekend of the assassination Martin was doing his best to tie Ferrie up with Oswald as part of a grudge he had against Ferrie. But in none of the statements he gave to the FBI in this regard did he ever say he actually saw Oswald and Ferrie together. That was only something Martin began to say when Jim Garrison arrived on the scene. Additionally, even at the time of the Garrison investigation, Delphine Roberts was denying she had seen Oswald at the Newman building. It was only years later, when she was considering writing a book according to Posner, did she begin to say she had seen Oswald at the building.

So in their earliest accounts, both Jack Martin and Delphine Roberts don't put Oswald at the Newman building and don't say they ever saw Oswald with Ferrie and/or Banister. That is why i'm inclined to take a cautious approach when interpreting the "Oswald In New Orleans" document. Yes Oswald was at the Newman building and had an office there in early June 1963. If the INS knew Oswald was one of DeBrueys men, the INS would probably have thought Oswald was a provocateur and so could have mistakenly assumed Oswalds presence at the Newman building was part of being a provocateur with Banister and Ferrie as part of all their anti-castro activity. I just think based on the info we have, there is a reasonable interpretation to it all that does not necessarily require Oswald to actually know Banister and/or Ferrie.

Though, the Gaudet account does throw that off quiet a bit I must admit. The Gaudet testimony suggests a working relationship between Banister and Oswald, though I have difficulty understanding how such a relationship could have come about. Oswald didn't need Banister from what I can see as part of his FPCC operation, so I dont know why the CIA would have put Banister and Oswald working together. And from what we previously discussed, it would seem somewhat unlikely that DeBrueys would have introduced Oswald to Banister to do the Tulane leafleting activity.

[Tom Gram]

30 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

What creates doubt about Oswald knowing Ferrie at the Newman building for me is Jack Martin. On the weekend of the assassination Martin was doing his best to tie Ferrie up with Oswald as part of a grudge he had against Ferrie. But in none of the statements he gave to the FBI in this regard did he ever say he actually saw Oswald and Ferrie together. That was only something Martin began to say when Jim Garrison arrived on the scene. Additionally, even at the time of the Garrison investigation, Delphine Roberts was denying she had seen Oswald at the Newman building. It was only years later, when she was considering writing a book according to Posner, did she begin to say she had seen Oswald at the building.

So in their earliest accounts, both Jack Martin and Delphine Roberts don't put Oswald at the Newman building and don't say they ever saw Oswald with Ferrie and/or Banister. That is why i'm inclined to take a cautious approach when interpreting the "Oswald In New Orleans" document. Yes Oswald was at the Newman building and had an office there in early June 1963. If the INS knew Oswald was one of DeBrueys men, the INS would probably have thought Oswald was a provocateur and so could have mistakenly assumed Oswalds presence at the Newman building was part of being a provocateur with Banister and Ferrie as part of all their anti-castro activity. I just think based on the info we have, there is a reasonable interpretation to it all that does not necessarily require Oswald to actually know Banister and/or Ferrie.

Though, the Gaudet account does throw that off quiet a bit I must admit. The Gaudet testimony suggests a working relationship between Banister and Oswald, though I have difficulty understanding how such a relationship could have come about. Oswald didn't need Banister from what I can see as part of his FPCC operation, so I dont know why the CIA would have put Banister and Oswald working together. And from what we previously discussed, it would seem somewhat unlikely that DeBrueys would have introduced Oswald to Banister to do the Tulane leafleting activity.

Roberts changed her story - and I can think of several reasons why she might do that, and the same goes for Martin. Martin did have a grudge against Ferrie but that doesn’t mean his story of an Oswald association was a total fabrication. Trying to connect a guy you hate to a Presidential assassin just to screw with them is pretty out-there, but more importantly, Martin, Roberts, and even Roache are not even close to the only witnesses tying Oswald to Ferrie that Summer. There’s just too much independent corroboration to just toss it all out the window, and when you add an extremely credible witness like Roache it’s pretty much a slam dunk, IMO. Even the HSCA had to admit to a likely Oswald-Ferrie association, and we also know that the two men actually knew each other from the CAP. 

Also, as far as I know, Ferrie was working out of the Balter Building in 1961, not the Newman Building. The CRC supposedly left the Newman building prior to the Summer of ‘63, but Banister was still there, and Ferrie and Banister were still very close at that time. Also, I’m pretty sure Banister was still working on Ferrie’s Eastern Airlines case that Summer, and if that’s true Ferrie would’ve been a frequent visitor. 

Basically I don’t really see any evidence supporting your theory that the INS made a mistake and that Roache didn’t know what he was talking about when he said that Oswald was observed with Ferrie and was known to be a part of his group. The evidence overall actually suggests the opposite. Also, according to Roache, Ferrie was the one under surveillance, so I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that the INS didn’t just post up outside a building Ferrie didn’t even work at full time and jump to the conclusion that anyone entering that building, even for only a couple days, was one of his associates. 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Roberts changed her story - and I can think of several reasons why she might do that, and the same goes for Martin. Martin did have a grudge against Ferrie but that doesn’t mean his story of an Oswald association was a total fabrication. Trying to connect a guy you hate to a Presidential assassin just to screw with them is pretty out-there, but more importantly, Martin, Roberts, and even Roache are not even close to the only witnesses tying Oswald to Ferrie that Summer. There’s just too much independent corroboration to just toss it all out the window, and when you add an extremely credible witness like Roache it’s pretty much a slam dunk, IMO. Even the HSCA had to admit to a likely Oswald-Ferrie association, and we also know that the two men actually knew each other from the CAP. 

Also, as far as I know, Ferrie was working out of the Balter Building in 1961, not the Newman Building. The CRC supposedly left the Newman building prior to the Summer of ‘63, but Banister was still there, and Ferrie and Banister were still very close at that time. Also, I’m pretty sure Banister was still working on Ferrie’s Eastern Airlines case that Summer, and if that’s true Ferrie would’ve been a frequent visitor. 

Basically I don’t really see any evidence supporting your theory that the INS made a mistake and that Roache didn’t know what he was talking about when he said that Oswald was observed with Ferrie and was known to be a part of his group. The evidence overall actually suggests the opposite. Also, according to Roache, Ferrie was the one under surveillance, so I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that the INS didn’t just post up outside a building Ferrie didn’t even work at full time and jump to the conclusion that anyone entering that building, even for only a couple days, was one of his associates. 

The problem there, as I understand it, is that Roache was not actually a witness to this. Some of his INS colleagues told him Oswald had been at the building, but Roache didn't actually see him there himself. In court that would be hearsay. And they don't allow hearsay because, in this case for example, Roache could have mistook what his colleagues had actually said or meant when talking about Oswald in relation to the Newman building. 

Personally what I think myself is that Oswald had an office at 544 Camp street for 3 days in early June. Banister found out about it and asked Sam Newman to put Oswald out of the building which Newman did. In this scenario, Oswald would have been at the Newman building for 3 days, picked up on surveillance by INS, but Oswald never actually went over to Banisters side of the building at Lafayette street. And this is why Jack Martin and Delphine Roberts never actually saw Oswald at Banisters office as per their earliest accounts. 

That would not rule out the possibility that Banister and Oswald developed some type of relationship after this, perhaps some weeks afterwards, as per the Gaudet account, in which they worked together on the Tulane leafleting or some other issue. Maybe even Ferrie was brought in on this in some fashion. But this relationship with Banister would not be at the Newman building, otherwise Jack Martin and/or Delphine Roberts should have seen Oswald there. Remember, Gaudet said he saw Banister and Oswald on the street. I wonder if DeBrueys could have introduced Oswald to Banister for the Tulane activity, but never actually told Oswald that Banister was a private detective. DeBrueys could have said that Banister was a fellow FBI agent and would be handling him in as far as the Tulane leafleting was concerned. I wonder if DeBrueys and Banister would have considered that an ok relationship and was not interfering with Banisters cover as a private detective. 

You could be right in what you say. I just tend to take a conservative approach to evidence because I know when you are dealing with the MSM or professional historians, they demand quiet a high level of evidence to win them over. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Gerry Down

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/13/2022 at 6:44 PM, 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.)

 

It's worse than that. Oswald didn't stay just one night each at those four-star hotels. He spent two nights at the $200 hotel and four nights at the $120 hotel. He could have saved $844 by staying at a hostel! (These are all in 2022 dollars.)

 

(What a coincidence... I just randomly picked two documents from today's document release and one of them gave the number of days stayed at the Helsinki hotels. Record #104-10015-10401)

 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The problem there, as I understand it, is that Roache was not actually a witness to this. Some of his INS colleagues told him Oswald had been at the building, but Roache didn't actually see him there himself. In court that would be hearsay. And they don't allow hearsay because, in this case for example, Roache could have mistook what his colleagues had actually said or meant when talking about Oswald in relation to the Newman building. 

Personally what I think myself is that Oswald had an office at 544 Camp street for 3 days in early June. Banister found out about it and asked Sam Newman to put Oswald out of the building which Newman did. In this scenario, Oswald would have been at the Newman building for 3 days, picked up on surveillance by INS, but Oswald never actually went over to Banisters side of the building at Lafayette street. And this is why Jack Martin and Delphine Roberts never actually saw Oswald at Banisters office as per their earliest accounts. 

That would not rule out the possibility that Banister and Oswald developed some type of relationship after this, perhaps some weeks afterwards, as per the Gaudet account, in which they worked together on the Tulane leafleting or some other issue. Maybe even Ferrie was brought in on this in some fashion. But this relationship with Banister would not be at the Newman building, otherwise Jack Martin and/or Delphine Roberts should have seen Oswald there. Remember, Gaudet said he saw Banister and Oswald on the street. I wonder if DeBrueys could have introduced Oswald to Banister for the Tulane activity, but never actually told Oswald that Banister was a private detective. DeBrueys could have said that Banister was a fellow FBI agent and would be handling him in as far as the Tulane leafleting was concerned. I wonder if DeBrueys and Banister would have considered that an ok relationship and was not interfering with Banisters cover as a private detective. 

You could be right in what you say. I just tend to take a conservative approach to evidence because I know when you are dealing with the MSM or professional historians, they demand quiet a high level of evidence to win them over. 

As you’re probably aware, Roache changed his story. In his first call he said he’d be “waiting 12 years to talk to someone about this”, and said he saw Oswald around all the time and that Oswald “had an office in”... By his second call he’d only seen Oswald once passing out flyers, so it’s not exactly clear if Roache really didn’t take part in the surveillance of Ferrie or he was just doing some CYA while still trying to be cooperative. 

Fortunately, the Church Committee had good investigators that followed up with Roache’s coworkers and took testimony from at least one other INS investigator plus Roache’s boss Art Bero, who was the INS investigations chief. The Committee unquestionably would have sought corroboration for Roache’s explosive claims - but as you know all of that testimony plus every pre-interview report etc. on Bero, the guy who’d know the most, has disappeared. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Allen Lowe]

On 12/12/2022 at 10:33 PM, Bob Ness said:

Have you tried contacting him yet?

Sorry, I’ve been back-and-forth this week on some medical stuff but I will work on it.

[Matt Allison]

 

[Guest]

On 12/14/2022 at 11:45 AM, Steve Roe said:

Lance, disregard DiEugenio's sophomoric answer to Helsinki Hotels in 1959. As usual he hasn't a clue, nothing new.

For the record, in 1959 the Finnish Markka (Pre-Euro currency) was 320FM to $1 USD. Researching old newspaper records back in 1958-59, First Class Hotels in Helsinki were going for $7.50 USD a night. I haven't found the cost for one night stay in the Torni or the Klause Kurki, but it's patently silly to believe it was anywhere near $100/night in 1959. The Klause Kurki was closer to the Soviet Embassy than the Torni, only 0.7 mile walk from that hotel. Reasonable to assume the Torni was a little more expensive. 

These were the days when the US$ was strong against other currencies. 

Also, Finland lifted the visa requirement for American citizen tourists in 1958, meaning Oswald could come in/out on his American Passport. There were many tourists from America going on Russian tours via Finland, this was nothing extraordinary. 

We do know, as per the record, Oswald spent $300 USD on Russian In-Tourist vouchers. 

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Steve Roe]

On 12/17/2022 at 7:08 AM, Lance Payette said:

Exploring these little factoids of conspiracy gospel has become practically a secondary hobby of mine. Again and again, one finds some "fact" stated by some conspiracy author with a reference or citation that simply doesn't check out. That "fact" is then repeated, again and again, by subsequent generations of conspiracy authors, even some of the most respected, with the original author cited as the source.

A perfect example of this is Mr. DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed" 2nd edition book. I had the misfortune to suffer reading through that book. Countless citations to other conspiracy book authors as if it were fact. Then all the sinister mysteries such as Rose Cheramie, the Cuban Doctor in Pennsylvania, on and on.... that Mr. DiEugenio never tries to relate to each other to make sense. 

Enough of Mr. DiEugenio today. I believe most reasonable people see the conspiracy story telling charade that he's engaged in. 

[Bob Ness]

On 12/17/2022 at 5:08 AM, Lance Payette said:

One has to wonder, why would a genuine defector be concerned about conserving his U.S. cash?

Uh gee. Maybe cuz the US dollar was worth 100,000 times more in Russia? Particularly at that time.

Golly that was tough.