Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted
44 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This will answer the questions Denis and others may have I believe:

Morley Disinfo Leads to Misleading Media Reports ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Just a point to clarify, I didn't think the ARRB had seen the 44 files on Joannides. I remember Tunheim saying he had seen Joannides personel file and there was nothing remarkable in it, but I didn't know the ARRB had looked at as many as 44 documents on Joannides and reviewed them. Can you confirm this point?

Morley suspects that 44 unreleased documents from the Joannides file will support his theory. But he does not know that. How could he when he has never seen those documents? Morley says that he has witnesses who will support his theory. But he neither presented nor named the alleged witnesses at the press conference. And as anyone who has studied the assassination knows, there are all sorts of individuals who say all sorts of things for any number of reasons. But they are not all telling the truth. So, any claims by a witness would not constitute "smoking gun" proof of an "Oswald Operation."

Additionally, the ARRB reviewed the documents in question back in the nineties and determined that they were "general" in nature and contained "no information relevant to the assassination." While the analyst, Michelle Combs, may not be as steeped in assassination lore as Morley is, she would undoubtedly be able to recognize an operation that targeted the FPCC in New Orleans even if Oswald was not mentioned by name.

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
18 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Just a point to clarify, I didn't think the ARRB had seen the 44 files on Joannides. I remember Tunheim saying he had seen Joannides personel file and there was nothing remarkable in it, but I didn't know the ARRB had looked at as many as 44 documents on Joannides and reviewed them. Can you confirm this point?

I am working on this now.

Posted

What you would be suggesting is that the ARRB looked at the Joannides files and determined they were not related to the JFK assassination and so did not include those documents in the JFK records collection. 

I think the Joannides files say he was managing some student group but never specifically refer to this group as the DRE. If they did, the ARRB would have recognized the term DRE in so far as Oswald interacted with that group while in New Orleans. And so would have included Joannides files in the JFK records collection.

Posted

Tracy, going back to the original Morley and Newman interview of Jane Roman, that sounded like pretty close to confirmation of a CIA operation involving Oswald--a reported opinion of an insider in a position to know that her signature and that of other high-ranking others on a document meant her colleagues' interest in an agency operation involving Oswald. That Jane Roman might later contest that is what she said (if so), setting up a they say/she says contradiction (if so) seems insufficient to dismiss the report outright given motive to deny or walk back what may have been unwisely admitted and the credibility of the two reporters of the statement. 

When that is combined with what looks like Oswald wrapped up in spooky stuff in New Orleans and Mexico City--in the absence of any witness or documents or other evidence, just from appearances, the same appearances that caused Soviet and Cuban intelligence to suspect such--there is the impression of something there. Two questions: do you see grounds to (a) think that is mistaken and more likely there was "nothing there"? and (b) if you think there may have been "something there" in terms of a CIA operation involving Oswald, do you have any conjecture what it might have been?

These questions, I hope is clear, are distinct from the issues related to the current Morley claim. Thanks--

Posted
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

What you would be suggesting is that the ARRB looked at the Joannides files and determined they were not related to the JFK assassination and so did not include those documents in the JFK records collection. 

I think the Joannides files say he was managing some student group but never specifically refer to this group as the DRE. If they did, the ARRB would have recognized the term DRE in so far as Oswald interacted with that group while in New Orleans. And so would have included Joannides files in the JFK records collection.

It is my understanding that the ARRB looked at the complete file. You are correct that the available files do not refer to the DRE specifically. You may be correct that the files would have been included in this information was there. But, in any case, I believe the full file was reviewed and was very general as are the files that are available. I don't believe they would have any specific information such as the type Morley thinks they do regarding wiretaps and so on. But I am still working to clarify what the ARRB saw if possible. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

This is really good.  Nice column by Jeff.

Does two things, puts the pressure on the prez, and gets Tunheim directly involved.

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is my understanding that the ARRB looked at the complete file. You are correct that the available files do not refer to the DRE specifically. You may be correct that the files would have been included in this information was there. But, in any case, I believe the full file was reviewed and was very general as are the files that are available. I don't believe they would have any specific information such as the type Morley thinks they do regarding wiretaps and so on. But I am still working to clarify what the ARRB saw if possible. 

My understanding is the Joannides files also say he had a house in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. You would think any CIA officer in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 should have had their file included in the JFK records collection, if even so researchers could discount that person as having anything to do with the JFK assassination. Though maybe that would have been too wide a net to cast.

It's quiet possible the ARRB dropped the ball on this. If Jeff Morley was able to find out that Joannides was the DRE case officer, then the ARRB should have too.

Posted
34 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

My understanding is the Joannides files also say he had a house in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. You would think any CIA officer in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 should have had their file included in the JFK records collection, if even so researchers could discount that person as having anything to do with the JFK assassination. Though maybe that would have been too wide a net to cast.

It's quiet possible the ARRB dropped the ball on this. If Jeff Morley was able to find out that Joannides was the DRE case officer, then the ARRB should have too.

The complete Joannides file should probably have been declared a JFK record-I agree.

Posted

BTW, did everyone hear what Tunheim said during the press conference?

He was the only ARRB member there since he is the only living member.

I looked this up and its true.  Graff, Joyce, Nelson and Hall have all passed on.  

Whew.  Four out of five.

Posted

There's no reason for the CIA to withhold info on an employee from 60 freakin years ago. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's bullsh*t.

If they have nothing to hide, release every document on him. It's clearly in the national interest to put the matter to rest.

Posted

I agree and Tunheim was good on this point.

He said, that even back then, when the ARRB heard this excuse, most of the time they did not buy it.

So how could it hold today, 27 years later?

Its really kind of sickening.

Posted

i am looking forward to seeing these documents.

Posted
7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is my understanding that the ARRB looked at the complete file. You are correct that the available files do not refer to the DRE specifically. You may be correct that the files would have been included in this information was there. But, in any case, I believe the full file was reviewed and was very general as are the files that are available. I don't believe they would have any specific information such as the type Morley thinks they do regarding wiretaps and so on. But I am still working to clarify what the ARRB saw if possible. 

If the ARRB saw the complete Joannides file and determined that it wasn’t relevant, I think it would’ve been declared NBR, assigned a RIF and placed in the ARC anyway. Joannides’ file was not a part of any previous investigation, so I think the ARRB would have had to request it specifically and I don’t think they had any reason to do so at the time. Otherwise the CIA would have had to volunteer the file for review and I think it’s a pretty safe bet that didn’t happen. If you find any ARRB records that say otherwise let us know. 

Posted (edited)
On 12/6/2022 at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Well...nice presentation, but...it is still debatable whether LHO was a witting or unwitting asset, or whether the CIA just monitored LHO. 

I strongly suspect LHO was a type of witting asset, but of course the record is still hazy, largely due to government secrecy and the murder of LHO (itself highly suspicious). If I had to bet, I would bet LHO was an intel asset (of which there were hundreds and maybe even thousands at the time, due to the Cuba situation (Cuban exiles, mercenaries, Miami Station hangers-on, anti-Castro and anti-communists, and so on). 

I deeply admire Morley and others for pursuing the truth...something the M$M did not do then, nor does now. 

I just want to note that before LHO went to Russia he was in the hospital at Balaboa naval base where he told a gentleman named Gerald Gervais that he was working for the Office of Naval Intelligence. Gervais, who never went public with this, told me this around 1990, at a time when no one was talking about this type of Oswald connection. He was still quite frightened about having this knowledge, and refused to work with me on bringing it out, but it was clear he was telling the truth. So there is no doubt in my mind that Oswald was a witting asset.

Edited by Allen Lowe

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...