Jefferson Morley on How the CIA Deceived the JFK Review Board

[Douglas Caddy]

 

How the CIA Deceived the JFK Review Board (substack.com)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

22 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

How the CIA Deceived the JFK Review Board (substack.com)

The CIA certainly knew that Joannides was the case officer for the DRE in 1963. And it is true they did not volunteer this information as it is normal policy for them to not give things away.

But Morley has no valid reason to doubt the CIA’s assertion that they searched for “Howard” in their databases and found no record of him. DRE men that Morley interviewed stated that Joannides was “Howard.” Their statements are the only verification of this “fact.” Even the MFF only lists Joannides as “Howard” as being “probable.”

There was a Howard Brubaker on the Cuban operations staff at the time. So, the possibility exists that he was “Howard” and acted as a go-between for Joannides and the DRE. The DRE men never saw the photo of Joannides until years and years later so they could be mistaken.

But even if Joannides was “Howard” the CIA researchers (Harrelson) would not necessarily know. Joannides registered pseudonym was “Newby” not “Howard.” So, if he used “Howard” it was an informal alias and not necessarily known by headquarters. David Phillips testified that he had used as many as 100 of these in his career and they certainly were undocumented.

As for the monthly DRE progress reports that Morley believes are “missing” he has no reason to believe that the CIA did not do a thorough search for the records as they stated. He also has no legitimate reason to believe that the CIA is withholding the reports for some nefarious purpose.

The case officer before Joannides filed monthly reports as apparently did the one after Joannides. However, it could be that Joannides chose to not file monthly reports for whatever reason. Note that Joannides was not chastised for poor reporting on his performance records. It could also be that the reports are missing as are many other records related to the JFK case. It is unreasonable to assume the worst automatically as Morley always does when it comes to the CIA.

[Guest]

I get what you are stating, but I don't think "it could be that Joannides chose to not file monthly reports for whatever reason".

IMO, that's not how the CIA worked.  As far as I know all government agencies had/have strict reporting procedures, and it's not like an agent can simply choose to report or not.  In a case where an exception is needed, I bet there is a specific instruction to back it up (and at least that could/should be provided).

 

 

[Steve Rosen]

The CIA is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt regarding George Joannides. 

They also claimed ignorance about Maurice/Morris Bishop -- even though multiple operations officers used the name Bishop name as a pseudonym, including and especially David Atlee Phillips, who assigned the Bishop moniker when needed as a way to track unwieldy operations (similar to how the Oswald file was used as a dangle for moles).

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Steve Rosen said:

The CIA is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt regarding George Joannides. 

They also claimed ignorance about Maurice/Morris Bishop -- even though multiple operations officers used the name Bishop name as a pseudonym, including and especially David Atlee Phillips, who assigned the Bishop moniker when needed as a way to track unwieldy operations (similar to how the Oswald file was used as a dangle for moles).

The Bishop Hoax ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I get what you are stating, but I don't think "it could be that Joannides chose to not file monthly reports for whatever reason".

IMO, that's not how the CIA worked.  As far as I know all government agencies had/have strict reporting procedures, and it's not like an agent can simply choose to report or not.  In a case where an exception is needed, I bet there is a specific instruction to back it up (and at least that could/should be provided).

 

 

Joannides either chose not to file reports (as suggested to Morley by Harrelson) because of the diminishing influence of the DRE, or the reports are missing. We know this because Joannides was not disciplined for failing to file reports. So, either they were ok with him not doing so in this instance or the reports were filed and are now missing along with other materials. No reason to believe there was anything nefarious. Except if you're Morley.

[Steve Rosen]

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The Bishop Hoax ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Thanks W. Tracy, I've read your hoax report.

There's a lot you're missing about Maurice/Morris Bishop -- who used the name besides Phillips, how it was used as an operational tracking device, why Phillips could plausibly deny he was Bishop, why other officers could feign ignorance on the subject without lying, etc.

You've done a nice job of putting together public information on the Bishop name, but there's a lot more to the story than that.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

49 minutes ago, Steve Rosen said:

Thanks W. Tracy, I've read your hoax report.

There's a lot you're missing about Maurice/Morris Bishop -- who used the name besides Phillips, how it was used as an operational tracking device, why Phillips could plausibly deny he was Bishop, why other officers could feign ignorance on the subject without lying, etc.

You've done a nice job of putting together public information on the Bishop name, but there's a lot more to the story than that.

Please do enlighten us.

[Steve Rosen]

W. Tracey, I have already provided you light about Bishop in my two previous comments.

My information on the Bishop name comes from years of research.

If you want to flesh out the Maurice/Morris Bishop story, I would suggest speaking with former CIA operatives and interviewing associates of Dave Phillips, as well as seeking self-published materials from former intelligence officers.

[Tom Gram]

Are the only missing progress reports from August and November ‘63? If that’s the case then yes, it’s suspicious. Also the CIA repeatedly lied about Joannides and violated a formal agreement with the HSCA to make the one guy who’d know the most about Carlos Bringuier and what was happening in New Orleans the liaison on CIA records, so they do not deserve anything even resembling the benefit of the doubt on this. 

[James DiEugenio]

It is even worse than that.

Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez told me, and others, that when the  CIA recalled George, the ground rules changed with the HSCA and in more than one way.

Prior to this, they wre allowed to go to Langley, and the CAI would directly respond to their requests in an expedited way.  They were allowed to make notes and bring the notes home with them.  They were making real progress.

When George came in, this changed.  Now, they were not allowed to go to HQ, there was a safe built in the HSCA building with a gatekeeper right there.  Requests were made to the keeper and everything had to be signed off on, and they were not allowed to keep their notes.  They were stuffed in the safe also.

But further, George now presented them with either expurgated or the wrong files.  Dan thinks this was done on purpose as part of the CIA knowing the HSCA would not last and therefore he would impede their progress.

It worked.  For example, they never completed their appendix "Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA".  Eddie told me the hated that report.

[Benjamin Cole]

28 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Are the only missing progress reports from August and November ‘63? If that’s the case then yes, it’s suspicious. Also the CIA repeatedly lied about Joannides and violated a formal agreement with the HSCA to make the one guy who’d know the most about Carlos Bringuier and what was happening in New Orleans the liaison on CIA records, so they do not deserve anything even resembling the benefit of the doubt on this. 

Amen and duh.

Not only that, Bill Harvey is on record stating the CIA never used the word "assassination" or anything close to it, even in verbal communications regarding a plan to murder someone. 

Moreover, Harvey said intentionally misleading paperwork would be ginned up to cover tracks. 

Even so trusting a soul as Robert Blakey now says he cannot trust the CIA on anything that cannot be independently verified. 

The CIA is what it is.

My guess is that they are covering up having used LHO as an intel asset.

 

[Robin Finn]

From internal ARRB e-mails:

We have already made an informal request for DRE and MRR operational files for the time period of November, 1962 to April, 1964.  The relevant folders in the CIA sequestered collection microfilm reels contain only some of the monthly operational reports for DRE for months surrounding this time period.  At this time HRG/CIA has not responded to our informal request, which was officially made  on 09 September 96.FYI: My initial overview of these DRE op reports was performed as a result of a request by Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley last summer.  My initial recommendation at that time was to wait until we hit the relevant docs in our regular review of documents to ask for the op reports for November 1962 through April 1964; however, we can again indicate that we want "immediate" access to these reports in order to make them priority items for review

 

I reviewed the relevant boxes of microfilm printouts at the Agency yesterday in order to assess Morley's claim that the JFK collection does not contain the monthly operational reports for DRE for the time frame of November 1962 through April 1964.  Here is my report:All of the documents in the DRE folders of the microfilm, save one small "non-relevant" portion, have been released by the CIA (most in redacted form). After examining the contents of every DRE folder (including the "non-relevant" portion), I was able to locate the monthly operational report for November 1962.  None of the other reports Morley has asked about are in the folders.

[Larry Hancock]

Very interesting Robin...could you give a source or link for a reference on that email quote...thanks, Larry

[Lawrence Schnapf]

did ARRB actually use email in 1995. I dont think we started using that until 1997 or 1998 but could be wrong?