A mother lode of June Cobb interviews

[Greg Doudna]

CIA asset Viola June Cobb (1927-2015), who in her CIA work went by an alias calling herself Ms. Sharp (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=799#relPageId=245), was one of the most interesting and important CIA assets of relevance to Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City and related to the JFK assassination. Known for being beautiful and savvy, she was the downfall of many targeted men, almost like a female James Bond, working for the CIA. As late as 2017, CIA-withheld records of June Cobb were considered a priority of interest to those who sought compliance with the law requiring disclosure of JFK-assassination related records, disclosures resisted by the CIA.

(For example this article: “What could a mysterious US spy know about the JFK assassination? John F. Kennedy buffs are awaiting the release of documents about June Cobb, a little known CIA operative working in Cuba and Mexico around the time of the President’s assassination…”, May 20, 2017, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/20/what-could-a-mysterious-us-spy-know-about-the-jfk-assassination-215143/.)

Whether by coincidence or not, Oswald’s last book checked out of a library in his brief life, in Nov 1963, was The Shark and the Sardines, a popular book in Latin America translated into English by June Cobb. (Oddly, the book was neither returned to the library by Oswald nor was it found among Oswald’s belongings.)

June Cobb was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. The ARRB (Assassinations Records Review Board) sought CIA’s assistance in locating June Cobb so she could be questioned but received no cooperation from the CIA on that request and were unable to find her. But a Canadian filmmaker reported that he was able to find June Cobb in the phone book in New York City listed under her own name (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1802351063158512&set=up-early-today-scouring-the-last-release-of-jfk-files-in-search-of-my-lady-spy-v).

No post-JFK-assassination interview of June Cobb is known to have been published to my knowledge. She never gave a public talk or lecture. Never wrote an article or a book. Never was interviewed on TV. Just lived reclusively to herself in later years. What did she know? What would she say if she were willing to talk?

June Cobb was willing to talk and did. She was interviewed by the late author Hank Albarelli (1947-2019) for “hundreds of hours”, “at least twice a week for over two years”, ca. 2012-2013.

“… CIA Mexico City asset Viola June Cobb, with whom I became a very good friend.” (Coup in Dallas, xix)

“… my hundreds of hours talking to and interviewing June Cobb” (Albarelli, Coup in Dallas, xx)

“...This author [Albarelli] interviewed Viola June Cobb at least twice a week for over two years. She and I became good friends…” (Coup in Dallas, 179)

According to Albarelli, the friendship grew out of those twice-weekly interviews ("interviewed...became good friends").

It is not clear if June Cobb was alone or was accompanied by CIA officials during those twice-weekly meetings with Albarelli over the course of the two years.

“Many other people unselfishly assisted the author in writing this book [Coup in Dallas] [including…] three of June [Cobb]’s CIA handlers who must remain anonymous…” (Coup in Dallas, 559)

Is that a reference to June Cobb’s CIA handlers in the 1960s, or handlers of June Cobb at the twice-weekly meetings ca. 2012-2013? 

In either case, these three unnamed CIA personnel, whoever they are, are acknowledged for helping in the writing of Coup in Dallas.  

Albarelli was an experienced writer and journalist. There must be tapes and notes of those interviews of June Cobb—hundreds of hours worth. 

But none of those interviews have been published or are available for research. 

This could be a mother lode of information from one of the most important 1963 CIA witnesses with knowledge of some relevant things, who never otherwise in her life spoke publicly about what she knew of Oswald or the JFK assassination. Those interview records conceivably could rival or exceed in significance anything else currently withheld. 

Think of it--hundreds of hours of interviews of one of the hottest CIA sources relative to Oswald in Mexico City—she worked with Castro; was in Mexico City involved with other CIA people at the time of the Oswald trip; active in anti-Castro operations; active in anti-FPCC operations. 

Is anyone in a position to bring this mother lode of notes and tapes of June Cobb interviews to the light of day in the interests of history? I hope that might be done.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Tom Gram]

You know this, but I’d imagine the person in a position to share these interviews, assuming they actually occurred, is our own “Ms. Sharp” - the only person allowed to post under an alias on the Education Forum… 

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the probability of these Cobb interviews ever seeing the light of day are about the same as the datebook being authentic. 

Is there any proof that Albarelli even met Cobb? Until the Coup crew starts demonstrating something resembling transparency, I think it’s fair to assume that any footnote in that book that can’t be independently verified is probably made up. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Leslie Sharp]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

CIA asset Viola June Cobb (1927-2015), who in her CIA work went by an alias calling herself Ms. Sharp (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=799#relPageId=245), was one of the most interesting and important CIA assets of relevance to Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City and related to the JFK assassination. Known for being beautiful and savvy, she was the downfall of many targeted men, almost like a female James Bond, working for the CIA. As late as 2017, CIA-withheld records of June Cobb were considered a priority of interest to those who sought compliance with the law requiring disclosure of JFK-assassination related records, disclosures resisted by the CIA.

(For example this article: “What could a mysterious US spy know about the JFK assassination? John F. Kennedy buffs are awaiting the release of documents about June Cobb, a little known CIA operative working in Cuba and Mexico around the time of the President’s assassination…”, May 20, 2017, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/20/what-could-a-mysterious-us-spy-know-about-the-jfk-assassination-215143/.)

Whether by coincidence or not, Oswald’s last book checked out of a library in his brief life, in Nov 1963, was The Shark and the Sardines, a popular book in Latin America translated into English by June Cobb. (Oddly, the book was neither returned to the library by Oswald nor was it found among Oswald’s belongings.)

June Cobb was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. The ARRB (Assassinations Records Review Board) sought CIA’s assistance in locating June Cobb so she could be questioned but received no cooperation from the CIA on that request and were unable to find her. But a Canadian filmmaker reported that he was able to find June Cobb in the phone book in New York City listed under her own name (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1802351063158512&set=up-early-today-scouring-the-last-release-of-jfk-files-in-search-of-my-lady-spy-v).

No post-JFK-assassination interview of June Cobb is known to have been published to my knowledge. She never gave a public talk or lecture. Never wrote an article or a book. Never was interviewed on TV. Just lived reclusively to herself in later years. What did she know? What would she say if she were willing to talk?

June Cobb was willing to talk and did. She was interviewed by the late author Hank Albarelli (1947-2019) for “hundreds of hours”, “at least twice a week for over two years”, ca. 2012-2013.

“… CIA Mexico City asset Viola June Cobb, with whom I became a very good friend.” (Coup in Dallas, xix)

“… my hundreds of hours talking to and interviewing June Cobb” (Albarelli, Coup in Dallas, xx)

“...This author [Albarelli] interviewed Viola June Cobb at least twice a week for over two years. She and I became good friends…” (Coup in Dallas, 179)

According to Albarelli, the friendship grew out of those twice-weekly interviews ("interviewed...became good friends").

It is not clear if June Cobb was alone or was accompanied by CIA officials during those twice-weekly meetings with Albarelli over the course of the two years.

“Many other people unselfishly assisted the author in writing this book [Coup in Dallas] [including…] three of June [Cobb]’s CIA handlers who must remain anonymous…” (Coup in Dallas, 559)

Is that a reference to June Cobb’s CIA handlers in the 1960s, or handlers of June Cobb at the twice-weekly meetings ca. 2012-2013? 

In either case, these three unnamed CIA personnel, whoever they are, are acknowledged for helping in the writing of Coup in Dallas.  

Albarelli was an experienced writer and journalist. There must be tapes and notes of those interviews of June Cobb—hundreds of hours worth. 

But none of those interviews have been published or are available for research. 

This could be a mother lode of information from one of the most important 1963 CIA witnesses with knowledge of some relevant things, who never otherwise in her life spoke publicly about what she knew of Oswald or the JFK assassination. Those interview records conceivably could rival or exceed in significance anything else currently withheld. 

Think of it--hundreds of hours of interviews of one of the hottest CIA sources relative to Oswald in Mexico City—she worked with Castro; was in Mexico City involved with other CIA people at the time of the Oswald trip; active in anti-Castro operations; active in anti-FPCC operations. 

Is anyone in a position to bring this mother lode of notes and tapes of June Cobb interviews to the light of day in the interests of history? I hope that might be done.

Hank's June Cobb / Mexico City project was under contract with University Press Kansas. Efforts have been underway for quite some time to ensure the tapes, his research, and the draft manuscript are secure and that the book, as he intended, will be published eventually.  The decision rests with Hank's estate.

I find it insulting you introduce a thread related to a project Hank had been working on for years and yet continue to publicly erode confidence in  his last investigation, "Coup in Dallas."  Do you intend to challenge the veracity of the Cobb tapes or the professionalism and credibility of those who contribute to seeing Hank's  June Cobb project through to fruition?  What is your game, Greg? 

And, I might ask, why don't you consult John Newman if you're so interested in June Cobb?

Edited August 18, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You know this, but I’d imagine the person in a position to share these interviews, assuming they actually occurred, is our own “Ms. Sharp” - the only person allowed to post under an alias on the Education Forum… 

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the probability of these Cobb interviews ever seeing the light of day are about the same as the datebook being authentic. 

Is there any proof that Albarelli even met Cobb? Until the Coup crew starts demonstrating something resembling transparency, I think it’s fair to assume that any footnote in that book that can’t be independently verified is probably made up. 

Please see my response to Greg.  And I would ask the same of you, Tom: what's your game here?

 

[Greg Doudna]

54 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Hank's June Cobb / Mexico City project was under contract with University Press Kansas. Efforts have been underway for quite some time to ensure the tapes, his research, and the draft manuscript are secure and that the book, as he intended, will be published eventually.  The decision rests with Hank's estate.

I find it insulting you introduce a thread related to a project Hank had been working on for years and yet continue to publicly erode confidence in  his last investigation, "Coup in Dallas."  Do you intend to challenge the veracity of the Cobb tapes or the professionalism and credibility of those who contribute to seeing Hank's  June Cobb project through to fruition?  What is your game, Greg? 

And, I might ask, why don't you consult John Newman if you're so interested in June Cobb?

Excuse me, what have I said here that “continues to erode confidence” in Coup in Dallas? What specifically that I have written here do you consider “insulting”? Why?

But on that topic, how is the authenticity forensic analysis proceeding that you said a while ago was underway, even though you would not say what kind or by who or where? Forensic ink analysis can date the year of the ink used, whether 1963 or a later year; is available all over the United States including in New Mexico; and according to online descriptions of professionals offering such has turnaround time of a few days for results. Why not decide this week to get that done, commit in advance to transparency as to the results, and by next week have the matter settled on that point?

You know what I have noticed missing from you? I wish I heard language from you saying something like “I believe this datebook is authentic, but if it isn’t, I want to know as much as anyone.” 

Why not get the ink analyzed? What’s not to like about finding out the date of the ink used in the writing in the datebook over the next few days, allowing the results to be published, and perhaps inviting (with the moderators’ permission) the forensic ink analyst on to this forum as a guest appearance to explain the science, the methodology, and answer questions?

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Excuse me, what have I said here that “continues to erode confidence” in Coup in Dallas? What specifically that I have written here do you consider “insulting”? Why?

But on that topic, how is the authenticity forensic analysis proceeding that you said a while ago was underway, even though you would not say what kind or by who or where? Forensic ink analysis can date the year of the ink used, whether 1963 or a later year; is available all over the United States including in New Mexico; and according to online descriptions of professionals offering such has turnaround time of a few days for results. Why not decide this week to get that done, commit in advance to transparency as to the results, and by next week have the matter settled on that point?

You know what I have noticed missing from you? I wish I heard language from you saying something like “I believe this datebook is authentic, but if it isn’t, I want to know as much as anyone.” 

Why not get the ink analyzed? What’s not to like about finding out the date of the ink used in the writing in the datebook over the next few days, allowing the results to be published, and perhaps inviting (with the moderators’ permission) the forensic ink analyst on to this forum as a guest appearance to explain the science, the methodology, and answer questions?

I'm not sure why I bother with your disingenuine effort at professional objectivity.  It was clear from early December 2019 that you were not approaching Hank's investigation presented in Coup in Dallas with any degree of professionalism. You used the coauthor's statement as a foil to "review" a book that apparently shook your foundational understanding of the assassination in Dallas.

Had anyone other than you posted the following, I would read it differently.

Even @Tom Gram who to my knowledge (and apologies to Tom if I'm ill-in formed)  is not well-versed in the nuance of the investigation into Kennedy's assassination in Dallas, picked up on the subtle implications of your remarks . . .  and ran with them. 

However (and for those on EF who are unfamiliar with our history), you and I know what is in play here: 

According to Albarelli, the friendship grew out of those twice-weekly interviews ("interviewed...became good friends").

It is not clear if June Cobb was alone or was accompanied by CIA officials during those twice-weekly meetings with Albarelli over the course of the two years. (innuendo?)

“Many other people unselfishly assisted the author in writing this book [Coup in Dallas] [including…] three of June [Cobb]’s CIA handlers who must remain anonymous…” (Coup in Dallas, 559)

Is that a reference to June Cobb’s CIA handlers in the 1960s, or handlers of June Cobb at the twice-weekly meetings ca. 2012-2013? (suggesting that a seasoned investigative reporter, Albarelli, would agree to being babysat during his sessions with June? are you serious?)

In either case, these three unnamed CIA personnel, whoever they are, are acknowledged for helping in the writing of Coup in Dallas.  (That is patently absurd, Doudna, and you know it. You've lifted from Hank's acknowledgements and slipped in a casual interpretation to suggest  intelligence agents contributed to the writing of Coup in Dallas.  Do members on this forum fall for such tactics?)

[Leslie Sharp]

46 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Excuse me, what have I said here that “continues to erode confidence” in Coup in Dallas? What specifically that I have written here do you consider “insulting”? Why?

But on that topic, how is the authenticity forensic analysis proceeding that you said a while ago was underway, even though you would not say what kind or by who or where? Forensic ink analysis can date the year of the ink used, whether 1963 or a later year; is available all over the United States including in New Mexico; and according to online descriptions of professionals offering such has turnaround time of a few days for results. Why not decide this week to get that done, commit in advance to transparency as to the results, and by next week have the matter settled on that point?

You know what I have noticed missing from you? I wish I heard language from you saying something like “I believe this datebook is authentic, but if it isn’t, I want to know as much as anyone.” 

Why not get the ink analyzed? What’s not to like about finding out the date of the ink used in the writing in the datebook over the next few days, allowing the results to be published, and perhaps inviting (with the moderators’ permission) the forensic ink analyst on to this forum as a guest appearance to explain the science, the methodology, and answer questions?

You have ignored my previous contributions that answer every single question you posit here, again.

Why would I repeat myself under the banner of a June Cobb thread?

Go back and review the Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963 thread, and once you've studied my previous responses and still have questions, post them on that thread.

[Greg Doudna]

Let's lower the temperature here. On the ink dating, no you never explained what difficulties prevent you from having the ink dated on the other thread. You told of difficulties in getting access to prior ink analyses that had been done on the datebook years earlier, not by you, that no one today is allowed to see or know, you included, you explained. Nothing prevents you from getting a new ink dating done that is within your power to access results and make open and transparent to the wider field of researchers--a limited forensic examination solely of the ink even if other forms of forensic examination such as handwriting authentication, however desirable, may not be so easy to get done immediately. Dating of the ink is the most important test for forgery in this case and it can be done with a few days turnaround time and cost is not prohibitive. By your own account you are the sole decider standing in the way of deciding to do this. What not to like about that? Why not do it?

On this:

“Many other people unselfishly assisted the author in writing this book [Coup in Dallas] [including…] three of June [Cobb]’s CIA handlers who must remain anonymous…” (Coup in Dallas, 559)

Is that a reference to June Cobb’s CIA handlers in the 1960s, or handlers of June Cobb at the twice-weekly meetings ca. 2012-2013? (suggesting that a seasoned investigative reporter, Albarelli, would agree to being babysat during his sessions with June? are you serious?)

I did not mean it that way. The reference to three anonymous "CIA handlers" of June is written in Coup in Dallas in the present tense, but it could mean handlers of June back in the 1960s when June is known to have been paid by CIA as an operative. Yet, the three CIA handlers are certainly all three in present time in the sense of being including among those credited with having assisted Albarelli in the writing of the book.

Can you clarify, if you know, whether the reference to "June's CIA handlers" refers to handling of June Cobb in ca. 1963 or ca. 2011-2013 range, and if the latter how would that handling work other than being present with her when she was interviewed? That was the reason for the question. 

If an opportunity for hours of interview material with a witness as significant as June Cobb was conditional upon June Cobb having handlers present when interviewed, sure I can imagine a seasoned investigative reporter agreeing, if those were the conditions. 

So, yes, the question in the form I asked it was serious. Do you have sufficient knowledge to be able to answer the question? Thanks. 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm not sure why I bother with your disingenuine effort at professional objectivity.  It was clear from early December 2019 that you were not approaching Hank's investigation presented in Coup in Dallas with any degree of professionalism. You used the coauthor's statement as a foil to "review" a book that apparently shook your foundational understanding of the assassination in Dallas.

I never reviewed Coup in Dallas.

I questioned the security of the authenticity of a source used in Coup in Dallas, in discussions on this forum.  

If you cannot see the difference, and keep repeating that I wrote a book review without reading the book, not much I can say. I read everything in the book relevant to the security of the authenticity of the source, said what I thought, noted widespread incidence of forgeries, suggested forensic examination. I saw that issue the first day the book arrived to me from Amazon when it first came out.  

I have written and published several book reviews, and I assure you if I review a book I will read the book.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I never reviewed Coup in Dallas.

I questioned the security of the authenticity of a source used in Coup in Dallas, in discussions on this forum.  

If you cannot see the difference, and keep repeating that I wrote a book review without reading the book, not much I can say. I read everything in the book relevant to the security of the authenticity of the source, said what I thought, noted widespread incidence of forgeries, suggested forensic examination. I saw that issue the first day the book arrived to me from Amazon when it first came out.  

I have written and published several book reviews, and I assure you if I review a book I will read the book.

 

Please notify Amazon that yours is not a "review" but a challenge of authenticity.

Let's see if Amazon has the integrity to recognize the difference, or might they be in league with disinformationists tracking the latest progress in the cold case murder investigation?

I expect to see your Amazon notification posted on EF as well.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Greg Doudna]

Just now, Leslie Sharp said:

Please notify Amazon that yours is not a "review" but a challenge of authenticity. Let's see if Amazon has the integrity to recognize the difference.

I expect to see that notification posted on EF as well.

I have never at any time posted any review in any form on Amazon, concerning Coup in Dallas, or any other work of Albarelli. What are you talking about?

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I have never at any time posted any review in any form on Amazon, concerning Coup in Dallas, or any other work of Albarelli. What are you talking about?

Do you stand by that?

Why haven't you made this definitive statement before now?

I saw your review in early 2022, and shared it with our working group; presumably I saved the email which includes the Amazon link.

 

[Tom Gram]

I’ll attempt to spell this out in the simplest way imaginable:

1. Datebook: unauthenticated

2. Cobb interviews: unverified 

Solution? 

1. Ink analysis, etc. 

2. Proof that Albarelli actually conducted “hundreds of hours” of interviews with June Cobb. Clarification on these alleged “CIA handlers”, etc. 

The only reason you are being met with skepticism is your remarkable lack of transparency and defensiveness towards anyone who ask totally reasonable, legitimate questions about the evidence cited in Coup in Dallas. Call me crazy, but I don’t take anyone’s word for anything in JFK land, especially anyone who claims to have exclusive access to evidence that’s never been independently authenticated. 

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Do you stand by that?
Why haven't you made this definitive statement before now?
I saw your review in early 2022, and shared it with our working group; presumably I saved the email which includes the Amazon link.

Yes I stand by that. I had no idea that is what you meant or I would have been happy to have made that statement earlier, did not realize that is what you meant or thought. 

No, I never put up any review on Amazon re Coup in Dallas. Nor was I indirectly behind any other review on Amazon of Coup in Dallas. 

 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

41 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I’ll attempt to spell this out in the simplest way imaginable:

1. Datebook: unauthenticated

2. Cobb interviews: unverified 

Solution? 

1. Ink analysis, etc. 

2. Proof that Albarelli actually conducted “hundreds of hours” of interviews with June Cobb. Clarification on these alleged “CIA handlers”, etc. 

The only reason you are being met with skepticism is your remarkable lack of transparency and defensiveness towards anyone who ask totally reasonable, legitimate questions about the evidence cited in Coup in Dallas. Call me crazy, but I don’t take anyone’s word for anything in JFK land, especially anyone who claims to have exclusive access to evidence that’s never been independently authenticated. 

1. As noted previously, status of datebook examination is: incomplete pending additional exemplars.

2. I won't distinguish your inuendo with anything other than, how utterly stupid of you.

1. Initial ink analysis in London November 2018, as noted by the parties that financed the examination: . . .  verification of any historical document, including this one, is an inexact science, and we are not seeking incontrovertible proof of authenticity. We feel that the ink and handwriting will, however, show that the DB is authentic beyond reasonable doubt, which is sufficient for our purposes.  Another round of meetings with broadcasters has already been set up, to be triggered as soon as we have that confirmation from O>>> and the ink analyst.  The ink analyst has told me he will have his full report to me shortly. . . .  By then we will have the ink report too, and will proceed to a second round of meetings with broadcasters.

2. see above.

Tom, This is the final exchange I'll have with you on this thread regarding the datebook; if you would like to continue, please do so on the thread labeled, Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963.

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Leslie Sharp