Victor Marchetti on "CIA to 'Admit' Hunt Involvement in Kennedy Slaying"

[Jean Ceulemans]

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you were here, Jim, when Trento joined the forum and confirmed he'd been shown the memo. As I recall, he said he couldn't authenticate it, or say for sure why Angleton showed it to him, but he wanted it made clear he was in fact shown a memo saying what he said it did. 

Pat, I don't think he said it here (that he was shown that memo), unless I'm looking in the wrong place ?

I do know there are about 4 versions of that story (never a good sign IMHO)

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Pat, I don't think he said it here (that he was shown that memo), unless I'm looking in the wrong place ?

I do know there are about 4 versions of that story (never a good sign IMHO)

I remember him joining the forum. And that I pestered him about the memo... I think he was invited here by Simkin to answer questions about a new book.

I see now a thread from 2005, but I don't see any questions about the memo, specifically, but he acknowledged speaking to Angleton and that Angleton had told him Hunt had been in Dallas while en route to Mexico City. 

Here's the give and take. 

1) Do CIA veterans openly acknowledge that Air America shipped opium? Is this something that is widely discussed? Should we accept this as history and not as rumor?

2) Did Angleton ever let on as to WHY Hunt was in Dallas in November 63? Could Oswald have been part of a Covert Domestic Ops plot to tie Lechuga, who'd been targeted for recruitment, to an assassination attempt on Kennedy? Or is this too far-fetched?

3) Did Angleton ever reveal what was in Mary Meyer's diary, or what he did with it?

1. I accept it as history. It was widely discussed by people in Air America and the support staff. Chris Robbin's book is very good.

2. Angleton said Hunt was in Dallas not to kill Kennedy but on his way either to or from Mexico City where the Agency had a Station Chief who had been injured in an accident. Angleton's take on the Kennedy case is all in Secret History.

3. He gave it to her children. The diary was more a sketchbook then smoking hot diary. But there was enough personal stuff in it to make clear she had been JFK's lover according to Angleton.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Jean:

There are not four versions of the story.

Not by those involved.

There is one story between Trento and Lane.

And it stood up under oath at trial.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Robert Reeves]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And your point is .... ? Just because he did "more work" than others doesn't mean his work has any validity to it whatsoever. Of course it is clear now that the three tramps do not include Charles Harrelson and Howard Hunt -- they're the three ordinary men whose DPD arrest records were found by the LaFontaines in the early 1990s.

My point ... you don't know that much about the 'Three Tramps'. So it's odd that you choose to critique what other's have done regarding them.

The document (below) was posted on this forum in reply to you, by another member, maybe you missed it? or just chose to ignore it? It clearly disclaims your belief that the three men photographed with the Dallas Police officers are who you say they are.

Marvin Wise, the DPD officer photographed with the three tramps when interviewed by the FBI in 1992 clearly states the 3 tramps he escorted from the trains tracks were RELEASED! They had not been jailed. 

 

Quote

Wise returned to Sheriff Decker's officer in order to determine whether or not the three hobos had been incarcerated. If the three in fact were jailed, Wise would be able to take credit for it. Wise was told by a deputy that the three had been released.

 

Presumably the three tramps photographed were released, on the day of the assassination. 

Doyle said it himself to the FBI in 1992, he was sentenced to 6 days, for vagrancy, but released after 3 days.

 

So how can  Gus Abrams, Harold Doyle, and John Gedney be the 'Three Tramps'? Their arrest records also validate Doyle's claims that he & the other two were released several days after their arrest (arrest sheet says 11/26/63)

So what is going on here @Jonathan Cohen

?

[Joe Bauer]

If Angleton really did give Mary Meyer's children her dairy, who's to say that in the time he possessed it certain content "edits" may have been made to it?

And if Mary Meyer's diary actually contained passages that proved she and JFK had been lovers off and on for quite awhile, Meyer's children could have made millions selling the diary and it's JFK contents to the highest bidder for book and maybe even film rights.

Who knows what other bombshell revelations may have been in Meyer's diary.

I could also understand Mary Meyer's grieving children not wanting their mother's private sexual affair recountings and thoughts to be exposed for all to see.

Didn't WAPO Editor Ben Bradlee and his wife ( Meyers sister? ) make a frantic beeline to Mary Meyer's home and studio immediately after her murder looking for her diary, at the exact time Angleton had broken into the property looking for it as well?

Edited October 6, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean:

There are not four versions of the story.

Not by those involved.

There is one story between Trento and Lane.

And it stood up under oath at trial.

 

I had to look up where I read about the "four versions", I read it months ago I must say (bumped into it looking for some more info on Hunt).

I have a tendency to read both CT and LT points of view (as I'm a newbie, that doesn't really hurt (I know that sounds terrible...).

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/may/29/huntdallas-cia-memo-hoax/

 

 

 

 

[Robin Finn]

this was an email exchange between Gary Buell and Joe Trento on the memo.(Gary Buell was at one time an active member of this forum)

Gary Buell: I am currently reading your fascinating new book. My particular interest is the JFK assassination and the information you received from Angleton deserves careful consideration. I think that there was one serious omission in your book in that regard. That is the lack of any mention of the memo that Angleton showed you concerning Howard Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas on 11/22/63. Many researchers believe that was an Angleton disinformation ploy of some sort but whether the memo was genuine or not I do not see how the reader can be expected to evaluate Angleton's views on the assassination without considering this material. I believe you yourself once speculated that he may have been attempting to obscure his own role in sending Hunt to Dallas. And, if I am not mistaken did you not also once suggest that Hunt may have been sent to Dallas by a KGB mole? Did you ever discuss this memo or its contents again with Angleton before his death?

Joe Trento: I left it out because Hunt's role had been so discussed. My view is that Hunt's presence was more an embarrassment then anything significant. That's how Angleton treated it. Lane made much more of this then I believe it deserved. Gary the real question is it was Angleton's disinformation or someone trying to force the CIA's hand by demonstrating employees had come to Dallas. The original manuscript did include the material but the publisher could not publish a 1,000 page book.

Gary Buell: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not real clear on your answer. If it was Angleton's disinformation to what end? And was Hunt in Dallas or not and who sent him? If I recall your original article (which I did read quoted in Lane's book)you refer to sources at the HSCA admitting having this memo, which was later denied. The whole thing is confusing, particularly your coment about someone trying to force the CIA's hand. I mean Angleton was behind this in one way or another. I would be most interested in reading the section of your book on this that was cut for space, if you are agreeable.

Joe Trento: For contractual reasons I cannot give you the cut material to read. But to clarify the Angleton matter: I was originally tipped off by an assassination committee employee. They contacted me because I had written about Angleton and had access to him. They showed me a copy of the memo about Hunt being in Dallas. I called Angleton and he said he was aware of the memo and may even have a copy. He didn't. But a close friend of his did - and that friend said Angleton had entrusted to him. I read that copy, they matched. Jim did this sort of thing in an effort to get sensitive documents out during the months after his firing in 1974. I suspect Jim felt the document and Hunt story would come out anyway so he orchestrated the leak through me and the committee. The committee denial came because the document was never in the official group of documents they received. Jim told me he thought Hunt's presence was meaningless. He first claimed the reason the committee had the memo was because someone wanted to demonstrate he and Helms were covering up. I am convinced that the memo as written while Angleton did his internal probe to see what the Agency had done or not done and they ran across this business with Hunt and realized they had a potential public relations problem if the information got out. I never was told or got the impression that it was anything very significant - just very interesting. Did Jim tell me the truth on this? The answer is yes and no. I think Lane used this and other events to keep himself as part of the story. The reality is that all of this sideshow stuff diverted folks from looking at what the Soviet's did with LHO in Russia. I suspect at the time of the leak that's what Angleton and friends did not want researchers or reporters looking at.

Gary Buell: Thank you for your lengthy reply which answers some questions and raises others. So the HSCA did have the memo but could not confirm its authenticity because it was not officially turned over - that is interesting. To my knowledge this memo has never turned up in the archives of the committee or ever been acknowledged. I wonder if it still exists. Re-reading your original article you seem to have placed a great deal more importance on the memo at that time. You cite unamed CIA investigators who theorize that Oswald was working for US Intelligence and turned by the KGB. And that Hunt was in Dallas on the orders of a high-level CIA official who was in reality a KGB mole and who ordered Hunt to kill Oswald. Do you think Angleton sent Hunt to Dallas? If this were a movie then Angleton would turn out to be the mole but in real life I think that is far-fetched. What is your take on all this now? Was the memo authentic? Did Angleton send Hunt to Dallas and, if not, who did? If he was in Dallas at all. And what was his mission? Was Oswald a double- or triple agent?

Joe Trento: Angleton thought very little of Hunt so I doubt that they ever had much to do with each other. I suspect that the CIA successfully cited national security considerations regarding some of the JFK/ Soviet stuff. We had a number of sources from the CIA office of Security who offered a variety of theories. As far as it not showing up in the committee records, I suspect an agreement was made between the CIA and the Chairman. I would have never heard except from my staff sources. One possibility is they wanted to do something with it in the hearings and the members were against it, I may have been used as a trial balloon. At the time my colleague and I wrote the piece I suspected everyone's motives. Considering what I know now of the other screw ups the CIA and FBI perpetuated in this case the memo reflected potential public relations problem.

Gary Buell: Thanks for the reply. Obviously the CIA was able to cover-up this "public relations problem", thanks, as you said, to Blakey. Let me ask a few direct questions: 1. Do you think Hunt was in Dallas? If so, any idea who sent him and on what mission? Or are we left simply with speculation? The most fascinating speculation was that he was sent by the KGB mole. 2. Do you think there was a high-level mole in the CIA? If this is in the book, I apologize as I am still reading it. Can we rule out Angleton? Helms? You have been very gracious thus far and I realize that you cannot correspond endlessly with every reader.

Joe Trento: I think Hunt must have been in Dallas - perhaps not even on CIA business. Probably coming back from Mexico. I think the idea that a mole ordered him to Dallas was far fetched. You would have to assume he was competent and could carry out what the mole wanted. I don't think Helms or Angleton were moles. But it is clear that there were at least mid-level moles. Finish the book. You might want to get my previous book (with Bill Corson and Susan Trento Widows.)

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

If Angleton really did give Mary Meyer's children her dairy, who's to say that in the time he possessed it certain content "edits" may have been made to it?

And if Mary Meyer's diary actually contained passages that proved she and JFK had been lovers off and on for quite awhile, Meyer's children could have made millions selling the diary and it's JFK contents to the highest bidder for book and maybe even film rights.

Who knows what other bombshell revelations may have been in Meyer's diary.

I could also understand Mary Meyer's grieving children not wanting their mother's private sexual affair recountings and thoughts to be exposed for all to see.

Didn't WAPO Editor Ben Bradlee and his wife ( Meyers sister? ) make a frantic beeline to Mary Meyer's home and studio immediately after her murder looking for her diary, at the exact time Angleton had broken into the property looking for it as well?

Bradlee's wife Toni was Mary's sister. After Mary's death, Toni received a call from her sister's best friend, telling her of the diary, and they raced over to the studio to retrieve it before the police searched the studio. Only to find Angleton leaving with the diary. His wife was also a friend, and he had supposedly went there at her direction. My recollection is that Bradlee and his wife decided it was best for Angleton to keep it for the time being. Their interest was in keeping it away from the cops and out of the papers. Years later the best friend underwent a divorce, and her husband decided to make some money off his wife's secrets. At that point Bradlee came forward and told his staff what had happened. He figured it was gonna come out, and didn't enjoy being scooped by the National Enquirer. 

[Joe Bauer]

Our major mainstream media could never honestly and seriously report the possibility of JFK's murder being ordered, planned and carried out by members of our own government, using experienced covert agents to handle the actual action.

As described in Talbot's "Devils Chessboard."

Yet, the truth is those high power agents and many above them did hate JFK ( and RFK ) deeply enough to want to see him dead.

We have testimony from many close to those figures who offer quotes by them verifying their deadly sentiments.

William Harvey, David Morales, Frank Sturgis, even Hunt himself and so many others in that realm rabidly hated JFK. And probably even celebrated his brutal murder.

So, the personal hate motive was certainly present and deep in the mind sets of these dangerous and highly connected and unlimited resource access men.

That is at least one verifiable fact that the mainstream media can never dispute and which keeps the Hunt "Big Event" story a possibility that cannot be totally dismissed.

Personally, I always believed the core of E. Howard Hunt's "Big Event" end of life confessional story. Also believing however, that he purposely left out details involving his own participation to protect his surviving children, and to protect his beloved mentor Allan Dulles.

[James DiEugenio]

Robin, thanks for that.

The HSCA actually did have the Hunt memo?

I did not know that.  In reading the docs about this, they never let on that they did.

I think it was Surrell Brady who did the inquiry on this.

In fact, I think its proper to say that they buried this.

What a deep six operation.

Carlos Marcello but no Hunt memo? 

[Karl Kinaski]

Hunt was found guilty participating in the murder of JFK, wasn't he? Why do we need a confession from Hunt too? 

Quote, Mark Lane PLAUSIBLE DENIAL 

Quote

 

[Thereupon the jury entered the jury box at 10:40 A.M.]
THE COURT: Have you arrived at a verdict in this case?
THE FOREPERSON: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you give it to the clerk? Publish the verdict.
THE CLERK: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida,
Miami, Florida, case number 80-1121-Civ-JWK. E. Howard Hunt, plaintiff,
versus Liberty Lobby, defendant. Verdict as of February 6, 1985. We, the
jury,  find  for  the  defendant,  Liberty  Lobby  and  against  the  plaintiff,  E.
Howard Hunt. So say we, all, signed by the Foreperson.

(...)

The reporters gathered around Leslie Armstrong (The foreperson of the jury)

. What had caused her to vote for the defendant, she was asked time and time again. Patiently she
explained  that  at  the  outset  she  was,  as  were  all  of  the  jurors,  absolutely
objective. None of them had any fixed opinion about either the case or the
facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.
I (Mark Lane) stood off to the side, out of range of the cameras, but close enough to
hear each question and each response.
And  why  had  she  found  against  Hunt,  she  was  asked  by  impatient
reporters  shouting  questions  and  jostling  against  each  other  for  better
positions for their microphones or cameras.

The  evidence  was  clear,  she  said.  The  CIA  had  killed  President
Kennedy,  Hunt  had  been  part  of  it,  and  that  evidence,  so  painstakingly
presented,  should  now  be  examined  by  the  relevant  institutions  of  the
United  States  government  so  that  those  responsible  for  the  assassination
might be brought to justice.

Again  and  again  she  was  asked  the  same  question,  each  time  with  a
slightly  different  spin  and  by  a  different  reporter  so  that  he  or  she  could
later tell the nation that the historic answer was given in response to “your
reporter’s  question.”  Patiently  Leslie  Armstrong  answered  each  question,
both simply and eloquently.
One reporter for a local Miami television station betrayed his sense of
outrage  at  the  verdict.  He  pressed  the  juror  for  answers  to  irrelevant
questions “What about lack of actual malice? Wasn’t that the basis for your
decision?” She replied that if the jurors had not believed the truth of the
essential allegation, that the CIA and Hunt had been involved in the crime,
they  would  have  then  considered  the  question  of  malice.  As  for  her,  she
said, it never came to that The evidence was very impressive. It was not
necessary for her to consider malice; she believed the accusations of CIA
complicity  to  be  truthful.  With  an  almost  virulent  intensity,  the  reporter
scoffed, “You mean that actual malice is not a factor in a libel case?” Leslie
Armstrong  said  that  actual  malice  is  always  an  element  in  a  defamation
case,  that  the  judge  had  carefully  explained  that  matter  to  the  jury  in  his
instruction,  but  that  in  the  fact  situation  presented  in  this  case,  since  she
believed that the main point in the article was truthful, it was not necessary
for  her  to  consider  the  publisher’s  motive.  He  had  printed  the  truth;  the
evidence disclosed that, as far as she was concerned. The reporter left.
That evening the Miami television station reported that Hunt had lost a
libel case and that the “foreman” of the jury explained why. 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Hunt was found guilty participating in the murder of JFK, wasn't he? Why do we need a confession from Hunt too? 

Quote, Mark Lane PLAUSIBLE DENIAL 

 

 

One juror said he was guilty. Maybe they all felt he was,. But that wasn't what the trial was about. Heck, he wasn't even on trial. The trial was to determine if he'd been libeled against in an article suggesting his involvement in the assassination. The jury found that the article was not libelous, as it may even have been true. But that is not a criminal conviction. 

[Robin Finn]

From Malcolm Blunt's archive-29 pages of information on Marchetti's involvement with the memo. Also contains part of his deposition in which he reveals Helms' interest in Garrison's case.

Victor Marchetti

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Robin.

Nice primary source contribution.

[Gerry Down]

On 10/6/2023 at 9:08 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

I had to look up where I read about the "four versions", I read it months ago I must say (bumped into it looking for some more info on Hunt).

I have a tendency to read both CT and LT points of view (as I'm a newbie, that doesn't really hurt (I know that sounds terrible...).

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/may/29/huntdallas-cia-memo-hoax/

Thanks for that link to a very interesting article. From reading it, my opinion of Trento has gone way down and i will not now be getting his book "The Secret History of the CIA". The section of that book that had always interested me was this part:

"Within the confines of (Angleton’s) remarkable life were most of America’s secrets. “You know how I got to be in charge of counterintelligence? I agreed not to polygraph or require detailed background checks on Allen Dulles and 60 of his closest friends... They were afraid that their own business dealings with Hitler’s pals would come out. They were too arrogant to believe that the Russians would discover it all. . . . You know, the CIA got tens of thousands of brave people killed. . . We played with lives as if we owned them. We gave false hope. We - I - so misjudged what happened."

I asked the dying man how it all went so wrong.

With no emotion in his voice, but with his hand trembling, Angleton replied: “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were XXXXX. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. These people attracted and promoted each other. Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and I loved being in it... Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters. If you were in a room with them you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.” Angleton slowly sipped his tea and then said, “I guess I will see them there soon.”

"The Secret History of The CIA" by Trento (1985)

As per the article you linked to, Trento cannot be trusted as a historian and for that reason the above section of his book is highly suspect.