Mary Haverstick's Important New Book on the JFK Assassination

[Leslie Sharp]

8 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don’t think you understood my point Sandy. I believe H that Jerrie said both of those things, because I don’t think either was willfully fabricating. But the one thing had nothing to do with the other, distinct issues. And, I am skeptical that June Cobb impersonated Jerrie though I do not doubt that Jerrie told H that and believed it. Neither of these things that Jerrie told H were wilfully fabricated by Jerrie although the second may or may not have been a misunderstanding, and neither logically establish that Jerrie had intelligence connections. That’s all I meant.

You're not serious? You lept to the  conclusion the Lafitte datebook was a hoax but you don't think Jerrie Cobb would willfully fabricate?

I'm not arguing whether she did or didn't; I'm questioning your own method of critical,  objective analysis? 

Edited January 3 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I'm not "attempting" any kind of "charade." Just merely pointing out, for the umpteenth time, that there is no means by which researchers can examine the "physical document." Thus, your claims about it are completely unverified and are rightfully treated as such.

You're saying that with a straight face on a thread dedicated to a book that alleges Jerrie Cobb The Pilot, dressed as "Babushka Lady" shot President Kennedy with a pistol hidden inside a camera; and that said Jerrie ALSO piloted LIFE reporters to, or was it from, Dallas? Or was she scheduled to fly Oswald out of RedBird, having just killed the leader of the free world? WonderWoman indeed.  

I don't think anyone engaged on this forum can summarize AWIK with any clarity.
 

As a simple exercise, can you @Greg Doudna @Jonathan Cohen @Michael Griffithaddress the following:

• June and Jerrie never closely resembled one another other than height. Hair color and style, as well as scars, can be manipulated but not skeletal features, or ears, mouth, eyes. June was not a licensed pilot. June was in the Amazon a decade before Jerrie.  Did June's doctor not realize he was sleeping with a well-known pilot Jerrie Cobb who would soon pursue a role in the NASA programme, rather than a woman who returned from the Amazon with a serious condition and who eventually went to work for him? Did his staff know the difference between a woman they likely came across in the media vs. a virtual unknown?  June, not Jerrie the Pilot, befriended Albarelli. Can you explain why Mary Haverstick would suggest to me that Hank didn't know who he had trusted his grandson with?

 

• Are you convinced June (or Jerrie) Cobb was THE QJ/WIN  reporting directly to Harvey, overseeing hardened brutes like Harold Meltzer, Otto Skorzeny, or Pierre Lafitte in the patriarchal 1960s?
   
• Taaffe was an arms dealer, married to an AF captain and known to some very rough characters including gunrunner Jesse Vickers whose name appears in Lafitte records. Could she be effectively and persistently impersonated by the high-profile Jerrie Cobb, let alone the distinctly feline June Cobb?  Was the AF captain on board this charade as well?

Edited January 4 by Leslie Sharp

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You're saying that with a straight face on a thread dedicated to a book that alleges Jerrie Cobb The Pilot, dressed as "Babushka Lady" shot President Kennedy with a pistol hidden inside a camera; and that said Jerrie ALSO piloted Life reporters to, or was it from, Dallas? Or did she fly Oswald out of RedBird?  

Huh? My previous comment to you was about the alleged datebook which forms the basis for "Coup in Dallas." It had absolutely nothing to do with Haverstick's book or thesis.

[Leslie Sharp]

21 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Huh? My previous comment to you was about the alleged datebook which forms the basis for "Coup in Dallas." It had absolutely nothing to do with Haverstick's book or thesis.

It actually has a great deal to do with AWIK, if you're paying attention, or if you know your material.  I'll let you figure it out.

[Jonathan Cohen]

13 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

It actually has a great deal to do with AWIK, if you're paying attention, or if you know your material.  I'll let you figure it out.

There's nothing to figure out, your attempts to change the subject notwithstanding.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don’t think you understood my point Sandy. I believe H that Jerrie said both of those things, because I don’t think either was willfully fabricating. But the one thing had nothing to do with the other, distinct issues. And, I am skeptical that June Cobb impersonated Jerrie though I do not doubt that Jerrie told H that and believed it. Neither of these things that Jerrie told H were wilfully fabricated by Jerrie although the second may or may not have been a misunderstanding, and neither logically establish that Jerrie had intelligence connections. That’s all I meant.

 

Okay, thanks Greg. Sorry.

Where I was coming from is this: I don't know Mary Haverstick. I don't know if here tale of talking with Jerrie Cobb is true or not. But if it turned out that you are right, that Jerrie Cobb really did pilot that plane that went to Redbird with Life reporters/photographers, then that would mean that Haverstick really did have that conversation with Jerrie Cobb. Which would probably mean that Jerrie did indeed tell her that she'd been told she'd been impersonated. I say "probably," because there's always a possibility that Haverstick's narrative was truthful about one thing but not about another.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

There's nothing to figure out, your attempts to change the subject notwithstanding.

The topic of the thread is the Haverstick book; I pointed out the incongruity in Greg Doudna indulging certain detail when  he dismissed the datebook and CiD within nine days of publication. I've provided three bullet points as examples of the overlap in Haverstick's AWIK with facts presented in Coup and Hank's personal history with June Cobb.  Not changing the subject. I'm drawing attention to the implications. 

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

If you're going to continue to allege the transcription is not aligned with the original entries, I insist you provide examples, or retract. (I'm aware of one instance of copy edit error.)

Responsive to request (two of the below have been shown you before). 

Apart from incomplete photos of pages--many datebook transcriptions given in Coup in Dallas and cited as the basis for discussion and argument have no photos at all for those pages of the datebook--and the poor quality of the photos unreadable for many of the datebook's pages which are given; and the lack of a single transcription in a single location but bits and pieces scattered through hundreds of pages never collated ... and in the one place where some consecutive dated entries are listed, pp. 575-76 the transcriptions have mostly ellipses ... and quite a number of readable words in the poor photographs appear never to be transcribed at all anywhere in the book ... never mind all that, as requested here are transcriptions I have found that do not match the photographs (except for the last which was called to attention by Andrej Stancak).

(1) Page 576, for Oct 6 a transcription is reported: "Oswald issue!...". The photograph of the Oct 6 page, p. 582 is "Oswald issue (!)"

That one does not affect meaning, but in a transcription of an author's original handwriting, punctuation matters.

(2) Page 576, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported: "Lamy--Filiol ... call Storey ... DeM ... Frank B. ..." 

The photograph of the Nov 20 page, p. 585, has the first four names and a final three lines of writing where the fifth name, Frank B., would be expected but the letters and words do not read "Frank B." There is no "Frank B." on that page. Either the transcriber hallucinated it, or the Nov 20 entry in the datebook was written after the transcription and the writer of the entry into the datebook forgot to update the transcription. In the latter case the transcription began as a rough draft for composition of the entries in the datebook, in the planning of the writing, before the entries were written into the pages of the datebook. 

I called that mismatch to your attention on 7/28/23 on this forum (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/5/).

(3) Pages 1 and 576, for Nov 9 a transcription is reported: "on the wings of murder..." The photograph of the Nov 9 page on p. 586 has "O the wings of murder".

(4) Also, page 1, for Nov 9 the transcription given is "Clip, clip his wings" but the photo is "Clip /clip his wings".  

(5) Page 575, for June 7 a transcription is reported: "John "W-H"". The photograph of the June 7 page on p. 579 has "John 'Wilson-H'". 

(6) Page 575, for Aug 16 a transcription is reported: "Antoinnes" with two n's and no apostrophe; on page 116 as "Antoine's" with one n and apostrophe. The photograph of the Aug 16 page on p. 580 has "Antoines", one n and no apostrophe. 

(7) Also page 575, for Aug 16 a transcription is reported: "Joannides" spelled with two n's. On page 116 a transcription of the same word is reported differently, "Joanides", spelled with only one n. Neither is correct. The photograph of the Aug 16 page on p. 580 has "Joan" (or is that "John"?). There are no final letters "-ides".

(8) This last item was brought to your attention by Andrej Stancak on this forum on 7/29/23 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/8/). At pages xii and 407, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported as "rifle into building". The photograph of the Nov 20 entry at p. 585 however shows "rifle into buiding" (sic; misspelling).

I am not claiming infallibility in the above nor is this list exhaustive; this is the best I can do off-the-cuff from abysmally bad photographs. I am sure any number of persons with good eyes could not only find more, but could prepare for you a far more accurate, critical edition transcription of the datebook, if you would permit them not only to see, but be permitted by you to speak of what they see, on the basis of the better photos which you resolutely refuse to permit access to any who will not submit to your totalitarian control over their speaking, writing, and free expression of what their eyes see of the writing of the datebook, which you allege provides the solution to the JFK assassination. 

It would be an utter, total travesty, just about the worst possible way to publish a document in the scholarly world, if the document were authentic from 1963. If it is a forgery then there is no great loss except to those taken in by it.  

[Leslie Sharp]

@Greg Doudna You had Hank's introduction in front of you when you issued your edict, questioning provenance and authenticity and insinuating that the datebook was "too good to be true." How do you think Hank might have responded?

 

Before I completed my book on Frank Olson’s murder, I had the opportunity to meet the one person who was quite close to Lafitte, his wife. I had been informed by a highly respected journalist for the New York Times, John Crewdson, that Lafitte had been living in a small town in New England for at least twelve years. By chance, I had relatives in a nearby town, and I turned to them for help in locating Lafitte. As it turned out, he was living openly with his wife. Understandably, I traveled as quickly as possible to the place where they resided, which was quite easy because I was still living in Vermont where I’d gone to write the Olson book. Of course, I shared the location and address with the DA’s office in Manhattan, but ventured there on my own. 

I was too late to find Pierre. He had passed away before my arrival. But, as said, I had the opportunity to meet his wife Rene. Our meeting was a cautious one, but I felt that by being honest about my interests and objectives an initial bond of friendship was formed. That bond grew steadily stronger through the time that Rene relocated to the Miami, Florida area. As far as I know, nobody from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office ever made the same trip I did.

Through additional meetings with Rene, I became aware that Pierre, like George White, had kept datebooks within which he would jot down certain things, often specific to matters he was working on at the time. It was a practice that was expressly forbidden by the CIA, but Pierre and George were notorious for bending and breaking the rules. Said Rene, “He would sometimes emulate George, mainly for financial reasons, not out of any admiration or the like.”

As I’m sure you can imagine, I was especially interested in viewing and reading Lafitte’s personal writings. I respectfully made my interest known to Rene. She had agreed after thinking about it for what seemed a painfully long time. About two weeks later, she called again and said that she had become concerned about certain findings in Pierre’s materials and that she now wanted to talk with “her family’s attorney” about her concerns and liability issues. Oh, Lord, I thought, an attorney: that will surely mess everything up. But, perhaps thanks to the alignment of the stars, Rene called about a week later with good news. 

[Greg Doudna]

On 1/4/2024 at 1:23 AM, Leslie Sharp said:

(8) This last item was brought to your attention by Andrej Stancak on this forum on 7/29/23 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/8/). At pages xii and 407, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported as "rifle into building". The photograph of the Nov 20 entry at p. 585 however shows "rifle into buiding" (sic; misspelling).

the lines read (and with respect, Mr. Stancak is not an authority on this datebook):

rifle into building —

yes/ok/DPD —

DUUM

Well you're wrong Leslie. Andrej Stancak quite correctly showed the word in the photo was (misspelled) "buiding" for intended "building". The photograph does not show correctly-spelled "building" as you again now wrongly assert. Anyone can go to page 585 of Coup in Dallas, look at the photo for the Nov 20 page, and see for themselves. And if and when you publish that correction in transcription, you must credit Andrej Stancak and respectfully, for having brought that to your attention. 

I can sympathize with the publishing pressures, the covid, etc. that you describe. I have been through publishing deadlines too and have some sympathy for what you describe. I would be more sympathetic if you took proper steps to remedy what you acknowledge was a less than ideal publication of the photos and transcription. You refuse to post good quality photos on a website or donate good copies to the Mary Ferrell Foundation which would be even better since that is the go-to site for all researchers, and they do a truly outstanding job of archiving with a user-friendly website with good search capabilities, under the excellent stewardship of Rex Bradford. You refuse to allow competent readers with good eyes to prepare and make publicly available good-quality transcriptions from the good photos which you possess but will not make freely accessible to researchers, by which I mean free of your NDAs.

First you denied there were transcription inaccuracies that I said your transcriptions had, and you aggressively demanded I show or retract. I judged that particular demand a legitimate one and spent an evening of labor preparing the report I gave responsive to that demand. You responded with the equivalent of snarling and changing of subjects, as if I had committed some affront in complying responsively to your demand. Instead you should have thanked me. You note that the majority of the transcription sloppiness does not affect meaning, as if that was the point not the accuracy in the transcription, and you then attempt to shift the subject still again by criticizing me for not taking greater interest in the content of the text being transcribed.

Well, I was talking about transcription, the subject of your demand of me, is why. And as for why I do not have greater interest in the content, its because I think its forged is why, so why should I. 

And if you don't think accurate transcription of handwriting including spelling and punctuation of original texts matters, even when meaning is not affected, in an editio princeps (Coup in Dallas; the publication that everyone in the future will quote and cite as the authoritative first publication), that is tabloid-level, not how it is done in the scholarly world where accuracy matters. 

Again, you could be forgiven for not being up to speed on scholarly standards, and with the pressures of publication deadlines and covid et al which I do not doubt were real ... if (the real point) you were not preventing real scholars (and a whole lot of intelligent lay readers) from making accurate transcriptions of what you represent as a critically important primary text find from 1963 in the study of the JFK assassination.

Finally, your bringing up Jeffrey Sundberg is shameful. It has no relevance to anything under discussion here. He had nothing to do with my research on the transcription errors. You did a very bad thing earlier to him, you tried to damage his standing with his university employer by filing a complaint about him which was frivolous but could have had real damage or loss of job (universities' first priority is settling conflicts, over justice, when push comes to shove, I have seen). That was low and unconscionable. Fortunately his university investigated your vindictive complaint and cleared him. That had nothing to do with the topic of anything under discussion here and it is objectionable that you would introduce an attack on Jeffrey Sundberg, who is not a member of this forum to defend himself, as deflection from what is under discussion here.

Are you willing to say that you are committed to discovery of the truth of whether the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic [from 1963] or forged, whichever the truth is, irrespective of any financial interest you may have in the outcome of that question? Are you willing to commit to disclosure of the existence of financial interest in the outcome of that question, if such exists? 

[Leslie Sharp]

[CATHERINE TAAFFE AND JESSE VICKERS] 

' . . . For more than a decade, Miami based arms dealer Jesse Vickers had been active in the West Indies, a volatile region that consumed US military and intelligence resources. Vickers was arrested in 1953 for gun running, along with Efron Pichardo who is named earlier in this book as having been imprisoned in 1959 with Capt. Paul Hughes, John Wilson-Hudson, and R. Emmett Johnson in Trescornia while Santo Trafficante held court. Meanwhile, Jesse Vickers had hooked up with Catherine (Mrs. W. Randall) Taaffe, self-described as “the only woman arms dealer registered in Washington, D.C.”  [the names Hughes, Wilson-Hudson, Johnson, and Vickers appear in the 1963 record maintained by Pierre Lafitte.]

Records suggest that Mrs. Taaffe had been an active participant in rather spectacular operations since the early ’50s. She is named in progress reports related to PBSUCCESS, which culminated in assassination of President Arbenz of Guatemala, as having written a letter to her husband in NY, “instructing him to purchase aircraft from Sweden for a dissident group of Guatemalan Army leaders” who were planning to overthrow the government and eliminate the Communists. Described by author Joan Mellen in The Great Game in Cuba, Catherine was a “pint-size, brown-haired, brown eyed woman, five feet in height, and a self-styled Mata Hari” who acted as an informant for both the FBI and CIA as well as the Cuban National Revolutionary Police and the anti-Castro Acción Democrática Cristiana. There are indications that she was a friend of June Cobb as well. By 1959, her business efforts were intermingled with not only Batista, but Generalissimo Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. We have learned previously that figures who were of primary interest to the project manager were also active in the DR, including DC attorney Herbert Itkin and skilled sniper R. Emmett Johnson.
 

According to a 1959 FBI document, “JESSE VICKERS... became associated with CATHERINE TAAFFE to utilize her contacts as wife of Colonel W. RANDALL TAAFFE. Since the departure of VICKERS and CATHERINE TAAFFE for Washington D.C. Colonel TAAFFE has been advising the Miami Office of their activities and reported that they were working on a large arms order, for which they had already secured State Department export licenses and complied with other Government requirements.”

Another bureau document reads, “Taaffe is said to have been an American citizen interested in Cuban political and revolutionary activities and claims to have numerous connections among Cuban exiles in the United States and Cuban government officials in Cuba.” The next entry, a report of another informant relying on a representative within another US government agency advised that a case involving a C-74 airplane which was confiscated on May 22, 1959 by US Customs agents in Miami resulted in the arrest of the Dominican Consul.

Any mention of C-74s captures our attention. In an undated document found in the ledger maintained by Pierre Lafitte, he writes, “C-74 Globemaster. Walker yes on spray guns. Willoughby?” followed with an odd ‘note to self,’ "I have no idea where we will put these." No doubt there were dozens of C-74s flying around the region during the early 1960s, but mention of that particular equipment by a man who was writing about Vickers in context of Willoughby and Walker, one is persuaded to contemplate the implications.' — Coup in Dallas

Edited January 17 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

[revised for detail and clarity]

 

A Question of Identity

If anyone has listened to Jefferson Morley's interview of Mary Haverstick, author of AWIK which was posted recently on his substack, you're aware that Morley seems unfamiliar with significant details regarding June Cobb found in A Secret Order by H. P. Albarelli Jr. published in 2013 by Trine Day.

The following excerpts from ASO do in fact reaffirm some of the information Haverstick leads Morley to believe was exclusive to her own research.  This is entirely understandable if Haverstick and/or Morley failed to read ASO over the past decade, but it's important to restate again that any assertion Albarelli didn't know of whom he was writing about — June Cobb of NY (Haverstick's term, not his) —  is still patently absurd.

Albarelli's 38-page chapter devoted to June Cobb relies heavily on results of his FOIA requests and CIA documents as well as private letters, diary entries and interviews,   ' . . . Several top-secret CIA memoranda regarding concerns about Cobb's pending testimony culminated in a very telling March 19, 1962 memorandum that gave broad hints at what Cobb's activities were at the time.  The document, simply titled "June Sharp Cobb (201-278, 841)" (Cobb's 201 file designation) was written by Cobb's Agency handler Jean T. Pierson, identified in the document as an "intelligence researcher" for Task Force W.' . . . 


Dual Identities

Those familiar with his ensuing investigation which culminated in Coup in Dallas will know the significance of  Droller a.k.a. Bender (seen in the following paragraphs from ASO) because Bender appears on a significant date in 1963 in the datebook maintained by Pierre Lafitte.  Droller, Bender, Federico referenced in ASO is but one example of dual identities, an agency method Haverstick suggests is a phenomenon virtually unknown to researchers (an uninformed assertion imv); in fact the method was on Albarrelli's radar in the late 1990s while investigating the Frank Olson murder so he it's understandable he was insulted by Haverstick's suggestion made during a phone call some two years after ASO was published that he was unfamiliar with dual identities. It's apparent to those who read ASO carefully that he was conscious that some believed June was a pilot — a foundation of Haverstick's thesis. He very deliberately established that June distrusted mechanical things and that June Cobb was not a licensed pilot nor did she have a twin sister (as confirmed by John Newman) so a critical component of Haverstick's hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. 

Droller/Bender/Federico 

' . . . Pierson leads off by stating that she had been telephoned by Jerry [Gerry] Droller, Chief, WH/POA [Western Hemisphere/Political Affairs Office; Droller's aliases were Frank Bender and Don Federico] to inform her that June Cobb "was arriving in Washington to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security at their request" . . . 

Pierson continued and stated that Droller explained that, as far as he knew, Cobb was being asked to testify on her connections with the Cuban Government and her knowledge of Juan Arevalo, former President of Guatemala and author of the book, The Shark & The Sardines, which Subject [Cobb] translated into English."

Note: Those interested in Droller/Bender might search EF for the deep dive Robert Montenegro made into Droller pursuant to Heinz Krug's assertion that Droller was one and the same as Friedrich Schend [sic] who Monté has established (with little doubt) was Friedrich Schwend. Albarelli had asked him if he could identify a "former" Nazi within the milieu in Cuba. Schwend fits the criteria.
 

Haverstick also draws attention to her discovery of a shared phone number. Albarelli wrote in 2013,

. . . Pierson went on and explained that she had discussed the matter in detail with Droller, and as a result had reactivated "a sterile phone number formerly used by Cobb," in the event she should attempt to contact Pierson." . . . 


And, as found in the following passage, Albarelli noted long before Haverstick — who suggests NO ONE realized it before she pointed it out in AWIK — that June Cobb's role with the agency while in MC was far more than administrative and culturally related. (he does however insist that June was never an "agent", contrary to Haverstick's own conclusions.)

' . . . Pierson concluded her memorandum by writing: "Lt. Col. Davies has been informed of the above, and of the background of the case by me, and will in return advise Mr. [William] Harvey, C/TFW, of the situation." Lt. Col. Albert C. Davies was a military officer assigned to Task Force W. as its chief of intelligence.  As some readers are aware, William K. Harvey was the director of Task Force W, and also the CIA's lead official of assassination matters, including its infamous QJ/WIN program.  

Lt. Col. Davies and Harvey, assisted by David Sanchez Morales at this same time were busy assembling aliases and backstopping documentation for June Cobb, as well as a number of other Task Force W employees, including Anthony Sforza, Frank J. Belito and Rene Dubois, all men deeply enmeshed in the CIA's more unsavory operations.  The fact that June Cobb was working closely with Sforza and others, well known for their skills in "wet affairs" or assassinations is significant in terms of her duties in Mexico City, which have consistently been downplayed by some writers, as well as former CIA officials, as mostly administrative and cultural liaison related tasks. 

There are numerous other examples of Albarelli having uncovered documents and never-before-revealed information gleaned from his interviews with those familiar with June Cobb and her history — as well as months and months of conversations with his friend June personally —  published in 2013, so it's difficult to understand why both Morley and Haverstick didn't hit pause and read the chapter in ASO titled Femme Fatale Enigma: Viola June Cobb before launching their discussion. 

Should Morley plan another segment with Haverstick, I think it would benefit the community for Mary in particular to be more fully informed about June in NY by studying A Secret Order. Doing so may result in adjustment of some of her more questionable assumptions including the suggestion Hank might have been interacting with someone other than June.  And, if either of them find discrepancies in Albarelli's early research related to MC and June Cobb, those too should be teased out. 

Edited January 17 by Leslie Sharp

[Steve Roe]

On 12/1/2023 at 8:05 AM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Haverstick definitely proves that Jerrie Cobb was the CIA agent who used the identities of June Cobb and Catherine Taafe.

Ms. Haverstick's imagination has gotten the better of her.

I was amused how Morley went along with this nonsense, on his podcast, without doing basic research. Maybe he was just being polite and throwing out more conspiracy "red meat" to attract more paid subscribers to his Substack column with another "breaking conspiracy story". 

Geraldyn M. "Jerrie" Cobb, who was NASA's first woman astronaut candidate in the early 1960's, a pilot who learned to fly at age 12 (from her father) was from Oklahoma and at one time lived in Ponca City, previous to that she lived in Oklahoma City. She was the daughter of William H. Cobb, a former Air Force pilot who had a car dealership in Ponca City in 1960. "Jerrie" Cobb was 29 years old in 1960. 

Viola June Cobb, also from Ponca City was the daughter of Jasper E. Cobb. June Cobb who was older than "Jerrie", was 33 years old in 1960. 

They are clearly two different women. 

Viola June Cobb was of operational interest to the CIA in 1960. They (OS) investigated if there was a connection of identity of "Jerrie" and June Cobb. There was not. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY FILE ON COBB, VIOLA JUNE (maryferrell.org)

To think Viola June Cobb was using a popular woman astronaut name as a "CIA cover" is entirely baseless and ludicrous. They did have similarities, but that's it. 

[Leslie Sharp]

6 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Ms. Haverstick's imagination has gotten the better of her.

I was amused how Morley went along with this nonsense, on his podcast, without doing basic research. Maybe he was just being polite and throwing out more conspiracy "red meat" to attract more paid subscribers to his Substack column with another "breaking conspiracy story". 

Geraldyn M. "Jerrie" Cobb, who was NASA's first woman astronaut candidate in the early 1960's, a pilot who learned to fly at age 12 (from her father) was from Oklahoma and at one time lived in Ponca City, previous to that she lived in Oklahoma City. She was the daughter of William H. Cobb, a former Air Force pilot who had a car dealership in Ponca City in 1960. "Jerrie" Cobb was 29 years old in 1960. 

Viola June Cobb, also from Ponca City was the daughter of Jasper E. Cobb. June Cobb who was older than "Jerrie", was 33 years old in 1960. 

They are clearly two different women. 

Viola June Cobb was of operational interest to the CIA in 1960. They (OS) investigated if there was a connection of identity of "Jerrie" and June Cobb. There was not. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY FILE ON COBB, VIOLA JUNE (maryferrell.org)

To think Viola June Cobb was using a popular woman astronaut name as a "CIA cover" is entirely baseless and ludicrous. They did have similarities, but that's it. 

Jeff may have left his audience thinking he was incredulous, but why didn't he actually query Haverstick further about Connally's wounds, or how BL might have navigated her shots around Jackie and the motorcycle guys, or why BL was photographed milling around in the crowd on the North side of Elm post-assassination if she was responsible for racing to Red Bird to fly someone - Oswald? - out of Dallas? 

In fairness, unless one has studied June Cobb's history — which obviously Jeff hasn't — one might be intrigued by the coincidences; however, if one knows that June wasn't a pilot, didn't have a twin sister, ergo neither she nor her twin were licensed pilots then one automatically questions the very foundation of Haverstick's hypothesis.  That's not to argue June Cobb's identity wasn't borrowed, but it is to insist that suggesting Hank Albarelli was dealing with someone other than June - maybe even Jerrie The Pilot Cobb - remains deeply perplexing. 

From there, if one has studied the QJ/WIN op, one recognizes how unreasonable is the notion that either June (or Jerrie?) was THE (all caps) QJ/WIN; from there, one also knows that the suggestion Otto Skorzeny was "unsuitable" for assassination operations is equally absurd and prompts a longterm question: why has Jeff avoided any conversation about the Skorzenys' role in the Dallas plot when he knows that Win Scott was posted on the Western European division desk in the early 1950s with reports of Skorzeny's activities crossing said desk? Isn't that history  as significant as the history of other agency officers he has pursued, i.e. JJA?

I noted that the question of QJ was left on the table at the end of the Haverstick interview; perhaps Jeff might consider a debate between Haverstick and those more familiar with what might be behind these diversions; or do we stand by and let some of the more bizarre assertions in AWIK take root and spend another decade separating more wheat from more chaff.  

 

Edited January 22 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

Leslie Sharp has been given my permission to post this in the Education Forum and any other public forum she feels appropriate. I will not being responding to debate. — Andrew Watson

A decade ago I was made aware of an oceanside property in Havana’s ritzy Miramar area. A pleasant mid-century modern home with a pool was a hive of activity pertaining to the undermining of Fidel Castro’s revolution. In particular America’s determination to eliminate a figure head that advocated a justified change, albeit a fundamentally flawed one so many decades later. Ironically at the nexus of this effort was the unlikely femme fatal named Viola June Cobb, a movie star like figure that researchers are beginning to understand her peculiar position in the Latin American centric world of the Cold War. To be fair much of the strangeness can be attributed to her handlers at the CIA that deliberately applied misleading and false attributions as well as mischaracterizations about her. Of great importance is the explosion of the La Coubre munitions ship in Havana’s harbour and the consequential frenzied movements of American assets in and out of the Miramar home where June Cobb lived. Fearing for her life she ran to the safety of the Havana Hilton and her handlers. She was convinced to stay in action within Fidel Castro’s office despite the peril she was in. 

 

At the time Fidel Castro was the one that could hold together a ragtag government together but he did so with the help of the very powerful Celia Sanchez. Without Celia Sanchez saving the bearded ones in the mountains during the Revolution, history would be much different. It was Celia that hired and enabled June Cobb within the Cuban government and a fellow humanist. Later in life June Cobb revealed to me it was her betrayal to the humanist movement that haunted her and especially her betrayal of Celia Sanchez she regretted the most. Her message of regret was delivered to Celia’s family. It was however Fidel Castro’s failure to secure the support of VP Nixon to build a new Cuba with schools and hospitals that made him extremely vulnerable to the Communist takeover. June Cobb had been wrongly identified or deliberately misidentified as a communist but at her very core she was a humanist. Castro’s submission to the Cuban Communist cause enabled the CIA to utilize June, she loathed Castro’s political positioning warning him that a dictator to the left or a dictator to the right is still a dictator. Eventually things got white hot for June in Cuba so she had to be pulled from her position to be relocated to the CIA’s Mexico City station.

 

By 1963 Viola June Cobb was fully entrenched in Latin American operations mostly centred around communist activities in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Mexico itself. Of note were her observations of activities at the Hotel Luma in Mexico City and her interactions with certain CIA operatives that somehow or another are connected to the assassination of JFK. To be fair June knew a thing or two but her being an integral part of the assassination has been a great exaggeration. A result of misdirection in the greater mechanization of the CIA itself or more than likely certain devious individuals. Much can be said about the record left that negates June’s strong belief of a better world beyond the Cold War, we need to remind ourselves she was a single woman in a dark world of powerful men. She led an exciting life with a steady pay check until the CIA had run her persona into the ground. She was over exposed and quite frankly damaged goods at the culmination of the Mexican student massacre in the late sixties.

 

By the time June Cobb attempts to rehab herself in New York City in 1968 she came full circle to further understand her humanist being. Perhaps she had retreated somewhat with the realistic belief that the world she had just come from would forever defeat any chance of a better world. If it weren’t for the various JFK assassination investigations in Washington we would have known nothing or very little about her remarkable life. This is at the point where John Newman and then Hank Albarelli Jr. found June Cobb living her semi reclusive life in New York, not in hiding, not protected and certainly not one to suffer fools. John Newman had gained her confidence eventually attaining a group of documents that June later regretted giving him. She had failed to make copies for Newman and she trusted him to return the originals to her. June made myself aware that these documents were very important to her and were considered of great importance to John Newman’s investigations of the assassination. In a contact I had communicated with Newman later on he revealed to myself that these documents were stolen from his office while no other documents were stolen. This should be of importance in itself yet to date the nature of these documents have not been made aware to the research community. Additionally, John Newman disclosed to myself that he had later found one of June’s documents that he had misfiled. He assured me that he would send me a digital copy for my research into June however after repeated inquiries to doing so he has not done so. Needless to say I don’t have the same level of respect of Newman that others do in fact it further reinforces my opinion of him negatively. Hank Albarelli on the other hand has only further gained a positive opinion by myself the further I delved into discovering the enigmatic June Cobb. I did and will always admire the trusting relationship the two of them had and knowing that the two of them appreciated my respect for them, that goes a long way in my world. Sometimes being a patient researcher can pay off and prior to Hank passing we had touched on us making a documentary film about June centralized upon the hours upon hours of taped conversations they had. Unfortunately this is still in limbo as Hank’s estate deals with Hank’s unfinished business including his book about June. Spoiler alert, Viola June Cobb was not the assassin of JFK which leads us to one my strangest experiences delving into June Cobb’s world of the Cold War.

 

A little over a year ago I was contacted by a documentary filmmaker named Mary Haverstick, she was researching for for an upcoming book she was writing about female spies of the Cold War. The reason I was being contacted was about my extensive research into June Cobb and the intelligence role she played in Latin America in this time period. Of course I prequalified some of the things I told her that there was a great difference between the role she played as portrayed in the records created by the CIA and her actual real life activities. The interactions I had with Mary were two lengthy phone calls and a series of Messenger conversations. At the time I didn’t think it was appropriate to record the phone conversations, I regrettably admit my guard was down as she was a fellow filmmaker. But most of all I felt that June and her life meant something to be shared. Mary still had my confidence when she announced she had secured a book deal, I messaged her congrats on Messenger.

 

When the book was released entitled A Woman I Know I quickly downloaded it and gave it a thorough read. Admittedly it’s an enjoyable read however it’s fundamentally flawed as a piece of research material. Partially through the book I realized that the premise of my interactions with Haverstick and what I was reading was revealing her dishonesty. Further reading revealed extensive flawed research and her dangerous partial knowledge of a complex system. Not even some of the best researchers can properly grasp complex intel communications yet this novice does a complete nose dive making a fool of herself. As presented by Mary Haverstick she gained part of her greater understanding intel communications and coding under the guidance of John Newman. Like in many cases a master of something may or may not be a masterful teacher, in Haverstick’s case she has the potential but she’s done a bit of a hit and run with A Woman I Know. 

 

She’s been able to hide many research sins by slinking behind a curtain, this curtain is the use of narrative which is a documentary film trick. Michael Moore is the master of this such as in his movie Sicko where he uses the virtues of the Cuban health care system by showing a private hospital for foreigners. While Moore isn’t wrong about the hospital itself, what he’s showing you is that he’s absolutely wrong to indicate this is the standard of Cuban hospitals for the people. The reality is something else. Haverstick has used the “narrative” of her relationship with Jerrie Cobb and the garden path Jerrie leads her down as a cover. A cover that works well beyond the research community for those that can enjoy a fictional spy novel. It’s abundantly clear that her editor for her publishing company either deliberately or incompetently negated historical factuality in the editing process. As for the historical accuracy, in particular events and actions attributed to Viola June Cobb are best considered gobbledygook extrapolated from deliberately false intel story lines. Ironically Haverstick uses certain examples of intel tradecraft to build her thesis yet at the same time ignores others for the convenience of her preposterous theories.

 

Of great concern is that Haverstick’s overreaching tale is based on suggestive cues she extrapolates from her times with Jerrie Cobb. In particular Haverstick prompts Jerrie Cobb which then results in vague responses that can be interpreted a hundred different ways. This song and dance routine is conveniently excused with the notion that Jerrie signed the CIA’s lifetime nondisclosure agreement without a shred of evidence tracing that Jerrie actually worked for the CIA. Since the release of Haverstick’s book some of the top researchers have combed the available digital files combined with their own years of research knowledge in the assassination to verify Jerrie Cobb’s suggestive claims and Haverstick’s own assumptions. In fact Haverstick identifying her as the legendary QJWIN the assassin’s manager is absolutely ridiculous. It even gets worse than this with the suggestion that either Jerrie or June Cobb is the mythical Babushka with a camera gun delivering JFK’s coup de grâce.

 

Since the release of Haverstick’s A Woman I Know last November the reviews on Google Books have been quite favourable much of which can be attributing to Haverstick’s pleading with her Facebook friends to post a review. I ignored her plea for many obvious reasons. Upon examination of these book reviews you can only extrapolate only one theme, the readers enjoyed Haverstick’s storytelling. I would add that this is fictional storytelling loosely based on actual events such as the disclaimer you see on Hollywood films. Of the accomplished assassination research experts very few have shown any support for Haverstick’s book, crickets you may say. Even Haverstick’s mentor John Newman has been silent, not a peep out of him. Oddly her interactions with well respected researcher Lisa Pease may have suggested that Lisa was on Team Haverstick. Not so. Lisa’s FB post of January 18th or 19th about A Woman I Know is supportive somewhat liking Mary’s narrative adventure and her bringing forth the fact that many women from the Cold War intel world have been overlooked for their importance. Something that I realized a decade ago when a colleague dared me to find the elusive Viola June Cobb which I indeed did. Lisa Pease in a very polite way has however dismissed Haverstick’s wild extrapolations of fact.

 

In the ruckus world of JFK assassination research you can get angered, frustrated and have acceptable disagreements which indeed interferes with what the goal is. To solve the riddle has taken the pooling of brilliant minds, many of whom my path has crossed in the previous decade. I mourn the fact that some have publicly and privately discredited, attacked and smeared the professional reputations of Viola June Cobb and Hank Albarelli. They are no longer here to defend themselves and it should sadden all of us that what Albarelli stumbled upon, the Lafitte planner has yet to alarm a nation that needs to be alarmed. Albarelli’s monumental work in his Coup in Dallas is as important or not more important than David Talbot’s Devil’s Chessboard yet here we are in some type of dystopia.

 

In my lengthy and ongoing conversations with Coup in Dallas coauthor Leslie Sharp she has meticulously drilled down on my interactions with June and Hank. She’s tough in a good way, a way that will extract the tiny crumbs that are being put back together to complete a complex puzzle. The level of meticulous investigative work and endless networking she has undertaken since Hank’s death is astounding. I can assure you that neither her or anyone in the network she’s built are getting rich or will ever get rich from the Herculean effort underway. It’s a passion, a passion to bring forth the unfinished work of Hank Albarelli and that little book he stumbled upon while interviewing Pierre Lafitte’s widow, Renee. It’s a calling to identify the devils that killed JFK back in 1963 but also the long arc that Albarelli correctly identified as the fascist underbelly at play causing so much peril today. This is also the same circumstances that Viola June Cobb walks away from in 1968 when she felt so alone after seeing such a darkness in humanity. All alone, she couldn’t challenge the power even though a shift in public opinion was underway. Her observations, her secrets and conclusions had been locked away in her brain for decades until a gentile gentleman gently coaxed them out of her. June asserted to me Hank had her full trust unlike the troubling interactions she had with John Newman. Hank had purchased her a cell phone (The one I could contact her on), they would talk for hours upon hours which was recorded creating a library of first hand records. These tapes were for Hank’s pending book about June but they were also to be at the heart of a documentary Hank and I would produce. As an in introduction to this film we were considering using June’s transcript of her CIA interview prior to her deep dive into Cuba. She reveals much of her life’s experiences to that point in time and her desires for her future life. 

 

The contents of the audio tapes Hank had made with June were only known by the two of them. Neither myself, Leslie Sharp or Hank’s family were made aware of the contents of the tapes. What I personally know is Hank revealed to myself that June had been a witness to or aware of events that was leading Hank to something of great importance in JFK’s assassination. He was holding his cards very closely much in the same way he did for years with the Lafitte planner. 

 

I don’t particularly care for Mary Haverstick’s hit and run technique which is amplified by her tendency to selectively choose facts while ignoring facts not matching her wild assertions. In my communications with Haverstick I assured her that Hank’s material on June Cobb was solid and deviating from that would be foolish. I do want to remind Haverstick that Viola June Cobb served her country and had suffered for decades until her death because of her service. She was NOT a CIA agent as Haverstick repeatedly and wrongfully asserts, she was a CIA asset without the benefits that would have made her later years in life easier. If she had only done her research she would have known about the shoddy conditions June lived in prior to Hank and others arranging a seniors home in New Rochelle. Equally so, she shouldn’t have ignored the stellar reputation of Hank’s investigative brilliance. Haverstick’s complete disregard of these two very good people that I wish I could have gotten to know better does perplex me. The old adage applies here, to get respect you need to show respect. Haverstick betrayed my trust and at this point I must wonder how many others she had done so in order to frame her wild story. After reading her book I told myself to not involve myself with trivial debate about it however some have unfortunately fallen victim to Haverstick’s wild assertions. I can’t undo the damage Haverstick’s done but I can damn well do my part in helping Leslie Sharp and crew truly get to the bottom of America’s Great Clusterxxxx. RIP Viola June Cobb and Hank Albarelli Jr., we will prevail.