Harry Dean: Memoirs

[David Andrews]

From your recent post on another thread:

"Who confessed? Howard Hunt confessed that he was on the sidelines; proving he was not near the top. David Morales confessed to his friend Raoul, but we have no more details. Both these guys were LOOSE CANONS and hot-heads who were enraged over the BAY OF PIGS. Not Vietnam, but CUBA.

"Who else confessed? There were several CIA flunkies, I call them, but they really weren't in the CIA, but they were mercenaries. Jim Garrison uncovered many of them, e.g. Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie ahd Thomas Edward Beckham. These are some truly low-level guys.

"Also, there's Frank Sturgis, who basically bragged about it. Again Sturgis was merely a mercenary -- not a CIA Agent.

"Also, there's John Martino. He knew Morales and Sturgis and the JBS sponsored his speeches.

"Also, there's Johnny Roselli. Here's a low-level mercenary if there ever was one -- all Mafia.

"Also, some say Loran Hall semi-confessed when he shouted out, 'only me and Santos Traficante are left, and I ain't gonna say xxxx!'

"Also, Harry Dean, who was part of the California Minutemen side of the plot, confessed in January 1965 and never changed his story.

"Also, Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman of his participation."

So, if these people and others went "rogue" and killed a president - even a president disliked and suspected by many in high-echelon positions at CIA - why did they survive into the HSCA era, and others survive beyond it?

There ought to have been some resentment for their usurpation of authority, and also some concern that their "rogue" actions could be circumstantially attributed to their superiors, and attributed to the highest levels at CIA. Yet some "loose cannons" weren't swept from the deck until an era when they could start talking to HSCA, and some were left untouched

Instead, we see a Mark Lane-style record of innocent bystander types being eliminated in the remainder of the 1960s, while David Morales became Our Man in Vietnam and in Latin America; while Hunt, Sturgis, Martinez, and Barker lived to take down Nixon (and survive that). Even Eladio Del Valle kept breathing until Garrison's investigation loomed.

Why keep so many CIA "rogues" alive for so long? Why also let survive so many friendless, unaffiliated "flunkies" and "mercenaries" of uncertain loyalty?

Edited August 26, 2014 by David Andrews

[Greg Burnham]

Hemming never confessed "of his participation" to Weberman because he didn't participate. Trejo makes it up as he goes along.

[Ernie Lazar]

Hemming never confessed "of his participation" to Weberman because he didn't participate. Trejo makes it up as he goes along.

Actually, Paul just forces all available data into his pre-existing "theory".

From the beginning of this debate/discussion I have pointed out that no serious discussion can be initiated about any complex historical event (or any other matter) unless and until all parties explicitly agree upon what rules of logic and evidence apply to all contributions to the discussion. Such methodological questions are usually greeted with hostility and sarcasm by people like Paul because the answers would severely constrain what participants could present as worthwhile to consider or what should be considered credible data.

Many months ago, Paul and I had a discussion regarding what Paul introduced as the concept of "independent verification". Significantly, however, Paul totally exempts himself from presenting evidence which meets that standard while simultaneously demanding that his critics adhere to the most stringent criteria imaginable or (according to Paul) their data must be discredited, de-valued, or totally ignored.

Paul tells us, for example, that he has spent considerable time reviewing the personal papers of Edwin Walker which are archived at the University of Texas-Austin.

And Paul has posted documents from Walker's papers online here: http://www.pet880.com/

However, to my knowledge Paul has never produced a single document from Walker's papers that connect Walker to Harry Dean nor any document in which Walker acknowledges his attendance at, or awareness of, the alleged Galbadon-Dean-Rousselot meetings during which the "JBS plot" was discussed or the $10,000 was supposedly provided by Rousselot. So....where is the "independent verification" for that?

[Greg Burnham]

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

[Paul Trejo]

Hemming never confessed "of his participation" to Weberman because he didn't participate. Trejo makes it up as he goes along.

Greg, there's no way I made that up. In fact, Gerry Patrick Hemming spent more hours interviewing with A.J. Weberman than with you, and the interviews of A.J. Weberman are famous, while yours are less well-known.

As I recall the interview -- Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he called Lee Harvey Oswald from Florida on 11/21/1963 and offered Oswald double the market price of his Mannlicher Carcano if only Oswald would bring it to the Texas School Book Depository on Friday 11/22/1963 and leave it on the 6th floor.

The reason was that some desperate figure needed it, and would pay extra for it. Oswald took the bait, and that's why he took his rifle to the TSBD on that day.

THAT'S A CONFESSION. Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman that he knowingly and deliberately took part in the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK.

If Hemming didn't tell you that, Greg, then too bad. He told Weberman, and that's an EXCELLENT source.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited August 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

Hemming never confessed "of his participation" to Weberman because he didn't participate. Trejo makes it up as he goes along.

Greg, there's no way I made that up. In fact, Gerry Patrick Hemming spent more hours interviewing with A.J. Weberman than with you, and the interviews of A.J. Weberman are famous, while yours are less well-known.

As I recall the interview -- Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he called Lee Harvey Oswald from Florida on 11/21/1963 and offered Oswald double the market price of his Mannlicher Carcano if only Oswald would bring it to the Texas School Book Depository on Friday 11/22/1963 and leave it on the 6th floor.

The reason was that some desperate figure needed it, and would pay extra for it. Oswald took the bait, and that's why he took his rifle to the TSBD on that day.

THAT'S A CONFESSION. Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman that he knowingly and deliberately took part in the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK.

If Hemming didn't tell you that, Greg, then too bad. He told Weberman, and that's an EXCELLENT source.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

I have far more hours of recorded conversations with Gerry Hemming than do A. J. Weberman and Noel Twyman COMBINED. I would like to hear (not merely read) those words coming from Gerry's mouth.

If you knew Gerry as well as I did, then you would be familiar with his dripping sarcasm. Try reading the words this way: Add extreme sarcasm to his tone and delivery.

Imagine that during a conversation with Hemming, Weberman accused Hemming of supplying Oswald with the weapon. At which point Hemming, dripping sarcasm, said:

"Yeah right...I called him from Florida on 11/21/1963 and offered him double the market price if only he would bring it to the Texas School Book Depository on Friday and leave it on the 6th floor."

Hemming despised Weberman. He often led him down the wrong road out of spite.

[Paul Trejo]

...Hemming despised Weberman. He often led him down the wrong road out of spite.

Dream on, Greg. No way Gerry Patrick Hemming would spend YEARS with A.J. Weberman from the 1970's to the 1990's if he despised him.

Clearly you're feeling competitive about it -- so your opinion on this matter is marginal at best.

People know A.J. Weberman's work worldwide. Who cites your interviews?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...So, if these people and others went "rogue" and killed a president - even a president disliked and suspected by many in high-echelon positions at CIA - why did they survive into the HSCA era, and others survive beyond it?

There ought to have been some resentment for their usurpation of authority, and also some concern that their "rogue" actions could be circumstantially attributed to their superiors, and attributed to the highest levels at CIA. Yet some "loose cannons" weren't swept from the deck until an era when they could start talking to HSCA, and some were left untouched

Instead, we see a Mark Lane-style record of innocent bystander types being eliminated in the remainder of the 1960s, while David Morales became Our Man in Vietnam and in Latin America; while Hunt, Sturgis, Martinez, and Barker lived to take down Nixon (and survive that). Even Eladio Del Valle kept breathing until Garrison's investigation loomed.

Why keep so many CIA "rogues" alive for so long? Why also let survive so many friendless, unaffiliated "flunkies" and "mercenaries" of uncertain loyalty?

Well, David, you're talking about ROGUES, so I presume you're talking about David Morales and Howard Hunt. These are the only two medium-level CIA Agents that we can link to the murder of JFK with reasonable assurance based on material evidence (e.g. confessions). (But none of those other people were ROGUES, instead, they were just plain stooges and mercenary punks.)

Anyway, aside from that, David, your main question seems to be this -- how come the murderers of JFK survived into 1979 (the HSCA period) without being prosecuted?

The answer -- in my opinion -- is crystal clear. The answer is that any prosecution of these people would have to be public, and then the TRUE KILLERS OF JFK would have to be identified, and that would have been an enormous risk to NATIONAL SECURITY.

Exactly like LBJ, and J. Edgar Hoover, and Allen Dulles, Earl Warren and the whole Warren Commission ALWAYS SAID IT WAS.

We tend to forget how wild the 1960's were in the days of the Cold War. The right-wing in this country was practically insane. There were plenty of liberals who thought it was *completely* justified for JFK and RFK to send Edwin Walker to an insane asylum for violently promoting the John Birch Society agenda. (e.g. Impeach Earl Warren!)

Identifying the fact tha the KILLERS OF JFK were among the right-wing radicals in 1963 would have started a CIVIL WAR. I'm convinced of this by looking hard at the history. LBJ knew it. LBJ didn't want a Civil War, because he was already fighting a Cold War.

Besides that, only a few of the people were clearly known to be participants -- Edwin Walker, I am convinced, was totally KNOWN by Hoover, Dulles and Warren to have played perhaps the major role, at least in Dallas itself.

Also, all the players in New Orleans that were discovered by Jim Garrison in 1968 -- the Warren Commission, the CIA, the FBI -- knew about ALL of them.

The reason the CIA stomped so hard on Jim Garrison (and Mark Lane and Penn Jones) was because, even though they didn't realize it, they were treading on thin ice with regard to a CIVIL WAR.

It was because the US Government KNEW who most of the guilty parties were (at least at the ground-crew level; perhaps not yet within the CIA itself) and realized they were relatively powerless (compared with the US Military) and a bunch of right-wing fruit cakes -- they just kept an eye on them, and perhaps dealt with them privately, outside the scope of the Court System.

But they didn't really need to do much more -- the KILLERS OF JFK wanted the USA to invade CUBA, and the official USA really didn't care that much about CUBA.

I think you were correct in a former post, David, when you said that Fidel Castro's main protection was basically that he was IRRELEVANT to the USA. The economy of CUBA was so TINY in comparison with the Global Politics of 1963, that it wasn't worth the bother to fool with CUBA anymore.

The KILLERS OF JFK failed to get what they wanted. They wanted to convince the American People and the US Government that Lee Harvey Oswald was a COMMUNIST. They failed. The one who figured out the strategy for beating the plotters wwas J. Edgar Hoover, who came up with the Lone Gunman theory only ONE HOUR after the arrest of JFK (says Dr. David Wrone).

Inside the CIA, even all the way to 1979, it seems to me, David Morales was still getting away with murder. The mole-hunt inside the CIA in Mexico City failed to identify David Morales -- the real ring-leader in Mexico City.

Yes, Morales went to Vietnam. Yes, he still propped up many Latin American dictators. But I doubt that Hunt, Sturgis, Martinez and Barker were happy about Watergate. What a fiasco that was. LOOK AT HOW FAR THESE MEN HAD FALLEN! Hunt was desperate by that time. He tried to blackmail Nixon for a million dollars!

In conclusion, David, I think the answer was already given by LBJ. The Truth about Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of JFK could never be made public in his lifetime -- BECAUSE THE COLD WAR WAS STILL RAGING.

I think that the US Government is willing to be more lenient with the JFK Assassination records today mainly because the USSR fell in 1990 -- AND THERE IS NO MORE COLD WAR TODAY.

That said -- except for Harry Dean, I think that all the JFK conspirators have gone on to their final reward.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...Hemming despised Weberman. He often led him down the wrong road out of spite.

Dream on, Greg. No way Gerry Patrick Hemming would spend YEARS with A.J. Weberman from the 1970's to the 1990's if he despised him.

Clearly you're feeling competitive about it -- so your opinion on this matter is marginal at best.

People know A.J. Weberman's work worldwide. Who cites your interviews?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Despite Paul's high regard for Weberman, significantly, Weberman does not even mention Harry Dean, John Rousselot, or Guy Galbadon is his opus, "Coup D'état in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy."

[Paul Trejo]

Despite Paul's high regard for Weberman, significantly, Weberman does not even mention Harry Dean, John Rousselot, or Guy Galbadon is his opus, "Coup D'état in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy."

That's no surprise -- most JFK researchers in the past 50 years have overlooked Ex-General Edwin Walker as a major suspect, even knowing about his disloyalty to his uniform and to the US Government by virtue of his JBS belief that all US Presidents since FDR (including JFK) were deliberate, conscious Agents of the Communist Conspiracy.

In 1961-1964 the US awareness of Ex-General Walker was high. He is named over 500 times in the Warren Commission volumes alone. But after the Warren Report and its Lone-Gunman theory, and after the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw, the name of Edwin Walker has almost vanished from the public scene.

Most JFK researchers overlooked him -- including Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marr, Jim Garrison, Jay Epstein, A.J. Weberman, and the list goes on.

The work on Edwin Walker is tiny compared with the nonsense literature about LBJ killing JFK.

The current rage among serious JFK researchers is the error (IMHO) that the CIA high-command killed JFK. This error was started by Jim Garrison and fueled by Mark Lane, and then took on a life of its own with John Newman and Joan Mellen.

Larry Hancock also started down that road -- but since he is pals with Bill Simpich, and since Simpich has basically shown a major RIFT in that theory -- I wonder what Larry Hancock thinks about a totally CIA high-command plot today.

The alternative theories are breaking down. The more time goes forward, the more JFK researchers will return to the history books of 1963, and realize that Ex-General Edwin Walker and the JBS again appear to be the leading suspects -- exactly as Jack Ruby said to Earl Warren -- and exactly as Harry Dean has been saying for five decades.

Time goes fast. Soon 2017 will be here, and the JFK Information Act will reveal all the secret documents that the US Government concealed about the JFK murder. I predict that Ex-General Edwin Walker will take center stage, take the US reader by surprise, and then be the subject of a furious hurricane of media coverage.

A movie will be made about Edwin Walker by the year 2020. That's my prediction.

And then -- at long last -- JFK researchers will realize that Harry Dean's claims about General Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard were always correct. Time will tell about Guy Gabaldon.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Larry Hancock still thinks that the scenario in NEXUS is correct, the assassination originated in Angleton's concerns, expressed to Harvey, that JFK's behavior - specifically his independent negotiations with Castro - was dangerous to the country if not actually treasonous. No doubt Helms and possibly even Dulles shared that same opinion but the more important point is that Harvey shared those concerns with individuals he had been working with in Miami who felt it was the last straw; they had already totally lost confidence in JFK. And those were people who were fully experienced and operationally competent in organization covert assassination operations. The team that ended up going operational was composed of off the JMWAVE books individuals that Morales and Robertson had been using in the Castro assassination project with which Roselli had been involved. Roselli volunteered certain of his contacts and supported the effort in a minor although important fashion. And one more time, if you think that people like Morales, Robertson or Sforza would have conducted or even supported an executive action operation using folks like Hall or Howard....and for that matter Hunt. Morales is on record as saying he did not trust Hunt to keep information to himself and nobody else should either.

And Bill Simpich and I were together in a radio interview last night and are very much still in synch including affairs in Mexico City. Based on his remarks last night I'm pretty sure Bill is still in synch with Nexus as well. As to a movie about Edwain Walker, maybe, there was a movie about Marita Lorenz too....but then she was a lot more attractive and with a much more sensational story e.g. I had Castro's baby. Who knows.

-- Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

Despite Paul's high regard for Weberman, significantly, Weberman does not even mention Harry Dean, John Rousselot, or Guy Galbadon is his opus, "Coup D'état in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy."

That's no surprise -- most JFK researchers in the past 50 years have overlooked Ex-General Edwin Walker as a major suspect, due to his disloyalty to his uniform and to the US Government by virtue of his JBS belief that all US Presidents since FDR (including JFK) were deliberate, conscious Agents of the Communist Conspiracy.

In 1961-1964 the US awareness of Ex-General Walker was high. He is named over 500 times in the Warren Commission volumes alone. But after the Warren Report and its Lone-Gunman theory, and after the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw, the name of Edwin Walker has almost vanished from the public scene.

Most JFK researchers overlooked him -- including Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marr, Jim Garrison, Jay Epstein, A.J. Weberman, and the list goes on.

The work on Edwin Walker is tiny compared with the nonsense literature about LBJ killing JFK.

The current rage among serious JFK researchers is the error (IMHO) that the CIA killed JFK. This error was started by Jim Garrison and fueled by Mark Lane, and then took on a life of its own with John Newman and Joan Mellen.

Larry Hancock also started down that road -- but since he is pals with Bill Simpich, and since Simpich has basically shown a major RIFT in that theory -- I wonder what Larry Hancock thinks about a totally CIA high-command plot today.

The alternative theories are breaking down. The more time goes forward, the more JFK researchers will return to the history books of 1963, and realize that Ex-General Edwin Walker and the JBS again appear to be the leading suspects -- exactly as Jack Ruby said to Earl Warren -- and exactly as Harry Dean has been saying for five decades.

Time goes fast. Soon 2017 will be here, and the JFK Information Act will reveal all the secret documents that the US Government concealed about the JFK murder. I predict that Ex-General Edwin Walker will take center stage, take the US reader by surprise, and then be the subject of a furious hurricane of media coverage.

A movie will be made about Edwin Walker by the year 2020. That's my prediction.

And then -- at long last -- JFK researchers will realize that Harry Dean's claims about General Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard were always correct. Time will tell about Guy Gabaldon.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you misunderstood my message.

Whether or not a researcher agrees with any particular theory is not significant.

However, knowledgeable students and researchers acknowledge the existence of alternative explanations and, usually, they attempt to refute or falsify those explanations which do not conform to what they have discovered OR they acknowledge when newly available data supports a specific argument. [sometimes such corrections come in the form which Greg recently posted concerning interpretation of comments made by a key figure -- such as when sarcasm was intended but not readily apparent in literal words.]

This process is particularly apparent as new information becomes available --- such as when previously unknown evidence comes to light from such things as oral histories or interviews with witnesses or interviews with associates of participants. etc. or when there is discovery of new documentary evidence -- such as government documents released for first time, or personal papers, correspondence, or books/articles which report new information.

My point about Weberman is the same point I have previously made with respect to many other JFK assassination researchers --- some of whom you have praised in this forum -- such as Joan Mellen. For example: when I contacted Joan Mellen, her reply to my inquiry stated:

"No one among all the people I interviewed mentioned Harry Dean."

Almost nobody mentions Harry Dean or they devote only one or two sentences to his assertions --- because even though Harry has spent 50 years publicizing his narrative in booklets, pamphlets, radio and TV interviews, and through your eBook, and through hundreds of messages posted online, almost nobody believes his story.

I am NOT referring to critics (such as myself) whom you do not respect anyway.

Instead, I am referring to those researchers and authors and specialists who have spent years or decades researching JFK's assassination --- whom you DO respect! In fact, most of the books I have seen about JFK's murder do not even mention Harry nor do they mention Galbadon or any "JBS plot" involving Walker et al. THAT is what is so striking.

POSTSCRIPT:

As a further illustration of my point: A while back I mentioned that a new book about the JBS was published this summer. It was authored by Dr. Darren Mulloy, a professor of history at a university.in Canada whose research specialty is political extremist organizations in the U.S. [His book was selected by the History Book Club as one of their featured publications.]

Dr. Mulloy's new book is the best-researched, most detailed, and most accurate history of the JBS ever written.

Of particular significance is that Dr. Mulloy obviously spent a lot of time familiarizing himself with JBS publications and he obviously understood and accurately summarized the underlying logic of JBS arguments.

Furthermore, his 58 pages of "notes" and 15 pages of bibliographic references make it self-evident that he was exceptionally well-informed about all the other research done about the JBS ---particularly books, articles, masters theses and doctoral dissertations by other academics.

This is what you expect when somebody is a genuine scholar especially when they specialize in a particular subject matter. Another author who has that sterling reputation is Dr. Donald T. Critchlow. His most recent book, "The Conservative Ascendancy: How The Republican Right Rose To Power In Modern America" contains 50 pages of very detailed bibliographic notes. He obviously is intimately familiar with the history of the postwar conservative movement.

My point is that it does not appear that anybody who has written about JFK's assassination has ever bothered to give Harry Dean's "JBS plot" theory any credence because as Leroy Chapman correctly pointed out in footnote #20 of his article regarding Billy James Hargis/Edwin /Walker"

"In 1962, a former Castro sympathizer turned CIA informant named Harry Dean infiltrated the John Birch Society. He claimed that society members Walker and John Rousselot hired two gunmen to kill John F. Kennedy, and that they planned to frame Lee Harvey Oswald. Dean, however, could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim."

Edited August 28, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Larry Hancock still thinks that the scenario in NEXUS is correct, the assassination originated in Angleton's concerns, expressed to Harvey, that JFK's behavior - specifically his independent negotiations with Castro - was dangerous to the country if not actually treasonous. No doubt Helms and possibly even Dulles shared that same opinion but the more important point is that Harvey shared those concerns with individuals he had been working with in Miami who felt it was the last straw; they had already totally lost confidence in JFK. And those were people who were fully experienced and operationally competent in organization covert assassination operations.

The team that ended up going operational was composed of off the JMWAVE books individuals that Morales and Robertson had been using in the Castro assassination project with which Roselli had been involved. Roselli volunteered certain of his contacts and supported the effort in a minor although important fashion. And one more time, if you think that people like Morales, Robertson or Sforza would have conducted or even supported an executive action operation using folks like Hall or Howard....and for that matter Hunt. Morales is on record as saying he did not trust Hunt to keep information to himself and nobody else should either.

And Bill Simpich and I were together in a radio interview last night and are very much still in synch including affairs in Mexico City. Based on his remarks last night I'm pretty sure Bill is still in synch with Nexus as well. As to a movie about Edwain Walker, maybe, there was a movie about Marita Lorenz too....but then she was a lot more attractive and with a much more sensational story e.g. I had Castro's baby. Who knows.

-- Larry

Many thanks, Larry Hancock, for chiming in here, and especially for your clear and concise summary of your expert thinking about the JFK assassination.

It is interesting to note that you haven't changed your views about Angleton since publishing NEXUS (2011) even after Bill Simpich published his online book, STATE SECRET (2014) which demonstrates with what appears to be scientific precision that James Jesus Angleton started a mole hunt to discover who in the world impersonated Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963.

Whoever it was that impersonated Oswald made every effort to link Oswald's name with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. More than a decade after the mole-hunt, the CIA never learned who the mole was.

I must ask in all seriousness -- doesn't this mole hunt prove conclusively that the CIA was divided within itself? Doesn't this mole hunt prove conclusively that the framers of Lee Harvey Oswald NEVER included James Jesus Angelton, or anybody high enough in the CIA to start a mole hunt?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

The CIA has always been highly compartmentalized with the clandestine service separated from analysis and counter intelligence separated from everyone - but with strong links to CIA security. Beyond that operational units such as SAS were isolated as much as possible from actual stations such as JMWAVE or Mexico City. So yes, the CIA was very much divided among itself, and when it came to counter intelligence often lied to itself as well. For that matter senior officers were legally authorized to lie to other groups inside the Agency even during investigations as standard information security practice.

All of which adds to the sort of confusion you find with multiple agendas around Oswald and in Mexico City.

But to get to the point. As I describe in NEXUS, one of the routine things Angleton did was to express his worries and concerns to a very small handful of people, people like Helms, Harvey, Dulles. According to first hand reports he would sit down, ramble on about his worries and how dangerous certain things were and then just leave. Sometimes that led to actual operations, more often not. That sort of thing was SOP at his level inside the Agency and gave ultimate deniablity. All of which means Angleton could well have given Harvey key information about the Castro contacts, expressed his view that JFK was a national security risk, shaken his head numerous times and gone off to another office - and had no idea what happened beyond that.

As Bill Simpich demonstrates, the mole hunt and other activities in Mexico City would quite normally develop around Oswald's visit, standard counter intelligence practices. The telephone impersonation is the point of focus for tracking fingerprints of the conspiracy, not the mole hunt.

So, do I see James Angleton as a villain, yes in a great many ways. Given certain of his remarks just before his death he appears to have begun to realize just how many terrible things had resulted from his own actions. Do I see him operationally involved in the conspiracy and the attack in Dallas - no.