Jump to content
The Education Forum

Carl Jenkins


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

The most dramatic aspect of the JFK Lancer conference was the showing of the interview with Gene Wheaton. Talking to William Law and Mark Sobel, Wheaton, a former CIA freelancer, claimed that Carl Jenkins and Raphael Quintero were both involved in the assassination of JFK.

As far as I can see, it was the first time that Jenkins has been named as the man who organized the assassination. I have been checking out Jenkins and it seems that he is in fact a good candidate. Like other CIA people suspected of being involved in the assassination, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, Tracy Barnes, Rip Robertson, Jenkins was part of the team that overthrew President Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala.

Jenkins was also David Morales’ boss at JM WAVE in 1963. The CIA station involved in the plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. According to Wheaton, the assassination team, that included Raphael Quintero, was redirected to kill JFK.

My research of Wheaton suggests he is a credible witness. He is the man who first exposed the Iran-Contra scandal. This is what Wheaton has to say about the CIA during the 1960s and 1970s (Declassified Radio - 4th January, 2002):

In May of ’86, I personally briefed CIA director Bill Casey, and of course he looked startled. I had no idea at the time that he was one of the masterminds behind all this illegal stuff, but he said he’d look into it and get back to me. And he said he had to leave the country the next day, and would be back in touch with me in two or three weeks. It was exactly the same weekend, or the week, I think the 30th of May, when I met with him, or the 31st, when Ollie North was on that secret trip with Bud McFarland to Tehran. So I suppose Casey was going over to Israel to brief them about it. I didn’t know that at the time. Casey sent a message to me after he got back saying that the agency wasn’t involved in any of this stuff, and that the government wasn’t involved in this illegal diversion, and "If you think you can do anything about it, let the chips fall where they may," as a bluff. I’m just a raggedy little old Oklahoma country boy, retired chief warrant officer, and I guess he figured I couldn’t do it.

Anyway, as result of those briefings in the summer of ‘86, and I was kind of - this struck me as being treason and grand larceny on a major scale, stealing from the taxpayers’ money, - and having been a cop all my life, I thought it was kind of wrong. So I got with a couple of Washington D.C. journalists that I knew. And one of them was a two-time Pulitzer prize winning journalist by the name of Newt Royce. And Newt Royce and Mike Icoca, who was a free-lancer who was writing with him - Newt at that time was with the Hearst newspaper chain in Washington D. C., with their bureau. I had information - direct knowledge from the Saudi royal family - that kickbacks were being, from the Saudi AWACS program, were being used to help fund the Contras, to buy weapons from different countries around the world. And I furnished Newt with the names of other people that could back up what I was saying, and that this was a scam because Secord, who was on active duty after the Iranian revolution, was the chief architect of the Saudi AWACS program. The Saudi AWACS program was identical to our Iran IBEX program that we had to close down in Iran. They just moved it across the Persian Gulf to Saudi Arabia and renamed it. It was an 8 billion dollar program, and those guys were talking about 10 % or 15%, so you’re talking about an 800 million dollars minimum, estimate, that that these guys could get whenever they wanted it, out of the bag.

And Newt and Mike Icoca wrote it up on the wire service for Hearst newspaper chain, and it went out on the wires and was made a front page headline of the San Francisco Examiner on the 27th of July of 1986. As a result of that article in August of ‘86, Congressman Dante Facell wrote a letter to then secretary of defense Casper Weinberger asking him if it was true that foreign money, kickback money on programs, was being used to fund foreign covert operations. And in September of ‘86 Cap Weinberger wrote a letter back to Facell denying that it was being done by the U.S. government, with any knowledge of it being kickback money. That eventually, one of George Bush’s last acts - and Larry Walsh, the special prosecutor, indicted Weinberger as a result of that correspondence - and Bush pardoned him as one of his last acts. And that’s how this whole mess got started.

This stuff goes back to the scandals of the 70s... of Watergate and Richard Helms, the CIA director, being convicted by Congress of lying to Congress, of Ted Shackley and Tom Clines and Dick Secord and a group of them being forced into retirement as a result of the scandal over Edmond P. Wilson’s training of Libyan terrorists in conjunction with these guys, and moving C-4 explosives to Libya. They decided way back when, ‘75-’76, during the Pike and Church Committee hearings, that the Congress was their enemy. They felt that the government had betrayed them and that they were the real heroes in this country and that the government became their enemy. In the late 70s, in fact, after Gerry Ford lost the election in ’76 to Jimmy Carter, and then these guys became exposed by Stansfield Turner and crowd for whatever reason... there were different factions involved in all this stuff, and power plays... Ted Shackley and Vernon Walters and Frank Carlucci and Ving West and a group of these guys used to have park-bench meetings in the late 70s in McClean, Virginia so nobody could overhear they conversations. They basically said, "With our expertise at placing dictators in power," I’m almost quoting verbatim one of their comments, "why don’t we treat the United States like the world’s biggest banana republic and take it over?" And the first thing they had to do was to get their man in the White House, and that was George Bush."

This crowd really believes that the unwashed masses are ignorant, that we are people who are not capable of governing ourselves, that we need this elitist group to control the country, and the world -- these guys have expanded. They look at the United States not as a country, not in any kind of patriotic mode now, but they look on it as a state within a world that they control. And that’s this attitude that they have. They’re not unlike any other megalomaniac in the world. They’re nutty as fruitcake, but they’ve got distinguished gray hair, three-piece dark suits and they carry briefcases, and they’ll stand up and make speeches just as articulate as anybody in the world, but they don’t socialize and function outside their own little clique. My experience with them is that they could be certified as criminally insane and put away in a rubber room and have the key thrown away. That’s how dangerous they are. But they’re powerful, and they’re educated. And that makes them twice as dangerous. And that’s basically what’s running the world right now.

If I had not been part of this, and hadn’t seen it first hand, I would not believe a word I’m saying. You couldn’t convince me that something like this - and the American people will not believe it. Because you can’t get the average citizen... I’ve talked to judges and lawyers who have invited me in to talk to them. Some of them really patriotic concerned people. It turns them off, because it changes their entire life experience, and the reason that they have existed, and the things they have believed in all their life if you tell them this.

I have sat on the banks of the Potomac in restaurants with 75 and 80-year-old retired CIA people and retired generals, West Point graduates, honorable people... these old men have sat with tears in their eyes and told me that, "Gene, what you’re into, you understand it more than we did, and it’s absolutely true, but it’s just so big you can’t do anything about it." I guess if I believed that, I’d go off to some South Sea island and drink a few Cuba Libres laying in the sand or something, but somebody has to keep charging in there, you know. The biggest chink in their armor - and it would take somebody smarter than me to figure out how to exploit it - is their insecurity. They are afraid of a peasant with a pitchfork. And the reason they react so strongly and violently against anybody who opposes them, is because they’re afraid someone will grab a thread and unravel it, and their whole uniform will come unraveled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John, I doubt that Jenkins was Morales boss in 1963 as Morales was reporting directly to Shackley on his JM/WAVE work and probably had a dotted line report to Fitzgerald follwoing the departure of Harvey. That appears to have been in support of the continued Castro assassination effort which seems to have gone on after it was officially shut down with the departure of Harvey. The Harvey-Roselli meeting down there in the spring seems to have been related to this compartmentalized continuation as it occured away from JM/WAVE yet was conducted under the ZR/RIFLE crypt.

If you do a NARA search on Jenkins you will find that in 1963 he was indeed working with Quintero but that was on the AMWORLD project that Lemar addresses in detail in his book. Jenkins was also closely associated with Artime in the latter half of 1963. Morales organized special paramilitary training for both Artime and Quintero so all parties clearly knew each other. However AMWORLD was very much separately from JM/WAVE except when it required certain operational support.

Documents relating to what I've just described will be made available in conjunction with my second edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I doubt that Jenkins was Morales boss in 1963 as Morales was reporting directly to Shackley on his JM/WAVE work and probably had a dotted line report to Fitzgerald follwoing the departure of Harvey. That appears to have been in support of the continued Castro assassination effort which seems to have gone on after it was officially shut down with the departure of Harvey. The Harvey-Roselli meeting down there in the spring seems to have been related to this compartmentalized continuation as it occured away from JM/WAVE yet was conducted under the ZR/RIFLE crypt.

Point taken. I had an email this morning from a reliable CIA source confirming that Morales reported directly to Shackley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most dramatic aspect of the JFK Lancer conference was the showing of the interview with Gene Wheaton. Talking to William Law and Mark Sobel, Wheaton, a former CIA freelancer, claimed that Carl Jenkins and Raphael Quintero were both involved in the assassination of JFK.

As far as I can see, it was the first time that Jenkins has been named as the man who organized the assassination. I have been checking out Jenkins and it seems that he is in fact a good candidate. Like other CIA people suspected of being involved in the assassination, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, Tracy Barnes, Rip Robertson, Jenkins was part of the team that overthrew President Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala.

Jenkins was also David Morales’ boss at JM WAVE in 1963. The CIA station involved in the plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. According to Wheaton, the assassination team, that included Raphael Quintero, was redirected to kill JFK.

My research of Wheaton suggests he is a credible witness. He is the man who first exposed the Iran-Contra scandal. This is what Wheaton has to say about the CIA during the 1960s and 1970s (Declassified Radio - 4th January, 2002) ....

The first question that pops to mind is: are either or both of these guys (Jenkins and/or Quintero) still alive?

Good candidates to be involved in JFK's assassination or not, it's easy to point fingers at dead men who (1) don't point back, (2) don't shoot back, (3) will neither confirm nor deny, ergo (4) cannot provide further information or proofs, e.g., as to higher-ups (you can't assume it was done at the "operative" level or even with "field management"), (5) cannot defend themselves, (6) cannot sue, and (7) cannot be prosecuted.

Accusing dead people of stuff - even if true, which requires some pretty stiff (no pun intended) proofs in my mind - is how we got bogged down in the Roscoe White business for so long (and some people still can't deal with the fact that it's BS because they don't like the messenger ... or perhaps they just like to believe all of the theories out there?).

The second question that pops to mind is: what is anybody doing about it, if these guys are alive? Are they writing a book or going to the authorities?

Why would Wheaton tell Law and Sobel about the others' involvement? If he wanted it known and had proof, one would think that he would go to the authorities. After all, is this a crime we're dealing with here, or merely an interesting soap opera?

If Wheaton didn't want to go to the authorities for some reason, why would he tell someone who might either do just that or (more likely?) write a book about it, in any case not be quiet about it? Either because it isn't true, or that it is and he figured anyone who could do anything about it wouldn't believe a couple of "conspiracy buffs" anyway? Or perhaps another reason (like maybe they will write a book and he'll share in the royalties)?

What suss you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most dramatic aspect of the JFK Lancer conference was the showing of the interview with Gene Wheaton. Talking to William Law and Mark Sobel, Wheaton, a former CIA freelancer, claimed that Carl Jenkins and Raphael Quintero were both involved in the assassination of JFK.

As far as I can see, it was the first time that Jenkins has been named as the man who organized the assassination. I have been checking out Jenkins and it seems that he is in fact a good candidate. Like other CIA people suspected of being involved in the assassination, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, Tracy Barnes, Rip Robertson, Jenkins was part of the team that overthrew President Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala.

Jenkins was also David Morales’ boss at JM WAVE in 1963. The CIA station involved in the plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. According to Wheaton, the assassination team, that included Raphael Quintero, was redirected to kill JFK.

My research of Wheaton suggests he is a credible witness. He is the man who first exposed the Iran-Contra scandal. This is what Wheaton has to say about the CIA during the 1960s and 1970s (Declassified Radio - 4th January, 2002) ....

The first question that pops to mind is: are either or both of these guys (Jenkins and/or Quintero) still alive?

Good candidates to be involved in JFK's assassination or not, it's easy to point fingers at dead men who (1) don't point back, (2) don't shoot back, (3) will neither confirm nor deny, ergo (4) cannot provide further information or proofs, e.g., as to higher-ups (you can't assume it was done at the "operative" level or even with "field management"), (5) cannot defend themselves, (6) cannot sue, and (7) cannot be prosecuted.

Accusing dead people of stuff - even if true, which requires some pretty stiff (no pun intended) proofs in my mind - is how we got bogged down in the Roscoe White business for so long (and some people still can't deal with the fact that it's BS because they don't like the messenger ... or perhaps they just like to believe all of the theories out there?).

The second question that pops to mind is: what is anybody doing about it, if these guys are alive? Are they writing a book or going to the authorities?

Why would Wheaton tell Law and Sobel about the others' involvement? If he wanted it known and had proof, one would think that he would go to the authorities. After all, is this a crime we're dealing with here, or merely an interesting soap opera?

If Wheaton didn't want to go to the authorities for some reason, why would he tell someone who might either do just that or (more likely?) write a book about it, in any case not be quiet about it? Either because it isn't true, or that it is and he figured anyone who could do anything about it wouldn't believe a couple of "conspiracy buffs" anyway? Or perhaps another reason (like maybe they will write a book and he'll share in the royalties)?

What suss you?

Duke, you obviously were not at the conference so I'll help fill you in. Jenkins and Quintero are BOTH alive. This is why this info is so tricky. Outside of what they told Wheaton, there is NO evidence connecting them to the killing. Researchers are scrambling to find this evidence at this moment. And Wheaton did come forward to the authorities--he sent a series of letters to the ARRB, which were not acted upon. Some researchers recently found these letters in the archives. That is why this is news now, twenty years after Wheaton was first told these things, and ten years after he first told the government about what was said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke, you obviously were not at the conference so I'll help fill you in. Jenkins and Quintero are BOTH alive. This is why this info is so tricky. Outside of what they told Wheaton, there is NO evidence connecting them to the killing. Researchers are scrambling to find this evidence at this moment. And Wheaton did come forward to the authorities--he sent a series of letters to the ARRB, which were not acted upon. Some researchers recently found these letters in the archives. That is why this is news now, twenty years after Wheaton was first told these things, and ten years after he first told the government about what was said.

Pat, many thanks. Sometimes it sucks living in Dallas because you can't just up and get away from the rest of life when something big or interesting (or both) comes to town!

I'm not sure what ARRB could've or would've done since their mandate was quite limited: they didn't investigate, they didn't prosecute, they merely gathered documents. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that I'm not sure how they could have "acted upon" this information.

Something to consider in the event any evidence is found: the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a state felony, it was not and is not a federal crime. The law enacted that made presidential assassinations a federal offense could not be applied retroactively, so the only "authorities" that exist are here in the State of Texas. We have already seen with the Roscoe White affair (among others) that the Texas AG takes these things fairly seriously ... if there's anything of substance to them.

Mayhaps I'll find something more on the Lancer forum about this stuff(?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what ARRB could've or would've done since their mandate was quite limited: they didn't investigate, they didn't prosecute, they merely gathered documents. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that I'm not sure how they could have "acted upon" this information.

Duke and folks,

What the ARRB could have done is to pass on the information to a researcher. There are quite a few that were working closely with the various staffers to have done this. The failure of ANY followup on this is baffling.

Meanwhile, Larry Hancock and William Law, two of the most qualified researchers and interviewers I've ever come across are hot on this. Larry will devote a chapter in his upcoming book. And if anyone can get a second interview it is William Law. I've got complete trust in him.

I feel like this is a really big break in the case, especially after viewing the interview myself in Dallas. But this is a dangerous area since as stated, both of these guys are alive.

Duke, you need to come to the conference. I know the boss lady and she'll probably let you in.

Best,

Debra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Larry Hancock and William Law, two of the most qualified researchers and interviewers I've ever come across are hot on this. Larry will devote a chapter in his upcoming book. And if anyone can get a second interview it is William Law. I've got complete trust in him.

I feel like this is a really big break in the case, especially after viewing the interview myself in Dallas. But this is a dangerous area since as stated, both of these guys are alive.

I agree. You might be interested in this information about Wheaton and Jenkins.

In May, 1986, Gene Wheaton contacted Daniel Sheehan, a left-wing lawyer. Wheaton told him that Tom Clines and Ted Shackley had been running a top-secret CIA assassination unit since the early 1960s. According to Wheaton, it had begun with an assassination training program for Cuban exiles and the original target had been Fidel Castro. This unit remained in operation and people like Raphael Quintero were still being used to murder people on behalf of the CIA. It seems that in 1986 Wheaton was unwilling to disclose that Carl Jenkins and David Morales was also involved with this "assassination team".

Based on research carried out by Wheaton, on 12th December, 1986, Daniel Sheehan submitted to the court an affidavit detailing the Irangate scandal. He also claimed that Tom Clines and Ted Shackley were running a private assassination program that had evolved from projects they ran while working for the CIA. Others named as being part of this assassination team included Raphael Quintero, Richard Secord, Felix Rodriguez and Albert Hakim. It later emerged that it was not only Wheaton who was providing this information to Sheehan. The other CIA informant was Carl Jenkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider in the event any evidence is found: the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a state felony, it was not and is not a federal crime. The law enacted that made presidential assassinations a federal offense could not be applied retroactively, so the only "authorities" that exist are here in the State of Texas. We have already seen with the Roscoe White affair (among others) that the Texas AG takes these things fairly seriously ... if there's anything of substance to them.

...

Yo! Duke, and hello Deb,

If we have to wait on the State of Texas for justice, it'll never happend.

Duke, the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a conspiracy, and thus falls into federal jurisdiction. It was not a federal crime if there was not a conspiracy, but since there is multible evidence of conspiracy, it was and is a federal crime.

In addition, homicide is not the only crime involved in this case, but there are many others - and once a grand jury is conviened, and witnesses and suspects questioned under oath - perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, conspiracy, treason, the Pinkerton doctrine comes into play and what's the crime they applied to the commies in "I Led Three Lives" ?

I will be leading a Grand Jury Project Seminar on this topic and related issues soon.

For more information on grand juries, see Susan Brenner's web site at the University of Dayton School of Law.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on research carried out by Wheaton, on 12th December, 1986, Daniel Sheehan submitted to the court an affidavit detailing the Irangate scandal. He also claimed that Tom Clines and Ted Shackley were running a private assassination program that had evolved from projects they ran while working for the CIA. Others named as being part of this assassination team included Raphael Quintero, Richard Secord, Felix Rodriguez and Albert Hakim. It later emerged that it was not only Wheaton who was providing this information to Sheehan. The other CIA informant was Carl Jenkins.

While I'm undecided, many question Sheehan's motivations and ability to separate what he wants to believe from what has any factual basis. Journalist Martha Honey, who worked with Sheehan in the La Penca bombing case brought against the U.S. Government, eventually denounced him. Similarly, the Shackley as leader of the Secret Team theory seems to be losing lustre. About ten years ago, there were a lot in the conspiracy community who completely bought this. By my estimation, there are fewer today. Wheaton's inclusion of Shackley and Morales in his statements lessens his credibility, IMO. As for Jenkins being an informant? To Sheehan? If this can be substantiated, it would certainy be interesting. Sheehan was so closely connected to radical beliefs and causes, however, that if Jenkins were one of his informants, it would be a strong argument against Jenkins' involvement in any assassination work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In May, 1986, Gene Wheaton contacted Daniel Sheehan, a left-wing lawyer. Wheaton told him that Tom Clines and Ted Shackley had been running a top-secret CIA assassination unit since the early 1960s. According to Wheaton, it had begun with an assassination training program for Cuban exiles and the original target had been Fidel Castro. This unit remained in operation and people like Raphael Quintero were still being used to murder people on behalf of the CIA. It seems that in 1986 Wheaton was unwilling to disclose that Carl Jenkins and David Morales was also involved with this "assassination team".

Based on research carried out by Wheaton, on 12th December, 1986, Daniel Sheehan submitted to the court an affidavit detailing the Irangate scandal. He also claimed that Tom Clines and Ted Shackley were running a private assassination program that had evolved from projects they ran while working for the CIA. Others named as being part of this assassination team included Raphael Quintero, Richard Secord, Felix Rodriguez and Albert Hakim. It later emerged that it was not only Wheaton who was providing this information to Sheehan. The other CIA informant was Carl Jenkins. (John Simkin)

John,

Forgive what may be a stupid question, but in Eugene Wheaton's research concerning this private assassination program, the name Albert Hakim was mentioned. Do you know if Hakim enters the picture during the Iran Contra dealings or does he wind back to the early 1960's?

Hakim below.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what ARRB could've or would've done since their mandate was quite limited: they didn't investigate, they didn't prosecute, they merely gathered documents. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that I'm not sure how they could have "acted upon" this information.

Duke and folks,

What the ARRB could have done is to pass on the information to a researcher. There are quite a few that were working closely with the various staffers to have done this. The failure of ANY followup on this is baffling.

Unquestionably, it could have done, but one question would be "to which one?" Who would have decided what researcher (or author) was "qualified" to pass it on to, or should it have been sent out to all researchers and authors? Would having "favored" one over another constituted some sort of "endorsement," or provided an exclusive source of income (publishing a book based on "exclusive" evidence, or evidence given to me "exclusively")? No, I think the ARRB did exactly the right thing: filed it along with the rest of their stuff, to be found by ...?

Meanwhile, Larry Hancock and William Law, two of the most qualified researchers and interviewers I've ever come across are hot on this. Larry will devote a chapter in his upcoming book. And if anyone can get a second interview it is William Law. I've got complete trust in him.

I feel like this is a really big break in the case, especially after viewing the interview myself in Dallas. But this is a dangerous area since as stated, both of these guys are alive.

Yeah, it could be dangerous! I mean, after all, if these guys killed a president ...!?! What, they'd be nervous about offing someone who wrote a book? That's why I'd bring it to the authorities (whomever that might be), so I'd be safe.

Duke, you need to come to the conference. I know the boss lady and she'll probably let you in.

I was there (tho' not officially 'in attendance'): I bought Ian Griggs' book ... from you! :cheers

I appreciate the invite ... but isn't the conference over?!? :):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider in the event any evidence is found: the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a state felony, it was not and is not a federal crime. The law enacted that made presidential assassinations a federal offense could not be applied retroactively, so the only "authorities" that exist are here in the State of Texas. We have already seen with the Roscoe White affair (among others) that the Texas AG takes these things fairly seriously ... if there's anything of substance to them. ...

Yo! Duke, and hello Deb,

If we have to wait on the State of Texas for justice, it'll never happend.

That's why we have the busiest execution chamber in the nation!

Duke, the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a conspiracy, and thus falls into federal jurisdiction. It was not a federal crime if there was not a conspiracy, but since there is multible evidence of conspiracy, it was and is a federal crime.

In addition, homicide is not the only crime involved in this case, but there are many others - and once a grand jury is conviened, and witnesses and suspects questioned under oath - perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, conspiracy, treason, the Pinkerton doctrine comes into play and what's the crime they applied to the commies in "I Led Three Lives"?

I will be leading a Grand Jury Project Seminar on this topic and related issues soon.

I will remember never to argue law with you, then!! :)

But seriously, isn't homicide the only one of them that doesn't have a statute of limitations? Or because the primary crime is murder, do the rest of them attach even still? I agree re the Pinkerton doctrine (not the famous Pinkerton of Secret Service fame!), but I have no idea whether it applies over any time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know if Hakim enters the picture during the Iran Contra dealings or does he wind back to the early 1960's?

Albert Hakim is one of the Iran Contra Hall Of Famers.

T.C.

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...