Carl Jenkins

[Larry Hancock]

Brenden, hopefully you have been following my blog posts on the Wheaton names research.  If not you will find me on wordpress.  David and I are doing ongoing research on the Wheaton names and I have posted Version 5 of our working paper (you will find the link on the blog posts).  We are up to Version 9 now and will likely post a new edition sometime early next year....the work on developing the names and associations is a slog at best (thankfully David does most of it...grin).  I will be telling a lot of the story of Jenkins and the people associated with him during the Cuba project in my upcoming book (In Denial) which will be out in March/April next year.

As to the falling out,  Stu Wexler and I looked into that a good bit as well as the Sheenhan writing on Jenkins and our take is based on the fact that Jenkins and Quintero had warned Wheaton that they had the connections necessary to smear him and tarnish his credibly if he did try to do anything with his remarks - that was after he offered to try an obtain some level of protection for them if they would talk.  Our conclusion is that by leaking the right remarks to the right people they managed to do that to some extent. 

As far as Wheaton was concerned there was no falling out with Quintero who he considered a true friend; things did cool with Jenkins considerably - and Jenkins has been far more aggressive in calling Wheaton a xxxx.  Quintero did not call him a xxxx and even said that he had indeed heard what he described, but simply that he had misunderstood some of what was being said.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Larry Hancock

[Larry Hancock]

In regard to records on Jenkins being classified, I don't think that is the real problem.  What we would really like to know is more about the sniper attack plan (and possibly other similar plans) that he was associated with in early 1961.  Unfortunately it appears that much of that was verbal only - as would be standard practice. The HSCA did a serious search and found little on it.  My guess is that like other still mysterious elements of the first Cuba project the files were destroyed before the official inquires on that began. And as with the "black lists" for the Cuba project, none of the officers involved were willing to admit that such things as assassination were ever sanctioned.

[David Boylan]

Here's a bit on what Jenkins was doing for Cuban ops prior to the BOP. He worked with Col. Glenn "Rocky" Farnsworth training the early MRR/AMHAZE group. Farnsworth served with future Director of the CIA William Colby during WWII.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16045&search=farnsworth#relPageId=170&tab=page

[Brendan Boucher]

I have been reading your blog Larry, great stuff, glad to know more is coming!  I listened to a podcast you and David were on as well.  Suffice to say I cannot stop thinking about these connections.  

 

Gene Wheaton was a man in an incredibly unique position to obtain unguarded first hand knowledge of some of the most pivotal yet lesser know events in modern history.  It's not difficult to understand why Carl Jenkins decided long ago this chapter of his life was closed and that any efforts to drudge up these matters would be met with hostility.  

 

From the 2005 Wheaton interview I believe he says he was somehow trying to broker immunity through Sen. Hugh Scott of Penn.  I got the impression that this was during the mid 80's but Sen Scott's last year in office was 1977.  Possibly he was still trying to use his clout in 85-86?  Whatever it was he was clear that Jenkins in no uncertain terms said he would not be involved.

 

Even the knowledge that Wheaton thought this might have been possible likely unsettled Mr Jenkins.

[Larry Hancock]

Actually Wheaton mentioned a couple of legislators that he was friends with and who might have the right influence, Stu tracked down one but unfortunately his name escapes me at the moment.  Anecdotal corroboration of Wheaton's remarks continues to come up in strange places.  While I was presenting on the Wheaton names two years ago at the Lancer Conference, one of the attendees did some real time searching and found that one of Wheaton's relatives had posted about attending an event in Washington DC and being introduced to one of the individual's Wheaton mentioned as being a government contact.

It is true that Wheaton's own experiences made him sensitive to cover ups and conspiracies and in later years his attention moved on beyond JFK, largely because he had been totally stymied there.  When we tracked down interviews that he did with one media person in later years they were both interested in more contemporary events and hardly touched on JFK.   Actually I think that is a form of corroboration in itself because Wheaton consistently made very limited statements and never claimed to know more than the remarks he had heard in the private bull sessions - I'm always impressed by sources who don't elaborate and whose content and claims do not expand  over time.

As to Jenkins, given the absolute anathema which prevails in regard to CIA sponsored assassination, Jenkins may well remain tight lipped not just because of the JFK remarks Wheaton described, but because he could well be questioned about the Castro assassination efforts with Felix Rodriquez and possibly Segundo Borges  - something the HSCA failed to do. That would open up yet another can of worms about Agency cover ups.

[Ron Bulman]

On 12/6/2019 at 1:36 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Brenden, hopefully you have been following my blog posts on the Wheaton names research.  If not you will find me on wordpress.  David and I are doing ongoing research on the Wheaton names and I have posted Version 5 of our working paper (you will find the link on the blog posts).  We are up to Version 9 now and will likely post a new edition sometime early next year....the work on developing the names and associations is a slog at best (thankfully David does most of it...grin).  I will be telling a lot of the story of Jenkins and the people associated with him during the Cuba project in my upcoming book (In Denial) which will be out in March/April next year.

As to the falling out,  Stu Wexler and I looked into that a good bit as well as the Sheenhan writing on Jenkins and our take is based on the fact that Jenkins and Quintero had warned Wheaton that they had the connections necessary to smear him and tarnish his credibly if he did try to do anything with his remarks - that was after he offered to try an obtain some level of protection for them if they would talk.  Our conclusion is that by leaking the right remarks to the right people they managed to do that to some extent. 

As far as Wheaton was concerned there was no falling out with Quintero who he considered a true friend; things did cool with Jenkins considerably - and Jenkins has been far more aggressive in calling Wheaton a xxxx.  Quintero did not call him a xxxx and even said that he had indeed heard what he described, but simply that he had misunderstood some of what was being said.

The same Felix Rodriguez later protected by George H W Bush?

 https://historicaltruthproject.com/2014/11/26/felix-rodriguez-the-man-who-took-down-che-guevara/

[Ron Bulman]

x

Edited December 8, 2019 by Ron Bulman
edit

[Ron Bulman]

On 12/6/2019 at 2:13 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Actually Wheaton mentioned a couple of legislators that he was friends with and who might have the right influence, Stu tracked down one but unfortunately his name escapes me at the moment.  Anecdotal corroboration of Wheaton's remarks continues to come up in strange places.  While I was presenting on the Wheaton names two years ago at the Lancer Conference, one of the attendees did some real time searching and found that one of Wheaton's relatives had posted about attending an event in Washington DC and being introduced to one of the individual's Wheaton mentioned as being a government contact.

It is true that Wheaton's own experiences made him sensitive to cover ups and conspiracies and in later years his attention moved on beyond JFK, largely because he had been totally stymied there.  When we tracked down interviews that he did with one media person in later years they were both interested in more contemporary events and hardly touched on JFK.   Actually I think that is a form of corroboration in itself because Wheaton consistently made very limited statements and never claimed to know more than the remarks he had heard in the private bull sessions - I'm always impressed by sources who don't elaborate and whose content and claims do not expand  over time.

As to Jenkins, given the absolute anathema which prevails in regard to CIA sponsored assassination, Jenkins may well remain tight lipped not just because of the JFK remarks Wheaton described, but because he could well be questioned about the Castro assassination efforts with Felix Rodriquez and possibly Segundo Borges  - something the HSCA failed to do. That would open up yet another can of worms about Agency cover ups.

Oops, replied regarding Rodriguez  to the wrong post above.  

https://historicaltruthproject.com/2014/11/26/felix-rodriguez-the-man-who-took-down-che-guevara/

[John Kozlowski]

On 12/6/2019 at 3:00 PM, Brendan Boucher said:

I have been reading your blog Larry, great stuff, glad to know more is coming!  I listened to a podcast you and David were on as well.  Suffice to say I cannot stop thinking about these connections.  

 

Gene Wheaton was a man in an incredibly unique position to obtain unguarded first hand knowledge of some of the most pivotal yet lesser know events in modern history.  It's not difficult to understand why Carl Jenkins decided long ago this chapter of his life was closed and that any efforts to drudge up these matters would be met with hostility.  

 

From the 2005 Wheaton interview I believe he says he was somehow trying to broker immunity through Sen. Hugh Scott of Penn.  I got the impression that this was during the mid 80's but Sen Scott's last year in office was 1977.  Possibly he was still trying to use his clout in 85-86?  Whatever it was he was clear that Jenkins in no uncertain terms said he would not be involved.

 

Even the knowledge that Wheaton thought this might have been possible likely unsettled Mr Jenkins.

What was the podcast? I’d like to listen to it.

[Larry Hancock]

The link to the interview (its not really a podcast but rather a video taped interview) is on one of my Wheaton Names posts on my WordPress blog...you should be able to find it with a quick search.  It should be in the Wheaton Names research paper that is mentioned there as well.  Beyond that I'm guessing a general search for Gene Wheaton Interview will find it.

[John Kozlowski]

1 minute ago, Larry Hancock said:

The link to the interview (its not really a podcast but rather a video taped interview) is on one of my Wheaton Names posts on my WordPress blog...you should be able to find it with a quick search.  It should be in the Wheaton Names research paper that is mentioned there as well.  Beyond that I'm guessing a general search for Gene Wheaton Interview will find it.

Thank you Larry 

[Paul Brancato]

Larry - where does Daniel Sheehan fit into this? Is there a dispute behind the scenes? 

[David Boylan]

19 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oops, replied regarding Rodriguez  to the wrong post above.  

https://historicaltruthproject.com/2014/11/26/felix-rodriguez-the-man-who-took-down-che-guevara/

Ron,

The one  and the same Felix Rodriguez.

Edited December 9, 2019 by David Boylan

[Larry Hancock]

Paul,  Sheehan is associated peripherally primarily because of his reporting on the Contra affairs and his contact with certain of the same individuals Jenkins knew during those events.  Our take is that Sheehan was actually fed certain types of misinformation, some of it specifically intended to jeopardize Wheaton as a source - exactly what Jenkins and Quintero promised to do to him.  Certainly it is true that some of his writing and speculation (Sheehan's) on Contra era events appears to have been a little off the mark based on later revelations.

In one way there is no dispute as Sheenhan verifies Wheaton as being involved (or attempting to be involved) in the chaos of North's private war. In another there is since Sheenhan, based on unnamed sources paints a picture of Wheaton as being something of a conspiracy fan - of course in later years that could be said to be true because what Wheaton had heard and his own experiences convinced him that official government stories about sensational events were often not to be trusted. That is something entirely different from his earliest efforts to take the the JFK remarks very secretly to select Congresspersons for investigation.

If Stu sees this he may have more cogent remarks, once again its been several years since we went though what Sheehan and others had to say about Wheaton  and I would not want to be more specific simply off the top of my head.

[Ron Bulman]

It might be important to clarify at this point in time that Daniel Sheehan  is not Frank Sheeran.