"Andy" Anderson

[Jim Root]

In a recent post Gerry Hemming suggested that Dallas confidential informant T-2 was perhaps a bug in the home of Edwin Anderson Walker. If true it would be Walker who informed the FBI of Oswald's Pro Castro support before Oswald started his Fair Play for Cuba activities.

Some have suggested that the attempted assassination of Walker may have been faked, something that I have doubted for years. In the past few weeks I have began to think that this event may deserve a new look for several reasons.

Before I go further into my numerous new thoughts I would like to open a discussion with a "what if" line of reasoning.

What if Walker did in fact know Oswald (I believe they met while Oswald traveled to Helsinki and believe that specific information was passed to Oswald that helped him obtain an entry visa into Russia) and was his "handler?" Could Walker have been the person that debriefed Oswald when he returned to the US?

Could Edwin Anderson Walker be Andy Anderson?

(Excerpted from John Newman's testimony to Rep. Conyer's oversight committee on November 17, 1993 and originally reprinted in the Coalition On Political Assassinations newsletter, Open Secrets, Vol. #1, August, 1994.)

"In addition, a memo from James Angleton's CIA mole hunting unit, the CI/SIG, which stands for Counterintelligence Special Investigations Group, has surfaced in these files with handwriting on it which gives the name of a CIA Domestic Contact division employee - a name which appears to be one "Andy" Anderson - as a CIA contact for Harvey Oswald. This document, which, like the SR 6 document, was in a "soft file," meaning it was not in the original Oswald 201 file, confirms the recollections of other Clandestine Services employees that Andy Anderson did in fact debrief Oswald. Don Deneselya, who worked in the Russian Branch, Foreign Documents Division, Office of Contacts [OO/FDD, USSR] read Anderson's debrief in 1962. The very branch chief in the Domestic Contacts Division who would have overseen incoming debriefs like Anderson's confirms that his branch recovered the debriefing from the field office that had it.

There is nothing conspiratorial about the fact that the CIA debriefed Lee Harvey Oswald. They should have. That was their job. The debrief was routine. The troubling aspect is why the CIA has doggedly denied a debrief ever took place. The answer to this question has really been available all along, and the answer is that this denial is part of a broader lie the Agency has been telling for decades: that they were not interested in Oswald. This false statement of no interest in Oswald was not advanced to hide a routine debrief, an act which the Agency did do, but to excuse the Agency for an act it failed to do, namely, to launch a counterintelligence investigation of Oswald at the time of his defection to Russia. This failure was deeply troubling to the House Select Committee, which probed the Agency vigorously but unsuccessfully on this question. For 14 months the CIA failed to properly investigate Oswald, a man who left the U-2 spy base in Japan to defect to Russia and boldly announced his intention to commit an act of espionage.

Thus the debrief story is integral to the larger enigma of why, in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA was apparently asleep at the switch for 14 months. Perhaps because of the CIA's interest in and contact with Oswald, the Agency panicked when President Kennedy was assassinated. Perhaps the cables indicating Oswald had announced his intent to commit espionage were "lost," thus explaining the Agency's failure to do its job. Perhaps. Perhaps indeed, but perhaps not. I think it prudent to reserve judgment until we have all of the CIA's materials. One thing is certain: These new files make it clear that the CIA's past denials of interest in and contact with Oswald are not true.

Your thoughts,

Jim Root

[Robert Howard]

First, let me congratulate you on your positing that Walker concievably could have been 'Andy Anderson,' I believe that any significant discoveries regarding 'establishing' a link between Walker and any other 'intelligence related' figures and/or agencies [such as (individuals) Allen Dulles, James Angleton, D.A. Phillips, E.H. Hunt, Ed Coyle, James Powell and (agencies) Army Intelligence specifically 112th MIG, CIA-DDP and CI/G.] is beyond 'very important' as far as clarification purposes, re: assassination related matters.

Even though many express outrage and disdain that Gerry Hemming is 'listened to' and even 'asked about' material pertinent to 11/22/63 events and the before and after period, he makes it clear that the idea that the 'assassination attempt on Walker' has a few holes in it (i.e. the official version). I would go as far to say that not only is he right but that other less controversial personages have made the same observation, Lamar Waldron [ultimate Sacrifice p. 466-467] for one.

George DeMohrenschildt, told Edward Epstein that he 'spoke to the CIA both before and afterwward' with regards to the Walker shooting and discovery of the 'backyard photograph.'

My main comment is that if one matter is beyond doubt regarding the CIA Mexico City Station personel, it is the use of pseudonyms when circumstances make it comfortable and/or logical to do so.

For years the identity of John Scelso was (some would say 'is') a mystery, but logic validates the conclusion reached by one researcher that Scelso was indeed, John Whitten. (Whitten's 'leaving' the Agency and moving to another country eventually) had more than just a little to do with his encounters with Richard Helms, DDP during said time frame.

In closing I would mention that there is another perspective regarding the Dallas T-1. It has been postulated that the Dallas T-1 'was a postal official.' If that is true (and I am not submitting it is or isn't) I know what my first guess 'might' be. But that's another story.

PS John Newman's 'Oswald and The CIA,' 'What Jane Roman Said' and the Lopez Report are must reads to appreciate the duplicity regarding their 'input' into resolving the 'Crime of the Century'

"I am signing off on something I know isn't true." - Well Duh, Imagine that

Edited February 28, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Thomas Graves]

First, let me congratulate you on your positing that Walker concievably could have been 'Andy Anderson,' I believe that any significant discoveries regarding 'establishing' a link between Walker and any other 'intelligence related' figures and/or agencies [such as (individuals) Allen Dulles, James Angleton, D.A. Phillips, E.H. Hunt, Ed Coyle, James Powell and (agencies) Army Intelligence specifically 112th MIG, CIA-DDP and CI/G.] is beyond 'very important' as far as clarification purposes, re: assassination related matters.

Even though many express outrage and disdain that Gerry Hemming is 'listened to' and even 'asked about' material pertinent to 11/22/63 events and the before and after period, he makes it clear that the idea that the 'assassination attempt on Walker' has a few holes in it (i.e. the official version). I would go as far to say that not only is he right but that other less controversial personages have made the same observation, Lamar Waldron [ultimate Sacrifice p. 466-467] for one.

George DeMohrenschildt, told Edward Epstein that he 'spoke to the CIA both before and afterwward' with regards to the Walker shooting and discovery of the 'backyard photograph.'

My main comment is that if one matter is beyond doubt regarding the CIA Mexico City Station personel, it is the use of pseudonyms when circumstances make it comfortable and/or logical to do so.

For years the identity of John Scelso was (some would say 'is') a mystery, but logic validates the conclusion reached by one researcher that Scelso was indeed, John Whitten. (Whitten's 'leaving' the Agency and moving to another country eventually) had more than just a little to do with his encounters with Richard Helms, DDP during said time frame.

In closing I would mention that there is another perspective regarding the Dallas T-1. It has been postulated that the Dallas T-1 'was a postal official.' If that is true (and I am not submitting it is or isn't) I know what my first guess 'might' be. But that's another story.

PS John Newman's 'Oswald and The CIA,' 'What Jane Roman Said' and the Lopez Report are must reads to appreciate the duplicity regarding their 'input' into resolving the 'Crime of the Century'

"I am signing off on something I know isn't true." - Well Duh, Imagine that

__________________________________________

I just think this thread is of enough importance to try to keep it on the "front page" a bit longer................

FWIW, Thomas

__________________________________________