Larry Hancock: Someone Would Have Talked

[John Simkin]

Larry, Lincoln says in her book, Kennedy and Johnson that: “Advance reports from our own staff and from many other people gave us cause to worry about the tense climate in Texas – and, most especially, in Dallas. Dallas was removed and then put back on the planned itinerary several times. Our own advance man urged that the motorcade not take the route through the underpass and past the Book Depository, but he was overruled.”

Do you know who these staff members were who gave these warnings?

[Larry Hancock]

John, I'm aware of plenty of reports and plenty of warnings coming from congress people, businessmen in Dallas and even friends of JFK. However I know of no White House staff or close Kennedy aides who were in Dallas ahead of time and gave warnings? Puterbough (sp) was acting as DNC advance man and was even introduced as White House staff which he definitely was not - but then he certainly provided no warnings.

I'd suggest giving Manchester another read, if anybody interviewed an actual Kennedy staff member who would have acknowledged that it would be him.

-- Larry

[John Simkin]

Larry, in chapter 10 of Someone Would Have Talked you make a good case that Maurice Bishop was really David Phillips. What do you make of the claim by Gerry Hemming that Jake Esterline was Bishop?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3127

On hearing this news I have done some research on Esterline. It appears that just before his death in 1999, Esterline provided some interesting information on the assassination plots against Castro.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKesterline.htm

[Larry Hancock]

John, as I recall, Veciana volunteered the Dallas incident to Fonzi and did so well into their relationship. If Veciana were somehow close to Easterline and wanted to protect him I wonder why he would even volunteer such an incident at all - especially since its the only solid thing he really gave Fonzi relating to a possible conspiracy. Personally I'm not aware of any particular relationship between Veciana and Easterline but perhaps you will turn something up - Veciana's long time relationship to Bishop/Phillips is well documented.

I'd have to know how Gerry came to know such a thing to have any further opinion; it would suggest either a very close connection to Veciana that we've not heard about or of course some knowledge by Hemming of the actual meeting in Dallas - which would be interesting in itself.

[John Simkin]

John,  as I recall,  Veciana volunteered the Dallas incident to Fonzi and did so well into their relationship.  If Veciana were somehow close to Easterline and wanted to protect him I wonder why he would even volunteer such an incident at all - especially since its the only solid thing he really gave Fonzi relating to a possible conspiracy.  Personally I'm not aware of any particular relationship  between Veciana and Easterline but perhaps you will turn something up - Veciana's long time relationship to Bishop/Phillips is well documented.

I'd have to know how Gerry came to know such a thing to have any further opinion;  it would suggest either a very close connection to Veciana that we've not heard about or of course some knowledge by Hemming of the actual meeting in Dallas - which would be interesting in itself.

My understanding is that Antonio Veciana told Gaeton Fonzi that Maurice Bishop was CIA and was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. It was Richard Schweiker (based on the evidence of the drawing) who first said it was Phillips. Fonzi later agreed to this assessment (although, according to Fonzi, Veciana never confirmed this).

What therefore was Veciana up to when he made this statement? In my view he was trying to implicate the CIA in the assassination of JFK (that is not to say he was not telling the truth). At the same time he was frightened of the CIA and was not willing to name Bishop.

As I have said on another thread this morning, the CIA was not a united organization. In fact there was a lot of bad feeling between the Ivy League leadership (Dulles, Wisner, Bissell, Barnes, FitzGerald) and those who considered themselves as efficient professionals (Hunt, Harvey, Robertson, Droller, Cronien). These two groups were divided by class and politics. Although they all shared a hatred of communism, they had very different views on domestic issues. The liberals also had a vision of a democratic world. That is why they eventually believed that the coup in Guatemala was a failure. It is also why I believe that the Ivy League group had nothing at all to do with the assassination of JFK. I also think it helps explain why the CIA began briefing against Harvey in 1967.

Therefore I agree that if Oswald was a CIA agent, those who knew it, would not have used him as a patsy. That is why I believe the identification of Maurice Bishop is important. If Antonio Veciana is telling the truth, than Bishop was not involved in the assassination of JFK. I find it impossible to believe that anyone who was involved in the plot would have been seen in public with the proposed patsy. Especially, by a member of the anti-Castro community who believed the CIA had betrayed them in their attempts to overthrow the government of Cuba.

This is why I think Tim's interview with Gerry is so important. If Phillips was not Bishop, it makes him more likely to have been involved in the assassination of JFK. My investigation of Esterline suggests that he was not involved in the assassination. William Pawley for example considered Esterline a “leftist”. Therefore, I believe that Esterline, rather than Phillips, was more likely to have been Bishop.

[Larry Hancock]

John, I think if you read back through my chapter on this and on Gaeton's book you will find Veciana staunchly denied that Biship was CIA, indeed he and Alpha 66 wanted nothing to do with the CIA rather than taking supplies if they could get them (or steal them). They were much more interested in dealing with Army Intelligence and Veciana was an Army Intel informant.. the documents are on the CD.

If you can dig up any trace of evidence that Veciana was acquainted with Esterline it will be most interesting.

Also, you may also remember that Veciana said that Bishop contacted him one other time about Oswald, to see if Veciana's cousin who worked in the Cuban embassy could go on record that Oswald was in the Embassy....

On a side note, I have just received a document that places Phillips in Mexico City on November 22/23rd. It's a JMWAVE document and describes the fact that Phillips was supposed to receive a pouch from someone coming out of Cuba, the pouch contained key information for the exfiltration of a very highly placed HQ asset to be taken out of Cuba.

In any event, I'll await something further that connects Easterline to Veciana or to Oswald, in the meantime I'm staying with Phillips as the primary suspect for being in contact with Oswald in regard to his trip to Mexico City. Now if GPH had said Joinnedes (sp) rather than Esterline it might have been more of a teaser for me...

[John Simkin]

In any event,  I'll await something further that connects Easterline to Veciana or to Oswald,  in the meantime I'm staying with Phillips as the primary suspect for being in contact with Oswald in regard to his trip to Mexico City.  Now if GPH had said Joinnedes (sp) rather than Esterline it might have been more of a teaser for me...

George Joannides is indeed an interesting character. Apparently he was working closely with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE) in 1963.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjoannides.htm

However, I am concerned that our friends G. Robert Blakey, John McAdams and Gerald Posner think that Joannides is worth investigating. For example, here is a letter they sent to the New York Review of Books (18th December, 2003)

As published authors of divergent views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we urge the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense to observe the spirit and letter of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act by releasing all relevant records on the activities of a career CIA operations officer named George E. Joannides, who died in 1990.

Joannides's service to the US government is a matter of public record and is relevant to the Kennedy assassination story. In November 1963, Joannides served as the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch in the CIA's Miami station. In 1978, he served as the CIA's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

The records concerning George Joannides meet the legal definition of "assassination-related" JFK records that must be "immediately" released under the JFK Records Act. They are assassination-related because of contacts between accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and a CIA-sponsored Cuban student group that Joannides guided and monitored in August 1963.

Declassified portions of Joannides's personnel file confirm his responsibility in August 1963 for reporting on the "propaganda" and "intelligence collection" activities of the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), a prominent organization known in the North American press as the Cuban Student Directorate.

George Joannides's activities were assassination-related in at least two ways.

(1) In August 1963, Oswald attempted to infiltrate the New Orleans delegation of the DRE. The delegation - dependent on $25,000 a month in CIA funds provided by Joannides - publicly denounced Oswald as an unscrupulous sympathizer of Fidel Castro.

(2) After Kennedy was killed three months later, on November 22, 1963, DRE members spoke to reporters from The New York Times and other news outlets, detailing Oswald's pro-Castro activities. Within days of the assassination, the DRE published allegations that Oswald had acted on Castro's behalf.

The imperative of disclosure is heightened by the fact that the CIA has, in the past, failed to disclose George Joannides's activities. In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the agency's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The agency did not reveal to the Congress his role in the events of 1963, compromising the committee's investigation.

In 1998, the Agency again responded inaccurately to public inquiries about Joannides. The Agency's Historic Review Office informed the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that it was unable to identify the case officer for the DRE in 1963. The ARRB staff, on its own, located records confirming that Joannides had been the case officer.

This is not a record that inspires public confidence or quells conspiracy-mongering. To overcome misunderstanding, the CIA and the Defense Department should make a diligent good-faith effort to identify and release any documents about George Joannides.

The government should make these records public in conjunction with the fortieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination on November 22, 2003, so as to help restore public confidence and to demonstrate the agencies' commitment to compliance with the JFK Assassination Records Act.

[Nathaniel Weyl]

Mr. Weyl, I hope that you see this.  I was just looking through some of the documents included in Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, and noticed that John Martino's widow said you had taped recollections of both her husband and William Pawley.  Any chance you can make those transcripts available?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This response is my best memory of long forgotten events. I believe that the way I WAS CASTRO'S PRISONER was written was for JM to come to my house and relate what he recalled of his prison ordeal in my presence and on tape and also to send me taped or typed manuscript for editing. I didn't keep any of this material.

A year or so later, Bill Pawley asked me to help him throw together material for his bio. I would come down to his office and spend mornings with him on the job with full access to his files, but have no memory of anything being taped. This project, for reasons I have forgotten, didn't fly and Pawley wisely put someone else to the task.

Edited February 27, 2005 by Nathaniel Weyl

[Larry Hancock]

Actually John Martino did record personal comments on his experience in Cuban prison and it was published as a record. It's fascinating material and I have a copy of it on CD. At one point we had thought about bringing it out for sale to those interested but due to some copyright questions and a lack of any obvious demand that project has not really gone anywhere in the last year or so.

It is educational to hear Martino describe his experience and give his opinions in his own words.... strong stuff.

-- Larry

[John Simkin]

It is educational to hear Martino describe his experience and give his opinions in his own words.... strong stuff.

Do you have a transcript of the recording?

[Larry Hancock]

John, I don't have a transcript and doing one would be a pretty considerable effort.

I've not even listened to all of it myself; the portions I have are similar to what you will find in Martino's book. Which I probably should point out again - because it doesn't get much discussion - contains the true name of one David Morales, identifyed as filling a CIA slot in Havana. Of course how Martino would know Morales and know that he was CIA - especially when Morales was gone from Havana by the time Martino went into prison there - is worth a lot of thought.

[James Richards]

Larry,

If I have this right, during his time in Havana, Morales was pretty vocal in his warnings to the U.S. government concerning Castro and his movement toward Communism which Martino was possibly aware of.

Before Morales left Cuba, he stashed radios and all variety of communications equipment in churches and with nuns for future use by insurgent teams. I know Martino's specialty was with electrical installations connected with the gambling industry but could he have helped Morales with equipment supplies before Morales departed Havana?

Just an ill-conceived thought.

James

[Larry Hancock]

James, an interesting thought - I think that something like that would require that Morales somehow had an introduction to Martino from someone within the Casino crowd in Havana though. Martino was not that "visible", doing most of his work initially during construction of the Casinos and later as new equipment was put in. His specialities had to do with gambling equipment installation as well as equipment related to racing and the wires. Which meant that he didn't work during the public hours or in public areas. In addition, during most of '59 he was making a number of trips back and fourth to Miami, acting as a courier (transporting exactly what is unclear but its unlikely it was bulky long range radio eqipment) - which raises a good question as to where Morales was getting the long range sets he was planting, I'd bet he was using some "naval" assets to smuggle them in, not Cuban Navy of couse but perhaps the "smugglers route".

Of course there is a secondary implication in all this, when the Martino book was written early in 1963 it would appear that Martino had no concerns about listing Morales very visibly as someone he knew and to a certain extent blowing Morales identity as CIA.

[James Richards]

Of course there is a secondary implication in all this, when the Martino book was written early in 1963 it would appear that Martino had no concerns about listing Morales very visibly as someone he knew and to a certain extent blowing Morales identity as CIA. (Larry Hancock)

Thanks, Larry.

I must say that I find this one of the more curious aspects. The other component is in addition to actually knowing him, how exactly did Martino know Morales was CIA unless he had direct dealings with him?

I keep going back to Martino's good friend Felipe Vidal Santiago. I wonder if during that early contact Vidal had with the CIA, when the Agency decided they didn't trust him and Vidal decided he didn't trust them, that a continuing relationship with Morales didn't endure. Morales would know that Vidal was a man who got the job done and even though official channels were closed, some back door dealings may have continued.

All speculation of course.

James

[Larry Hancock]

About all I can do is pitch in a couple of observations. First, Martino knew some of the Embassy staff in Havana quite well as they totally abandoned him during his imprisonment. He certainly names names; however he does not describe any contact with Morales in that context and indeed would have had little reason or opportunity to contact Morales who was wearing a State Department cover at the time. Nor would Martino have the history that we have to guess that a State Department official would be a cover CIA officer. All in all no particular reason to connect Morales in his official capacity to Martino in Havana. On the other hand, plenty to connect him to JMWAVE starting about June and some to connect him before hand in that Rip Robertson seems to have frequented the Martino home over some period of time according to Martino's wife.

On to Vidal, so how did Martino get to be so tight with one of the more low profile and covert exile types, not a man would would show up in press conferences, speaking engagements or radio shows. After all, Martino only arrived in Miami back from prison at the very end of 1962, spent much time recovering and doing publicity activities, then into the book thing and then into Project Tilt... none of which obviously involve Vidal. Sturgis yes, Vidal no. So how and where did the two meet and become close enough so that Martino would name Sturgis and Vidal as friends to the FBI? Would be interesting to know who made the introduction.

-- Larry