Jump to content
The Education Forum

Larry Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked (2nd edition)


Recommended Posts

The current goal is to have the book printed and in circulation by the first week of November. Hopefully it will be worth the wait,

Someone Would Have Talked is a must read for anyone with an interest in the events surrounding the murder of President Kennedy. As members of this Forum might expect, Larry Hancock has done a remarkable job, and his efforts have resulted in a classic examination of events leading up to Kennedy's death and the ensuing coverup.

Building on the research of Russell, Fonzi, Summers, Griggs, and many many others, Larry has masterfully synthesized their research with much of his own. The results are powerful, compelling, and represent a major step forward in our understanding of the assassination.

I've yet to finish my second reading and this is not meant as a review, but just some of my first impressions.

1) As anyone that is familiar with Larry and his research knows, his documentation is immaculate.

2) The summaries at the end of each chapter are most helpful.

3)
Someone Would Have Talked
is remarkably current. It contains much new information.

4) Larry Hancock is a gifted critical thinker. Fortunately, he gives the reader the benefit of his reasoned conclusions.

5) Larry points the way for future researchers. This may be one of the most important facets of the book.

6)
Someone Would Have Talked
will endure as a useful reference tool for many of the perplexing events surrounding JFK's death.

7) Importantly, the book reads well. Starting with John Martino, Larry weaves a fascinating and convincing account of the roles of so many others.

8) Whenever possible, Larry has corroborated his evidence from multiple sources.

9) There is a lot to absorb, yet Larry does an awesome job of tying events together into a story that is not only believable, but compelling.

Larry, congratulations on this edition of Someone Would Have Talked. I think you deserve to be proud of your work. I'm certainly looking forward to discussions on this Forum by the members, once SWHT is released.

Someone Would Have Talked is destined to take its place as a classic work in the research of President Kennedy's murder. In my opinion, it was well worth the wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello all, just wanted to let you all know that the book is at

the printers and the WEB site is live now at:

www.larry-hancock.com

I want to give a big thank you to Debra for her extensive work on the site and on the document uplaods; it was a massive project and indeed is still going on. New documents will continue to go up this week. I'd also like to thank James Richards for all the photo pages and Phil Hopley for his work in creating the social network charts - a number of people suggested diagrams to help relate all the names and events and Phil jumped in to create what you see on the site.

One note, the resources on the site are organized to support the book and to support the reader as they proceed through it. New documents in the second edition have been designated separately from the first edition document exhibits and documents will be added for the new appendices as well.

Orders for the book may be placed through the book web site now; for those wanting to buy from Amazon or from book stores its going to take a few more weeks to get it set up and available through those outlets.

-- Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED and http://www.larry-hancock.com

The book can now be ordered through Amazon but there will be the regular distribution

delay as JFL Lancer fills their requests. If you order through the book site below

the book shouldl be shipped from stock in hand. If you are ordering

from outside the U.S. it that may prove to be quicker and in some cases possibly less

expensive. JFK Lancer will take travelers checks in payment if you have

no other payment option and ship on receipt of the checks with your order.

http://www.larry-hancock.com/order.html

-- hope that helps, Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED and http://www.larry-hancock.com

The book can now be ordered through Amazon but there will be the regular distribution

delay as JFL Lancer fills their requests. If you order through the book site below

the book shouldl be shipped from stock in hand. If you are ordering

from outside the U.S. it that may prove to be quicker and in some cases possibly less

expensive. JFK Lancer will take travelers checks in payment if you have

no other payment option and ship on receipt of the checks with your order.

http://www.larry-hancock.com/order.html

-- hope that helps, Larry

If there had been more men like Gaeton Fonzi on the HSCA, the case might have been solved.

I hope Larry won't mind that I am reproducing Fonzi's review here:

There have been two official U.S. Government investigations of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The first resulted in the Warren Commission Report. Rank with so many blatant distortions and manipulations of the evidence, its conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin quickly disintegrated under objective scrutiny. But the Report's arrogant fallaciousness seeded in the public's psyche a new distrust of Government that would grow over the next decade into a trenchant and sometimes fiery force in American history. An element in that force produced enough political pressure for a new investigation and the subsequent formation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Congressionally mandated to "conduct a full and complete investigation" of JFK's murder, the HSCA's priority was quickly castrated. The Committee was intimidated and manipulated by the very government agencies it was investigating and its final report emerged as misleading as the Warren Commission's. While the HSCA report masked a truncated investigation, it also unavoidably left slivers of light revealing certain areas of inquiry the Committee dared not pursue. The forces governing the Committee knew that pursuing leads in those areas would have opened doors it did not want opened, doors marked with the names of operators and assets of the Government's intelligence community. Now, with his experience and analytical acumen, Larry Hancock has pushed wide those doors, naming names and detailing the culpable conspiratorial associations. Among the most respected researchers of the JFK assassination, Hancock has produced an awesomely comprehensive and impressive work of compelling validity. A "must-read" in the field.

Gaeton Fonzi, former staff investigator for the U.S. House Committee on

Investigations and author of
The Last Investigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 182,you quote from David Phillips' unpublished manuscript.From the endnotes,it was not clear if you were able to read the entire work.I was under the impression that the only parts of the manuscript that were available were from notes that Jim Leasr took when he reviewed it as part of the discovery in the lawsuit between Phillips and Anthony Summers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin, I have perhaps 15-20 pages from the manuscript, or rather what appears to

be a preliminary draft/plan for a manuscript. Some of pages include lists of chapter

headings and notes while other pages do appear to be actual copy. The pages were provided

to me by a UK researcher.

I certainly don't have the full manuscript and from what I do have could not have sworn

he had full completed it. In some ways it has the feel of a real work but in others it

almost seems to be a poke at the work of the HSCA. And it appears to be quite

convoluted with multiple levels of meaning.

...which of couse is typical Phillips...sigh.

-- wish I could be more helpful Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 182,you quote from David Phillips' unpublished manuscript.From the endnotes,it was not clear if you were able to read the entire work.I was under the impression that the only parts of the manuscript that were available were from notes that Jim Leasr took when he reviewed it as part of the discovery in the lawsuit between Phillips and Anthony Summers?

Anthony Summers' lawyer has the complete manuscript. He has told me that this could be made available to anyone who is seriously researching the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pat, actually we have taken a different approach this time. Because we are at a point

where new corroborative documents and investigations are emerging monthly if not

weekely we decided that a CD was not nearly dynamic enough.

You will find all the documents from the first edition plus several hundred pages of

new documents on a book web site at:

http://www.larry-hancock.com/

The site is available to everyone and contains not only documents but photo pages

(which would have been way to small if compressed to fit the hardcover book format

of the new edition) and charts.

It also contains new documents which have surfaced since the second edition was

completed early this fall....and others will be going up next week. I also hope to

add new information surfaced by other researchers and authors. George Michael

Evica made a presentation at the Lancer conference on Carcano's, Cummings and

Interarmco that is highly important to the last appendix (A Small Clique In the CIA)

and will be preparing a version to go on the WEB in support.

So...no CD...but hopefully a much more dynamic WEB resource to support not only

the book but ongoing reserach related to its premise. I've made an open invitation

to researchers to provide new, relevant material that can be posted there...with full

credit to them.

-- Regards, Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry:

Congrats on book. Have been reading it whenever I get a second. Very clearly written, especially when you condsider how much new information it synthesises with older info.

In fact this might be a good selling point; the summary with the bulleted points are especially usefull in this regard. It might be the one book with this degree of detail and new information, that is accessible for relative novices.

One thing I notice in comparison with Ultimate Sacrifice: both books seem to talk about a lot of cooperation

between elements of the CIA and organized crime, but Ultimate Sacrifice seems to conclude these discussions by emphasising OC more than CIA. I was often left with the impression that Waldrons body paragraphs seemed to implicate the CIA just as much as OC, but when finishing up a section he seemed to land on OC more. I realize this is a general observation. Did it occur to you as well?

What I like about your book so far (p. 175) is that it is true to the body paragraphs. What I mean by this is that it does not seem to protest too much "organized crime, and not CIA" at the end of a discussion in which both are working together.

My question concerns your observation early in the book about an incident investigated by the FBI that concerned an OVERTLY anti-castro organization:"As we have seen, if the Cubans in such reports were

not Castroists, the FBI seems to have had little interest in the activities, even if it apparently conncected to

Oswald" (p.88)

Were there other similar reports connecting Oswald with non-Castroist cubans that were not followed up on.

If so how many? How does this compare, numbers-wise whith distinct connections with osetensibly anti-castro cubans that were followed up on by the FBI?

-- Nathaniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the kind words; we did make a concerted effort to improve

the "readability".

You've asked a couple of very significant questions and I'll try to deal with both:

1) Lamar and I do differ in our perception of who was in "control" (someday we

may arm wrestle on that but didn't have the time last week in Dallas...grin). Clearly

he sees organized crime and the crime lords as being not only the drivers but

in operational control using their own people. On the other hand I see the

people specifically involved in Dallas as being incited and generally coordinated

by CIA officers. It's clear that people like Morales had created their own teams

who were loyal to them and who would undertake black operations

quite apart from sanctioned and managed CIA projectes. The type of projects

nobody would put into a memo or assign a registered crypt. The people that took

orders for such projects trusted these officers - who clearly were sympathetic to their

cause above and beyond rules, regulations or national policy....and they continued

to take their orders and support in the anti-Communist crusades long after Dallas.

But by 1963 these networks had been using OC connections for years. An senior

people such as Morales and multiple connections to Roselli and through him to Marcello,

Trafficante et al. And connections can be used for sanction, for assets, for money...with

no questions asked. And very likely with encouragement and promises from the top.

So...when Lamar rolls up the details he ends up at OC; when I roll them up I end up

with a small clique associated with the Agency and the exiles (including fellow travelers, not just Agency

employees). One of the things that forces me to make that call is that when we find

leaks and gossip within the OC connections, it's very general e.g. "Kennedy will be

hit" or "Kennedy has to be hit" etc. When we find with some connections to the

exiles and Cuban matters it gets much more specific e.g. "My friend Lee, in Texas,

who speaks Russian and is a great shot" or "he's an ex-Marine, he could shoot Castro,

he could shoot Kennedy" (paraphrases of course).

2) I think its pretty clear that when somebody brought a lead to the FBI (or the CIA) that a

Castro supporter was involved they went all out.....they spent a great deal of time on Martino's

reports, on the Pedro Charles letters, on various claims of Oswald contacts at the Cuban embassy

in MC. However when somebody brought incidents involving Oswald with exiles...say the

Parrott Jungle or Abilene incidents, they spent as little time as possible. Or rather as much

time as was needed to try and write off the source...the Odio incident being a prime example.

I think its pretty clear that Hoover really wanted to find the Communists behind it.....he tried

to leave some room for that in the FBI report, Johnson just wouldn't have it.

-- Hope that answered the questions, Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that you gave all of the evidence for the question of where D.Phillips was at on 11/22/63:the confession to his brother versus the memories of his wife.I remember reading about what Phillips' wife said about his reaction to the assasination in another book.Did the HSCA interview her about this? FWIW,Phillips shows up in the cable traffic from Mexico City as early as MEXI 7030 on 11/23/63 as the authenticating officer,"M.Choaden."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, a new document places Morales in Miami at JM/WAVE on Nov.

22.....however its an internal memo written to his own files on a fairly minor subject. Sort

of interesting that the memos apparently placing Phillips in MC at least on the 23rd also

have to do with an exfiltration that involve Morales and one of his closest covert

associaties Sforza. Certainly these guys were bright enough to create a paper trial

for themselves so it all leaves us hanging... And as far as I can tell he could

easily have moved in between MC and Dallas in that period with no particular problem.

As does Phillips remark to his brother about Dallas, which given that he was on his

death bed might suggest that he was simply to weak to argue any further and

came back with a Yes simply to admit he had been involved.

Nobody ever really took Phillips as a suspect until Fonzi began investigating the

Bishop connection...I don't think either he or any other HSCA investigator interviewed

Phillips wife (since he interviewed other family members I'm pretty sure he would

have mentioned it) but I can drop him a note and ask.

One of the things that makes it so difficult is that there is a host of circumstantial

evidence to suggest that Phillips was using Oswald for propaganda activities and anyone

setting up Oswald would have been exposing Phillips to some extent as well. Not sure

we will ever know but I'd say if nothing else its pretty clear that Phillips knew some of

his compatriots were involved in the conspiracy and decided to cover their tracks to

protect them and probably the agency as well. Which if true would make him an accessory

after the fact if nothing worse...

-- Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the kind words....and once you get started I'll be happy to

respond here or via email if you have questions or want to chat about it.

larryjoe@westok.net

-- Larry

I just ordered SWHT.

I can't wait to read it.

Thanks for the research and other hard work.

-- Larry

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...