Charles Drago Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.My impression though is that while it may be realitve easy to transfer prints on a very smooth material...say pick up a print with a piece of tape and transfer it to a glass....that placing prints on a cardboard box is not nearly that easy. In fact there was a lot of speculation about how easy it was for anyone to leave prints on the cardboard boxes unless there hands were sweaty or someting like that. Great question, will try to get a professional response. I have to say my own scenario is heavily influenced by Glen Samples work, Loy Factors information - which seems highly credible to me - and some additional work I've done which essentially places a "sacrificial" team in the TSBD - as hard as that is too swallow. Well it would be sacrificial unless the President/Johnson was being forced into it and then I suspect that even if caught he would have been able to come up with something to get them out of it and cover up the whole thing.. -- Larry Larry,There's a question that's been bugging me about the Wallace prints. If they are indeed his prints, does it necessarily mean Wallace was there, or is it possible to plant fingerprints? Do you need the person's fingers, or just fingerprints to work from? The idea of planting the prints being, of course, to blackmail Johnson, whether Wallace was physically on the scene or not. Ron Larry, "Sacrificial" -- Willing or otherwise? This seems to be a needless complication, the sort of additional component that offers far more liabilities than strengths. There were any number of safer and, arguably, more effective methods of compromising Johnson -- if he were not wholly self-compromised by real complicity before the fact. While Occam's Razor is a wholly ineffective tool for dissecting intelligence operations -- undertakings which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the Occamites' yearnings -- it is a valid governing principle for the planning of black ops. The fewer components the better, if you follow. Acquire target. Kill target. E&E. Around this onion core, each additional layer increases vulnerability. So if Johnson, for example, could be tainted at a Murchison gabfest on 11/21, what need for the risks posed by this sacrificial team? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 On the fingerprints again, if Wallace was really there and left the prints, it would seem unlikely that the prints were a planned way to compromise Johnson. For how would the conspirators know that Wallace would leave any traceable prints? This is what leads me to wonder if the prints were planted, regardless of Wallace's presence, in order to have something on Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Akhtar Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.-- Larry I've forwarded the thread to Ian in case he might know anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Charles, I'm a big fan of Occams razor however I don't think that what happened in Dallas was a nice smooth package or that all the players had totally compatible agendas. As to why I think that I'd have to refer you to the book, I can discuss it with short posts but explaining it that way is beyond me. I think that Johnson was compromised by his connections to the Baker affair and that may well have served as the leverage to involve him ....but I don't think anyone trusted him and they requred him to make a commitment to ensure he didn't' double cross them. Nobody in their right mind would trust Johnson even when you had him in a headlock. Part of my thinking on this is explained in the white papers section of this forum, in the pieces I posted dealing with Wallace, Cliff Carter, et al. But I have to tell you if Glen Sample had never found Loy Factor and did the work that he has done I'd surely never even consider this all in a scenario if I were building it from "concept"...or for elegance. In regard to the prints, if Glen is correct and Factor telling the truth the prints were not a simple plant, they were part of Johnson having skin in the game by having people that could be tied to him at the scene of the crime. Leaving actual prints may well have been sheer bad luck for Wallace...but when you study Wallace you see that his MO was to leave tons of clues at the scenes of his crimes (only Johnsons clout kept him out of jail). -- sorry if all this is less than clear, its hard for me to get my hands around it in limited words... Larry try to deal Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.My impression though is that while it may be realitve easy to transfer prints on a very smooth material...say pick up a print with a piece of tape and transfer it to a glass....that placing prints on a cardboard box is not nearly that easy. In fact there was a lot of speculation about how easy it was for anyone to leave prints on the cardboard boxes unless there hands were sweaty or someting like that. Great question, will try to get a professional response. I have to say my own scenario is heavily influenced by Glen Samples work, Loy Factors information - which seems highly credible to me - and some additional work I've done which essentially places a "sacrificial" team in the TSBD - as hard as that is too swallow. Well it would be sacrificial unless the President/Johnson was being forced into it and then I suspect that even if caught he would have been able to come up with something to get them out of it and cover up the whole thing. A needless complication, surely but then the tactical team would know nothing of it. Only whoever was the cut out to Ruth Ann. But not a needless complication if you want the ultimate insurance. But for those reading this, most of this is not in Someone Would Have Talked, it's in another seven chapters that will not likely ever be published simply because it remains speculation until we get somebody else with the guts Nathan had to stand behind a print ID. -- Larry Larry,There's a question that's been bugging me about the Wallace prints. If they are indeed his prints, does it necessarily mean Wallace was there, or is it possible to plant fingerprints? Do you need the person's fingers, or just fingerprints to work from? The idea of planting the prints being, of course, to blackmail Johnson, whether Wallace was physically on the scene or not. Ron Larry, "Sacrificial" -- Willing or otherwise? This seems to be a needless complication, the sort of additional component that offers far more liabilities than strengths. There were any number of safer and, arguably, more effective methods of compromising Johnson -- if he were not wholly self-compromised by real complicity before the fact. While Occam's Razor is a wholly ineffective tool for dissecting intelligence operations -- undertakings which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the Occamites' yearnings -- it is a valid governing principle for the planning of black ops. The fewer components the better, if you follow. Acquire target. Kill target. E&E. Around this onion core, each additional layer increases vulnerability. So if Johnson, for example, could be tainted at a Murchison gabfest on 11/21, what need for the risks posed by this sacrificial team? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Charles, I'm a big fan of Occams razor however I don't think that what happened in Dallas was a nice smooth package or that all the players had totally compatible agendas. As to why I think that I'd have to refer you to the book, I can discuss it with short posts but explaining it that way is beyond me. I think that Johnson was compromised by his connections to the Baker affair and that may well have served as the leverage to involve him ....but I don't think anyone trusted him and they requred him to make a commitment to ensure he didn't' double cross them. Nobody in their right mind would trust Johnson even when you had him in a headlock. Part of my thinking on this is explained in the white papers section of this forum, in the pieces I posted dealing with Wallace, Cliff Carter, et al. But I have to tell you if Glen Sample had never found Loy Factor and did the work that he has done I'd surely never even consider this all in a scenario if I were building it from "concept"...or for elegance. In regard to the prints, if Glen is correct and Factor telling the truth the prints were not a simple plant, they were part of Johnson having skin in the game by having people that could be tied to him at the scene of the crime. Leaving actual prints may well have been sheer bad luck for Wallace...but when you study Wallace you see that his MO was to leave tons of clues at the scenes of his crimes (only Johnsons clout kept him out of jail). -- sorry if all this is less than clear, its hard for me to get my hands around it in limited words... Larry try to deal Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.My impression though is that while it may be realitve easy to transfer prints on a very smooth material...say pick up a print with a piece of tape and transfer it to a glass....that placing prints on a cardboard box is not nearly that easy. In fact there was a lot of speculation about how easy it was for anyone to leave prints on the cardboard boxes unless there hands were sweaty or someting like that. Great question, will try to get a professional response. I have to say my own scenario is heavily influenced by Glen Samples work, Loy Factors information - which seems highly credible to me - and some additional work I've done which essentially places a "sacrificial" team in the TSBD - as hard as that is too swallow. Well it would be sacrificial unless the President/Johnson was being forced into it and then I suspect that even if caught he would have been able to come up with something to get them out of it and cover up the whole thing. A needless complication, surely but then the tactical team would know nothing of it. Only whoever was the cut out to Ruth Ann. But not a needless complication if you want the ultimate insurance. But for those reading this, most of this is not in Someone Would Have Talked, it's in another seven chapters that will not likely ever be published simply because it remains speculation until we get somebody else with the guts Nathan had to stand behind a print ID. -- Larry Larry,There's a question that's been bugging me about the Wallace prints. If they are indeed his prints, does it necessarily mean Wallace was there, or is it possible to plant fingerprints? Do you need the person's fingers, or just fingerprints to work from? The idea of planting the prints being, of course, to blackmail Johnson, whether Wallace was physically on the scene or not. Ron Larry, "Sacrificial" -- Willing or otherwise? This seems to be a needless complication, the sort of additional component that offers far more liabilities than strengths. There were any number of safer and, arguably, more effective methods of compromising Johnson -- if he were not wholly self-compromised by real complicity before the fact. While Occam's Razor is a wholly ineffective tool for dissecting intelligence operations -- undertakings which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the Occamites' yearnings -- it is a valid governing principle for the planning of black ops. The fewer components the better, if you follow. Acquire target. Kill target. E&E. Around this onion core, each additional layer increases vulnerability. So if Johnson, for example, could be tainted at a Murchison gabfest on 11/21, what need for the risks posed by this sacrificial team? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Larry, I still don't buy the need for any "sacrificial" TSBD team in order to intimidate LBJ. Too cinematic. Too dangerous. If the kill was made, there could be no greater intimidation than that witnessed by Johnson in the Plaza and at Parkland. If the kill was not made, then either JFK continues as president -- at which point Johnson becomes a piece of overcooked longhorn steak, and no plea to trade info for leniency possibly could save him (the Kennedys would have rounded up their tormentors soon enough) -- or the brother of a disabled former president, the newly, richly empowered RFK ,brings the bastards to justice. The Dealey Plaza Massacre as evidenced in the state of John Kennedy's cranium was all the message Lyndon Johnson would have needed. In this case, more is less. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Charles, I'm not trying to "sell" it to you, in fact its not even a scenario I discussed in my book...as I pointed out in the message. However, I don't work off "concepts" of the way things would have made most sense, I work off data that is a lot more messy than concept. If that truly is Wallace's fingerprint then it has to be addressed at some point. In any case, I must have been unclear, in no sense was I suggesting it was intimidation of Johnson. If Wallace was there he was ordered there by Cliff Carter, just as Carter himself supposedly described and was taped doing so (taped in the presence of one live witness who verified his remarks). If Wallace was there then he had to be doing something so incredibly stupid Johnson would never have had let it happen unless he was forced to cooperate....and in no way does Wallace's MO suggest Johnson or anyone else would have picked him for a rifle attack on JFK....Wallace was a killer alright but at close range, brute force and extremely sloppy as well. If you are not familiar with Glen Samples work I would definitely suggest you at least read his book and my postings on Etes, Wallace and Carter as background - but only if you are somewhat persuaded by Darby's print ID...if not the whole subject is meaningless. It all comes back to the print(s); if its not Wallace this is all moot. If it is, then it important no matter how stupid it looks on the surface. -- Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Since Wallace had gotten off once with 5 years probation for first degree murder, killing JFK if caught would probably have gotten him, oh, say 10 years behind bars, in a further display of Texas justice. And of course LBJ would say about Wallace the same thing that he said about Bobby Baker: "He was no protege of mine." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted August 12, 2007 Author Share Posted August 12, 2007 On page 83 of Someone Would Have Talked you quote that on November 21, an FBI informant heard Homer Echevarria say: "We now have plenty of money - our new backers are Jews - as soon as they (or "we") take care of Kennedy". On page 86 you state that this might be a reference to Jewish Mafia contacts of John Roselli. Do you know of any other "Jews" who provided financial help to the anti-Castro Cubans? For example, have you discovered any links between the Cubans and Jewish members of the American Security Council (ASC)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 John, I have seen no specific examples of Jews other than the so called Jewish Mafia being interested in the Cubans...the people I do see were associated with the Lansky networks extending from LA, Vegas and even Cleveland. Many of these individuals had been very much into Cuban gun running both before and after the Castro revolution. Sort of a spin off of the heavy Lansky investment in Havana. Other business people who did invest in the Cuban exile cause were very much WASP - mostly united by having been major corporate players in Batista era Cuba. The same people and companies that Castro tried to blackmail to help finance the revolution. One of the reasons that the Echeverria comment seems to relate to the so called "Jewish Mafia" is that it appears that there were multiple offers of funding from those people to the Junta/JCGE and a lot of that money was moving through the Chicago area. That is reflected in the fact that people up there seemed to have ready cash while other groups such as DRE were having real money problems - even if they could locate potential weapon suppliers like Masen in Dallas. DRE was virtually begging CIA for cash to buy weapons and finance naval incursions in the fall of 1963 and they were being turned down because of their history of unsanctioned military operations. - Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 I came across a document about Gerry Hemming that may prove interesting to John Simkin, given his interest in Irving Davidson.The RIF number is 104-10216-10064 The document states, in part, "Gerald Patrick Hemming, when drunk, told AMTABBY-27 that Irving Davidson was his financial backer". The document is dated August 23rd 1967. I am having trouble attaching the file, so I will direct you to the file on the Mary Ferrell site. If you have a membership, you can look at the document. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=17306 I believe at the time, Gerry Hemming was working with Aton Constanzo Palau and they were allegedly fronting a 60 man commando team that Davidson was supporting.If Gerry is still visiting the forum then maybe he could confirm or not. Larry, were you aware of this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I came across a document about Gerry Hemming that may prove interesting to John Simkin, given his interest in Irving Davidson.The RIF number is 104-10216-10064 The document states, in part, "Gerald Patrick Hemming, when drunk, told AMTABBY-27 that Irving Davidson was his financial backer". The document is dated August 23rd 1967. I am having trouble attaching the file, so I will direct you to the file on the Mary Ferrell site. If you have a membership, you can look at the document. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=17306 I believe at the time, Gerry Hemming was working with Aton Constanzo Palau and they were allegedly fronting a 60 man commando team that Davidson was supporting.If Gerry is still visiting the forum then maybe he could confirm or not. Larry, were you aware of this information? Pretty wild. That may complete the circle in the most logical scenario yet. Johnson goes to Davidson and says "make it happen." Davidson gets the financial backing of his client Marcello, and hires Hemming and his boys to murk up the waters, muddy up the CIA, and get the National Security apparatus to go along with Johnson's decision not to investigate the assassination in the name of National Security. Hemming and his boys need not even have pulled the trigger. If it wasn't the plan, perhaps it should have been, as it almost certainly would have worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Hi John, yes I was aware of that memo...certainly we do know that Davidson had a broad range of contacts for borkering arms, having been approached by Howard Davis as far back as 1959 for arms for activites relating to Cuba. But Davidson was an arms broker and an "arranger/fixer". If he was backing something Gerry was doing in 1967 it was with soembody else's money, not his own. In any event, it didn't suprise me given Davidson's history and connections and 1967 didn't seem to relevant to things JFK per se. I'd be eager to hear anything Gerry has to say about Davidson though. -- Larry I came across a document about Gerry Hemming that may prove interesting to John Simkin, given his interest in Irving Davidson.The RIF number is 104-10216-10064 The document states, in part, "Gerald Patrick Hemming, when drunk, told AMTABBY-27 that Irving Davidson was his financial backer". The document is dated August 23rd 1967. I am having trouble attaching the file, so I will direct you to the file on the Mary Ferrell site. If you have a membership, you can look at the document. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=17306 I believe at the time, Gerry Hemming was working with Aton Constanzo Palau and they were allegedly fronting a 60 man commando team that Davidson was supporting.If Gerry is still visiting the forum then maybe he could confirm or not. Larry, were you aware of this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 Larry, in your book, Someone Would Have Talked (page 420) you write: "David Morales also retired in 1975 and died in 1978, shortly before Tony Sforza. Sforza is known to have operated within Cuba and to have conducted JM/WAVE exfiltration missions for Morales. His contact for one such mission involved passing information to David Phillips in Mexico City. Sforza (cryptonym SLOMAN) had been a major CIA covert operative inside Cuba and there is reason to speculate that he used the alias Frank Stevens, known as Enrique inside Cuba, where he operated under the cover of being a professional gambler. If so, he is associated with at least one major CIA Castro assassination attempt and at one point he served as case officer for Morales' AMOT group an attempt verified in a newly located document and one which was apparently withheld from the Church Committee." I assume knowledge of his death comes from Gaeton Fonzi's Last Investigation, where he states: (page 384) "Sforza's name... appeared, along with the names of Morales and Shackley and the others, in that "Highly Sensitive" document I had received in 1978. "This man handled anti-Castro activities on behalf of the CIA," the document noted. "He still runs a Cuban 'blow-up group.' Sforza is a hit man and should be regarded as dangerous." Like Morales a veteran deep-cover agent, Sforza ran an import-export business in Miami after his "retirement" from the CIA. He died within six months of Morales, also from a sudden heart attack." Sforza's daughter has contacted me and said he died in 1984. Is it possible that his death was faked so that he did not have to appear before House Select Committee on Assassinations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 John, you are certainly correct on the source of information on Sforza's death. I have nothing further on it and no separate corroboration. On the other point, I see no particular reason to go to that length to protect him from the HSCA, actually if they could not unearth Morales I doubt very much they could have located Sforza...and clearly the CIA was in no mood to bring forth any of its covert officers for the HSCA. Frankly their real sin in my eyes was holding people like Sforza, Morales and Jenkins back from the Church Committee since all three could have spoken to specifics on Castro assassination attempts. Which brings me to a general conclusion that the Agency was so busy protecting itself against disclosure of its foreign assassination activities and its domestic activities sucha as CHAOS that it's very difficult to say that it was giving a whole lot of thought to a JFK cover-up. Which I'm sure is something that occured to the actual CIA personnel involved in the conspiracy; how better to cover-up a conspiracy than to embed it in within an Agency that cannot under any circumstances allow any of its dirty laundry to be aired...and which has National Security as a final and overriding arguement when its back is against a wall. We have yet to see a Judge override that arguement have we? -- Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now