Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 5 months later...

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

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

  • 2 weeks later...
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

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

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

  • 2 weeks later...

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

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...