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

Charles Drago · 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

Ron Ecker · 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.

Francesca Akhtar · 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.

Larry Hancock · 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

Larry Hancock · February 25, 2007