Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

Of course asking someone like Mrs. Eisenhower if if it true that Barry Goldwater was behind the assassination of President Kennedy would be like asking Jackie Kennedy if JFK screwed Marilyn Monroe.

Ridiculous, BK. Why would she lie about something--whether a man was on BG's staff--that can be EASILY verified or refuted?

As she wrote me, no one on BG's staff, either DC or AZ, fits the description in Ayer's book.

Are you SO naive you cannot add two and two to figure out why Ayers never mentions this man's name and never bothered to check whether he indeed worked on BG's staff?

Bill also wrote:

I take great satisfaction in the fact that testimony before a grand jury is secret and that the prosecutor asks the questions and that cross examination of witnesses by defense attornies is not permitted so any such imagined derogatory information would not be admitted.

Imagined? That Ayers made up the entire incident? I can assure you, BK, that if you every try to get Ayers to testify in a grand jury, I will do everything in my power to ensure the prosecutors asks him about this story, and if he lies about it under oath, to throw his sorry derriere into the appropriate slammer.

Your problem is you desperately need Ayers to prove other things on your agenda so you cannot stand to see his credibility evaporate before your very eyes.

I suspect you are in fact in communication with Ayers. Why don't you find out what substantiation if any he claims for this story.

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

Of course asking someone like Mrs. Eisenhower if if it true that Barry Goldwater was behind the assassination of President Kennedy would be like asking Jackie Kennedy if JFK screwed Marilyn Monroe.

Ridiculous, BK. Why would she lie about something--whether a man was on BG's staff--that can be EASILY verified or refuted?

WAS SHE IN DC OR ARIZONA?

WHO IN GOLDWATER'S ARIZONA OFFICE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIASON WITH THE MEIXICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY - THAT PERSON WOULD KNOW PEARL'S DAD, IF YOU ARE SO INCLINED TO REALLY LOOK.

As she wrote me, no one on BG's staff, either DC or AZ, fits the description in Ayer's book.

NO ONE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR GOLDWATER'S ASSOCATIONS WITH THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN COMMUITY? THAT'S THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS GUY.

DID YOU ASK HER IF ITS TRUE THAT GOLDWATER PAID FOR MORALES' COLLEGE EDUACTION?

Are you SO naive you cannot add two and two to figure out why Ayers never mentions this man's name and never bothered to check whether he indeed worked on BG's staff?

IT'S NOT BEA'S JOB TO INVESTIGATE THESE THINGS THOUGH HE DID TRY ON HIS OWN, JUST AS TALBOT AND MORLEY ACTUALLY TRIED.

Bill also wrote:

I take great satisfaction in the fact that testimony before a grand jury is secret and that the prosecutor asks the questions and that cross examination of witnesses by defense attornies is not permitted so any such imagined derogatory information would not be admitted.

Imagined? That Ayers made up the entire incident? I can assure you, BK, that if you every try to get Ayers to testify in a grand jury, I will do everything in my power to ensure the prosecutors asks him about this story, and if he lies about it under oath, to throw his sorry derriere into the appropriate slammer.

IF YOU MAKE ONE EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH THE GRAND JURY PROJECT I WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ARRESTED FOR TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO TO STOP YOU FROM INTERFERING.

I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHAT ANY WITNESSES DO BEFORE THE GRAND JURY BECAUSE IT IS SECRET.

IT'S A SHAME THAT I WAS GOING TO TRY TO RUN AN OPEN VIRTUAL GRAND JURY AND RUN THE WITNESSES THORUGH THE LEGAL WRINGER TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS BUT KNOW I KNOW THAT IDIOTS LIKE YOU WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN.

Your problem is you desperately need Ayers to prove other things on your agenda so you cannot stand to see his credibility evaporate before your very eyes.

I DON'T NEED AYERS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN VERIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF ONE JULIO FERNANDEZ - CUBAN COMMANDO BOAT LEADER SUPPORTED BY CLARE BOOTH AND HENRY LUCE - AND MOST EVERYTHING OF SIGNIFIANCE HE KNOWS IS ON THE PUBLCI RECORD AND VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY HE REALLY ISN'T NEEDED AT ALL.

I suspect you are in fact in communication with Ayers. Why don't you find out what substantiation if any he claims for this story.

I DON'T NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH AYERS, AS HE IS SAFE AND SOUND AND LIVING IN HIS MOUNTAIN CABIN WITH HIS DOGS AND NEED NOT BE BOTHERED UNTIL HE IS NEEDED TO TESTIFY. AND I HOPE ALL THE OTHER UNNAMED MATERIAL WITNESSES CAN REMAIN SAFE AND QUIET UNTIL THEY CAN BE PROPERLY QUESTIONED, HOPEFULLY BEFORE A GRAND JURY.

AND I'VE ALREADY SUBSTANTIATED ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE STORY I AM CONCERNED WITH REGARDING JMWAVE AND HIS PALS THERE.

THE ONLY THING THAT'S DISOLVED BEFORE MY EYES IS THE IDEA THAT WE CAN HAVE AN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS THAT COULD LEAD SOMEWHERE PRODUCTIVE, BUT I REALIZE THAT'S NO LONGER POSSIBLE.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

I wrote:

Imagined? That Ayers made up the entire incident? I can assure you, BK, that if you every try to get Ayers to testify in a grand jury, I will do everything in my power to ensure the prosecutors asks him about this story, and if he lies about it under oath, to throw his sorry derriere into the appropriate slammer.

You responded:

IF YOU MAKE ONE EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH THE GRAND JURY PROJECT I WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ARRESTED FOR TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO TO STOP YOU FROM INTERFERING.

Well, I can assure you, Mr. Kelly, that my advising the prosecutor that it appears that Ayers may have filed a deliberately false statement about the assassination does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute “tampering with a witness” as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 1512. In fact, I believe I would have a duty to so advise any prosecutor.

Consider where this matter now lies:

Ayers writes that he was approached by a lady named Pearl. Pearl allegedly told him that her father had been a long time member of the staff of Sen. Barry Goldwater. Ayers describes the man and what he did for BG at some length. Ayers says Pearl tells him that her father, at the request of BG, delivered two suitcases full of money, from a leading member of a mafia crime family, who he met in Las Vegas, with one suitcase being delivered to a Mafiosi in New Orleans who is widely considered a suspect in the assassination.

Mrs. Judy Eisenhower, BG’s long time chief of staff, who is clearly in a position to know who were long-time BG staff members, tells me that there was never a member of BG’s staff who fit the description of the man in Ayers’ book.

I submit there are only three possibilities here.

First, Mrs. Eisenhower lied. I think that possibility can be dismissed out of hand because such a lie could be easily discovered.

Second, a lady named Pearl existed. For reasons unknown, she made up the entire story and Ayers bought it hook, line and sinker--but without making any attempt to verify any part of it.

Third, Pearl never existed and Ayers made up the entire story.

Now we should be able to absolutely verify that Mrs. Eisenhower told the truth. The best way to do that is to determine the name (according to Ayers) of this alleged former aide to BG.

I am concerned, and as you know I have been from the start, that Ayers made up the entire story.

ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN DISCOVERING THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE SHOULD IMO BE DEEPLY DISTURBED IF, AS I SUSPECT, AYERS MADE UP PEARL. THAT IS CLEARLY INSERTING FALSE INFORMATION IN THE CASE AND, CLEARLY, ANY DELIBERATELY FALSE INFORMATION IMPEDES THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. IF YOU DO GET A GRAND JURY, AND AYERS PRESENTS FALSE TESTIMONY, IT CREATES EXTRA WORK FOR THE PROSECUTOR AND THEREBY IMPEDES HIS OR HER INVESTIGATION.

The fact that you seem not to care a whit whether the Pearl story is true or false suggests to me that your interest is not in discovering the truth of who killed JFK. If you were, you would resent obstacles being inserted that hinder and impede the search for truth.

Let me ask you this question: Which do you consider most likely: (a) That Mrs. Eisenhower lied; ( that there was a Pearl and SHE LIED to Ayers who, like a fool, accepted her story without checking it; or © that Ayers made up the entire story?

[William Kelly]

I wrote:

Imagined? That Ayers made up the entire incident? I can assure you, BK, that if you every try to get Ayers to testify in a grand jury, I will do everything in my power to ensure the prosecutors asks him about this story, and if he lies about it under oath, to throw his sorry derriere into the appropriate slammer.

You responded:

IF YOU MAKE ONE EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH THE GRAND JURY PROJECT I WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ARRESTED FOR TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO TO STOP YOU FROM INTERFERING.

Well, I can assure you, Mr. Kelly, that my advising the prosecutor that it appears that Ayers may have filed a deliberately false statement about the assassination does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute "tampering with a witness" as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 1512. In fact, I believe I would have a duty to so advise any prosecutor.

Consider where this matter now lies:

Ayers writes that he was approached by a lady named Pearl. Pearl allegedly told him that her father had been a long time member of the staff of Sen. Barry Goldwater. Ayers describes the man and what he did for BG at some length. Ayers says Pearl tells him that her father, at the request of BG, delivered two suitcases full of money, from a leading member of a mafia crime family, who he met in Las Vegas, with one suitcase being delivered to a Mafiosi in New Orleans who is widely considered a suspect in the assassination.

Mrs. Judy Eisenhower, BG's long time chief of staff, who is clearly in a position to know who were long-time BG staff members, tells me that there was never a member of BG's staff who fit the description of the man in Ayers' book.

I submit there are only three possibilities here.

First, Mrs. Eisenhower lied. I think that possibility can be dismissed out of hand because such a lie could be easily discovered.

Second, a lady named Pearl existed. For reasons unknown, she made up the entire story and Ayers bought it hook, line and sinker--but without making any attempt to verify any part of it.

Third, Pearl never existed and Ayers made up the entire story.

Now we should be able to absolutely verify that Mrs. Eisenhower told the truth. The best way to do that is to determine the name (according to Ayers) of this alleged former aide to BG.

I am concerned, and as you know I have been from the start, that Ayers made up the entire story.

ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN DISCOVERING THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE SHOULD IMO BE DEEPLY DISTURBED IF, AS I SUSPECT, AYERS MADE UP PEARL. THAT IS CLEARLY INSERTING FALSE INFORMATION IN THE CASE AND, CLEARLY, ANY DELIBERATELY FALSE INFORMATION IMPEDES THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. IF YOU DO GET A GRAND JURY, AND AYERS PRESENTS FALSE TESTIMONY, IT CREATES EXTRA WORK FOR THE PROSECUTOR AND THEREBY IMPEDES HIS OR HER INVESTIGATION.

The fact that you seem not to care a whit whether the Pearl story is true or false suggests to me that your interest is not in discovering the truth of who killed JFK. If you were, you would resent obstacles being inserted that hinder and impede the search for truth.

Let me ask you this question: Which do you consider most likely: (a) That Mrs. Eisenhower lied; ( that there was a Pearl and SHE LIED to Ayers who, like a fool, accepted her story without checking it; or © that Ayers made up the entire story?

I believe Brad Ayers and think your full of crap.

Stack decorated Army Ranger veteran up against a disbared lawyer and I'll take the vet.

Nor do I think it worthwhile to continue discussing anything else with you.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, unless you suggest that I lied about my talking to Mrs. Eisenhower, my legal problems have nothing whatsoever to do with it. And you know that.

The issue comes down to who is telling the truth: Mrs. Judy Eisenhower or Brad Ayers.

And moreover the story that Ayers claims Pearl told him is incredible on its face. If Bonnano needed money delivered from Vegas to Rosselli in NO, why in heck would he have to use a member of BG's staff, a man not loyal to the mafia and reportedly a "good citizen" to make the delivery? The story just smells like a bunch of dead fish.

It frankly surprises me that you would credit at all the story the alleged Pearl allegedly told Ayers. The story is preposterous and incredible. That is one of the reasons I took the initiative to try to track down information--the story is facially absurd.

Why do you think Ayers never identifies by name the alleged BG staff member, a man who, per Ayers, is dead anyway?

ANYONE CONCERNED WITH DISCOVERING THE TRUTH OF THE ASSASSINATION SHOULD BE OUTRAGED IF IN FACT AYERS MADE UP THIS STORY, FOR IF SO IT ONLY FURTHER MUDDIES THE WATERS AND OBFUSCATES THE TRUTH.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, unless you suggest that I lied about my talking to Mrs. Eisenhower, my legal problems have nothing whatsoever to do with it. And you know that.

The issue comes down to who is telling the truth: Mrs. Judy Eisenhower or Brad Ayers.

And moreover the story that Ayers claims Pearl told him is incredible on its face. If Bonnano needed money delivered from Vegas to Rosselli in NO, why in heck would he have to use a member of BG's staff, a man not loyal to the mafia and reportedly a "good citizen" to make the delivery? The story just smells like a bunch of dead fish.

It frankly surprises me that you would credit at all the story the alleged Pearl allegedly told Ayers. The story is preposterous and incredible. That is one of the reasons I took the initiative to try to track down information--the story is facially absurd.

Why do you think Ayers never identifies by name the alleged BG staff member, a man who, per Ayers, is dead anyway?

ANYONE CONCERNED WITH DISCOVERING THE TRUTH OF THE ASSASSINATION SHOULD BE OUTRAGED IF IN FACT AYERS MADE UP THIS STORY, FOR IF SO IT ONLY FURTHER MUDDIES THE WATERS AND OBFUSCATES THE TRUTH.

The only outrage you can conjur up is by those wondering why you are dominating a thread about someone you must think is so important that you call him a lier, accuse him of making up people and slandering others when you are the outrageous one.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, it is OUTRAGEOUS that you are not OUTRAGED that Ayers may have made the story up.

I find it difficult to believe that Mrs. Eisenhower would lie about a matter that can easily be verified by U.S. Senate records.

I think there is now a pretty good case that either Pearl made up the story and Ayers fell for it or Ayers made up Pearl.

Rather than attempting to villify me, it seems you should be concerned about obtaining an explanation from Ayers.

If Ayers gives you the name of Pearl's father, we can verify whether he ever was an employee of the U.S. Senate.

I suggest you are upset with me only because what I discovered casts serious doubt on the credibility of someone whose story you otherwise want to believe.

But I assert it is a very serious matter if someone deliberately publishes false information about the assassination, an as-of-yet unsolved crime.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, it is OUTRAGEOUS that you are not OUTRAGED that Ayers may have made the story up.

I find it difficult to believe that Mrs. Eisenhower would lie about a matter that can easily be verified by U.S. Senate records.

I think there is now a pretty good case that either Pearl made up the story and Ayers fell for it or Ayers made up Pearl.

Rather than attempting to villify me, it seems you should be concerned about obtaining an explanation from Ayers.

If Ayers gives you the name of Pearl's father, we can verify whether he ever was an employee of the U.S. Senate.

I suggest you are upset with me only because what I discovered casts serious doubt on the credibility of someone whose story you otherwise want to believe.

But I assert it is a very serious matter if someone deliberately publishes false information about the assassination, an as-of-yet unsolved crime.

I thought YOU were the one who was researching Pearl, Mrs. Eisenhower, Goldwater, et al.

I don't have to villify you, you do that yourself.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

So, Bill, what WILL it take to convince you that the story is FALSE?

What if I have another BG staff member around during that period of time who refutes the existence of anyone meeting the description of Pearl's father?

It seems to me the easiest way to either verify or refute at least PART of the story is gor Ayers to reveal the name of the man in question.

So what are you going to conclude if he fails to do so?

I also note you utterly fail to respond to any of my arguments why the story on its face is ridiculous. I think it is fair to assume the mafia had plenty of couriers of its own in 1963. Moreover Rosselli was often in Vegas himself. The need for Pearl's father as a courier of the money is simply nonsensical.

[William Kelly]

So, Bill, what WILL it take to convince you that the story is FALSE?

What if I have another BG staff member around during that period of time who refutes the existence of anyone meeting the description of Pearl's father?

It seems to me the easiest way to either verify or refute at least PART of the story is gor Ayers to reveal the name of the man in question.

So what are you going to conclude if he fails to do so?

I also note you utterly fail to respond to any of my arguments why the story on its face is ridiculous. I think it is fair to assume the mafia had plenty of couriers of its own in 1963. Moreover Rosselli was often in Vegas himself. The need for Pearl's father as a courier of the money is simply nonsensical.

Sorry, but I think you are the one who is rediculous and nonsensical.

You're calling someone you've never met, whose book you've never read, a lier, and I'm saying you're the one whose motives, morals and statements are questionable.

Like I said, BEA's stands tall next to you, however you describe yourself.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I thoroughly read Chapters 31 and 32 which deal at length with the story of "Pearl's father". What he says in the rest of the book is of no matter to me. If what he says in Chapter 31 and 32 is a lie, one can toss out Chapters 1 through 30.

I do not need to meet the man to judge his demeanor as a witness. He writes of someone he claims was a staff member of BG, but he presumably never verified the man's employment, or he would surely have mentioned it. And BG's Chief of Staff says no such man ever existed.

I have no "motive" here but to discover the truth. If you had the same motive, you'd want to get to the bottom of this story as well. Judy Eisenhower is not a xxxx. Either Pearl lied to Ayers (for no apparent reason that I can perceive) or Ayers made the whole thing up (to sell books). It is clearly Ayers' statements which are questiionable and the only defense that I can possibly see him having is for him to assert that there was indeed a Pearl and she conned him.

We KNOW BG never had a staff member fitting the description in his book. The only question is whether Ayers himself originated the falsehoods or simply fell for falsehoods told him by someone else. He is either a xxxx (if the first case is true) or a fool (if the second case is true, since you'd have to be a fool to believe such a story, IMO).

One again, Bill, you fail to offer a single word to counter my argument that the story about "Pearl's father" is preposterous on its face. It would be unworthy of belief had I never talked to Mrs. Eisenhower.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, I thoroughly read Chapters 31 and 32 which deal at length with the story of "Pearl's father". What he says in the rest of the book is of no matter to me. If what he says in Chapter 31 and 32 is a lie, one can toss out Chapters 1 through 30.

I do not need to meet the man to judge his demeanor as a witness. He writes of someone he claims was a staff member of BG, but he presumably never verified the man's employment, or he would surely have mentioned it. And BG's Chief of Staff says no such man ever existed.

I have no "motive" here but to discover the truth. If you had the same motive, you'd want to get to the bottom of this story as well. Judy Eisenhower is not a xxxx. Either Pearl lied to Ayers (for no apparent reason that I can perceive) or Ayers made the whole thing up (to sell books). It is clearly Ayers' statements which are questiionable and the only defense that I can possibly see him having is for him to assert that there was indeed a Pearl and she conned him.

We KNOW BG never had a staff member fitting the description in his book. The only question is whether Ayers himself originated the falsehoods or simply fell for falsehoods told him by someone else. He is either a xxxx (if the first case is true) or a fool (if the second case is true, since you'd have to be a fool to believe such a story, IMO).

One again, Bill, you fail to offer a single word to counter my argument that the story about "Pearl's father" is preposterous on its face. It would be unworthy of belief had I never talked to Mrs. Eisenhower.

Tim,

You're beating a dead horse.

Do I believe the decorated Army Ranger veteran or you?

BEA wins hands down.

Sorry, but the story is so preposterous you have to keep repeating it.

It's not worth discussing anymore.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, is senility creeping in or what?

What do you mean, do you believe me? Do you assert I lied about my communications with Mrs. Eisenhower? Unless you do (and I can PROVE I did and what she told me) MY credibility is not in issue, for that is the only point at which my credibility comes in to play.

Otherwise, it is Mrs. Eisenhower's word versus that of Mr. Ayers.

And once more I note you do not offer a word a single solitary word to counter my argument that the conspirators would never engage an honest man unwitting of the plot to be their bag man. The story does not ring true.

You cannot win this argument by trying to make ME the issue. I have no personal knowledge whether a Pearl existed or if her father ever worked for BG. But Mrs. Eisenhower does. And I will take HER word over Ayers' in a heartbeat.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bradley E. Ayers on David Morales:

"…The branch chiefs each gave us the standard, practiced briefing on their operations, but when we tried to question them in depth about their roles, they were evasive. We soon discovered that no one knew what to do with us, and finally we were temporarily assigned to the operations branch. Dave Morales, chief of operations, a big Mexican-Native American, was the only branch chief who treated us less than respectfully. He ran all the station's activities with a heavy hand and was famous for his temper. We soon learned that no one, save Ted Shackley himself, argued with Dave. To cross him in any way was to invite trouble."

"A few days after our arrival, Rod and I attended a full staff briefing, representatives from all the branches were present – a total of 30 people…." [see: Briefing Report 1]

"…Rip, in his mid-forties, was a contract employee of fairly long standing with the CIA. Almost everyone held him in high esteem. Like David Morales, nicknamed 'the Big Indian" (a.k.a. El Indio), to whom he was directly responsible, Rip was said to be stubborn, independent, and jealously protective of his men. From what we read and heard, Rip's commandos performed well under his supervision." [see: Rip on V20s modifications]

"…Most of the staff members admitted their ignorance and, in the end, recognized the merit of an improved program. The Big Indian, Morales, was the exception to this. As I had anticipated, he raised objections to almost every one of my proposals. Operations seemed interested only in final production, turning out teams and missions in quanity, and depending entirely on the inherent capabilities of team members rather than making the effort to train them properly. An expanded, mandatory training program would encroach upon their dominance at the station and threatened their bureaucratic empire. I had sensed this attitude. In not one of the post-mission briefings did Operations accept any of the blame for losses and failures. It was always because the team was 'stupid' or because 'those are the breaks.' I called it the Bay of Pigs mentality. Despite Operations objections, Ted Shackley accepted my recommendations almost to the letter."

"…The conclusions I drew were similar to those made in my earlier training report: The exile volunteers needed better physical conditioning, training in the use of seacoast survival techniques and equipment, training in stealth and nose discipline, and training in small unit tactics, especially patrolling and security….Ted Shackley wanted as few people as possible to know about my trip to Cuba [see: Cuba mission After Action Report]…I asked his secretary, Maggy, who else might see my after-action report. I was mostly concerned about Dave Morales' reaction to my critical observations….. 'Dave is away for awhile in Mexico. Possibly Gordon will see it'…."

"….I was directed to go to Rip's Marathon safe-house on the west shore of Florida Bay and run the V20 back to the Pirate's Lair safe-house complex, where I'd turn it over to Cabeza. Logistics gave me a car to deliver to Rip in return. On the way down U.S. 1, I stopped at the Green Turtle Inn in Isamorada for a bowl of soup. It was early afternoon and most of the lunch crowd had left. But near the back of the restaurant, seated at a large circular table, were Dave Morales, Mr. Harvey, Gordon Campbell, Mr. Phillips and another man, possibly Rosselli, whose back was turned to me. They apparently had stopped for lunch and drinks. I don't know if they recognized me or not. As was the practice in such situations within the agency, there was no acknowledgement, either way.

Discretely, I got my soup to go and quickly left. It was the first time I had ever seen the station hierarchy in the Keys and out of their air-conditioned offices. It was encouraging, maybe something big was in the offing. I thought. Rip was in the Marathon safe-house when I arrive…."

"….Morales was one of the three agents to personally brief president Eisenhower on the operation [success/Guatemala 1954]. Engineering the overthrow of the Cuban president Fidel Castro was one of the dominant obsessions of U.S. foreign policy architects from the moment Castro took power in Cuba on the first day of 1959. It was an obsession with Morales, too. The CIA operative was there from the start. He was working in the U.S. embassy in Havana when Castro launched his revolution. While most employees promptly returned to the U.S., Morales stayed behind, masterminding a series of small-scale operations that would form the basis of the U.S. anti-Castro campaign for the next several years. Among other things Morales planted radios with anti-Castro sympathizers, used later by U.S. commandos infiltrating Cuba. Morales found ingenious ways of hiding the transmitters, placing many of them with nuns. When Castro shut down the U.S. embassy in the summer of 1959 and expelled all U.S. government personnel, Morales intensified his anti-Castro campaign from U.S. shores. In 1962, he was named chief of operations for JM/WAVE, the CIA's component of the anti-Castro campaign launched by President Kennedy in the wake of the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion. From that post, Morales reported directly to Ted Shackley, the ghost behind CIA covert operations who would rise to become the agency's associate deputy in 1976 under CIA Director George Bush."

"Moreales was at the center of the CIA-mob alliance. Before the Castro revolution, he met and befriended many of the mobsters running the casionos. Later while with JM/WAVE, Morales and Shackley assisted Rosselli in launching the Castro assassination attempts. The attempts failed, but Morales came out of the Cuban operation with new power and new alliances. From then on, he would be a close ally and associate of Shackley. And when deemed appropriate by his superiors, he worked closely with mobsters."

"Morales' reputation as a master of covert operations was schizophrenic; government officials in capitals recognized him across Latin America, but he was unknown to the American public and most U.S. public policy makers. He was infamous elsewhere on the continent because in the late 1960s there were few South American countries in which he hadn't operated. Public records indicate that at various times during his career he was stationed in Guatemala, Havana, Lima, and Caracas. But these were his cover assignments. Like most CIA agents, Morales wasn't restricted to working in the country in which he was stationed. He roamed as needed. In 1964, he personally mowed down dozens of Tupamaro guerrillas in Uruguay. While he was stationed in Lima in 1965 he had helped pave the way for the invasion of the Dominican Republic by entering the country surreptitiously and knocking out a radio transmitter. The public record doesn't indicate any work in Bolivia, but in 1967 he helped engineer the capture of Cuban guerrilla Ernesto 'Che' Guevara there."

"Morales was chief of operations for the agency's mission in Laos in the middle-1960s, when the CIA mission was to enlist the local tribal people in its efforts to cut down the movement of supplies by the Vietcong….

Edited October 23, 2007 by William Kelly

[Tim Gratz]

If Ayers made up the Pearl story, BK, how can we believe a word he says about anything or anybody?