The George Joannides Coverup
jeffersonm
CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George
Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States.
CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that
Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans
delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro
ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted
Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They
sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They
challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate
which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release
calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure
Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its
public statements with the Agency.
What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets
in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders
of the DRE are divided on the question.
Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in
Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways,
thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides
told the group to take their information to the FBI.
Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the
Warren Commission.
In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison
to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was
uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides
died in 1991.
I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
not release IN ANY FORM.
Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
"national security."
The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
operations is unknown.
It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA
is legally obliged to make such records public.
Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
not disturbing.
I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly
support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
have not been released.
Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
agree that these records should be made public immediately.
Ray
willing to publicly
support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act." Would it
help to involve the Attorney-General? Isn't the Justice Department
supposed to enforce the Law?
Ray
"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce
dshar...@yahoo.com
jeffersonm wrote:
> People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that
the
> CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block
release
> of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>
Jeff,
I've always been hesitant my ownself to climb on bandwagons, but my own
curious route from there to here in my reading bumbps into this...what
can I say..I read your posts!
It's an engaging part of the tale, and maybe some website somewhere
will relate this court proceeding?
David
It's just to nice--outside, wireless, and a lady bug strolls across the
screen...
May 19, 2005
jeffersonm
Archivist and the Senate and House Committees have jurisdiction for the
enforcement of the Act.
Canuck
Martijn Meijering
> agree that these records should be made public immediately.
Surely there has to be some kind of review before records are made
public. It's not inconceivable that people might end up in a Cuban jail
or worse if all records are released just like that. Isn't that what the
ARRB was for?
Russ Burr
RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
Russ
Martin Shackelford
administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release dates
and continue to withhold the documents. The Joannides documents are only
the latest example.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
train
Whatever Intelligence Agency LHO may have worked for, I seriously that
Agency will never publicly admit it. Why? Because Hoover's FBI and
LBJ's WC identified LHO as JFK's killer. No Agency can hope to stay in
business if the American public thinks it employs presidential
assassins.
This is the damage Hoover's FBI and the WC did to both LHO (if he was a
good guy) and the CIA at that time in American history, IMHO.
It would be wonderful for the historical record if the Agency would
come clean about LHO, this generation can handle the truth of those
days gone by. Most of the older generation already suspected LHO was a
company man anyway.
Martijn Meijering
> Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with
> RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
Definitely very interesting. I'd love to have the documents Jefferson
Morley is after. Still, the CIA may have good reasons for wanting to
redact some of the information. I wonder if the judge who has to decide
on this will get the chance to read the information in unredacted form?
My guess is no. Does anyone here know for sure?
And if turns out there was a strong DRE-RFK link, that would be
explosive wouldn't it?
Russ Burr
> RFK was tied into Artime's group, Brigade 2506.
I got that one from Russo's book. But thanks for the information.
Russ
TexExtra
can issue him a bed pan, a pair of reading glasses and some laxative?
TexExtra
Martijn Meijering
> The ARRB scheduled records for release on certain dates. The Bush
> administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release dates
> and continue to withhold the documents.
I knew about the delayed releases, but didn't know that the Bush
administration was trying to ignore them. Has the law been changed to
allow this, or are they just doing it anyway?
> The Joannides documents are only
> the latest example.
But the ARRB never saw those, right? Does that mean people now have to
follow a regular FOIA procedure, just as they would about say Abu Ghraib?
Robert Harris
LOL!! Not in this newsgroup:-)
I would also like to see the report on Oswald's CIA debriefing after
his return from Russia, that was uncovered in the PBS documentary.
Of course, the Canal St. incident was staged in order to undermine the
FPCC, a mortal enemy of the FBI. Oswald likewise, tried to damage the
ACLU by pretending to be authorized to receive mail for them.
Oswald was working for the FBI and indirectly, for the DRE, a fact
that had to have been known to their CIA controllers. The CIA will
never release those documents, because they would reveal that fact.
The part that we all overlooked, was that Oswald was indeed, a "nut".
He was totally obsessed with becoming a spy and an anticommunist
informant - enough so that he tried to kill himself when he thought
his big chance in Russia would fall through, and enough to literally
break into tears when he couldn't get into Cuba.
Robert Harris
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Ray
Can you post the names of the committeepersons? Perhaps researchers could
lobby those from their states.
Has the National Archivist shown any recognition of his responsibilities
under the Statute?
jeffersonm
RFK or that RFK had any ties to the DRE. During the missile crisis,
Dick Helms, with more a touch of impatience, recommended the DRE's
seriousness of purpose to Bobby, with the clear implication that JFK's
Cuba policy lacked seriousness.
jeffersonm
am skeptical about arguments that the government will "never" release
certain kinds of damaging information.
By that logic, the CIA never would have released the Joannides story.
But they did. And they did because they were forced to.
There is no omnipotent intelligence in the government that decrees: "no
damaging information about the JFK assassination shall be released."
Rather, intelligent searching and enforcement of the law will maximize
the scope of the public record on the JFK case and from that
information new dimensions of the story, if they exist, will become
apparent.
To put it less abstractly, I think we know more than they do at this
point.
jeffersonm
the JFK Records Act calls for. The CIA should comply with the law.
John Hunt
"Martijn Meijering" <mar...@mevs.nl> wrote in message
news:428e407c$0$95325$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
If they are JFK assassination related, the CIA was OBLIGATED BY LAW to make
them available to the ARRB.
John Hunt
>
>
jeffersonm
non-compliance with the JFK Records Act to their own representatives
with copies to Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jon Cornyn (R-TX).
They are the leading advocates of open government in the Senate at this
point.
No, the Archvist has not yet shown any awareness of his responsibilitie
under the Act.
jeffersonm
Martin Shackelford
All JFK documents have a sunset date for release, even if the ARRB
didn't know about them.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Brigage 2506 was more liberal, run by Artime, close to RFK, who after
the assassination told one of them, "One of your guys did this."
Martin
jeffersonm
John McAdams
>People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
>CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
>of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>
>The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George
>Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
>Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>
>Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
>financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
>the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States.
Effective?
What is your criterion for this?
>CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that
>Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
>they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
>July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>
Regardless of what the job evaluation shows, I'm a bit skeptical that
anybody in the CIA had too much success in controlling that bunch of
hotheads.
I'm sure we all know about inflated job evaluations.
>Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans
>delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro
>ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted
>Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They
>sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They
>challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate
>which was later sent to Joannides.
Can you supply some details on this?
Do you mean "sent to Joannides" or "sent to the DRE in Miami?"
>And they issued a press release
>calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure
>Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its
>public statements with the Agency.
>
Sure it had.
I do trust you are being careful not to make unwarranted assumptions
about how much control the CIA *really* had over these guys.
>What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets
>in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders
>of the DRE are divided on the question.
>
>Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in
>Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways,
>thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin.
Which would be expected, right?
They know this guy is a Communist, and they don't like Communists, and
are quite happy to puff Oswald's Communist (or supposed Communist)
connections.
>Joannides
>told the group to take their information to the FBI.
>
You mean *instead of* going public with it?
But they didn't have time to check with Joannides in the hour after
the assassination, right?
And by the time Joannides told them that the FBI was in charge of the
investigation, right?
So *you,* had you been in touch with them in 1963, would have probably
said "if you have any information take it to the FBI," right?
>Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the
>Warren Commission.
>
You're not actually suggesting that everybody who had some
"connection" to the DRE should have been viewed as suspect by the WC,
are you?
>In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison
>to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
>disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
>counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
>obstruction of Congress, a felony.
Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.
He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy opportunity
for him.
>Joannides's support for the DRE was
>uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides
>died in 1991.
>
>I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
>Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
>me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
>from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
>an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
>not release IN ANY FORM.
>
>Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
>"national security."
>
>The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
>Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
>1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
>operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
>operations is unknown.
>
>It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
>Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
>had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
>August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald.
Not if he didn't really *know* anything about the DRE and Oswald.
>The CIA
>is legally obliged to make such records public.
>
>Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
>not disturbing.
>
>I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly
>support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
>the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
>that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
>from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
>have not been released.
>
>Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
>agree that these records should be made public immediately.
>
>
I frankly don't know what they are hiding, but certain activities of
people still alive sounds like the most likely thing.
I certainly think they should turn these records over, if necessary
redacted to protect anybody who might have engaged in some legitimate
collaboration with the Agency.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
LOL!
Sounds like the government we all know and -- if we don't exactly love
it -- at least put up with.
It's not hard to know more than government bureaucrats. Especially
about a subject that seems to them to be ancient history.
Peter Fokes
Not so ancient for the CIA I guess since they are still trying to
block some JFK-assassination related papers from being released. As
Jeff wrote:
>People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
>CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
>of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>
>.John
PF
Martijn Meijering
> They're just doing it anyway.
> All JFK documents have a sunset date for release, even if the ARRB
> didn't know about them.
Very interesting, I didn't know that. From some googling I get the
impression that the last sunset date is 2017, unless the president
certifies that continued secrecy is necessary. I wonder who has the
power to do any reviews now that the ARRB no longer exists.
Questioning
"jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116509373.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
> CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
> of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>
> Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
> Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>
> Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
> financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
> the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States.
> Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
> they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
> July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>
> delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro
> ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted
> Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They
> sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They
> challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate
> calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure
> Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its
> public statements with the Agency.
>
> in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders
> of the DRE are divided on the question.
>
> Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in
> Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways,
> told the group to take their information to the FBI.
>
> Warren Commission.
>
> to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
> disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
> counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
> uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides
> died in 1991.
Nixon was the CIA liason in the Bay of Pigs Operation. It was his and
Dulles' idea to change the insertion point to the bay. But many people do
not know. Nixon in his zeal denied even being in Dallas at all. Until
pictures surfaced with his presence at the Pepisco confernce the day before.
>
> I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
> Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
> me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
> from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
> an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
> not release IN ANY FORM.
>
> Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
> "national security."
Groden asked the HSCA for a copy of the original Nix film for further
research and was told by Blanky that it was "lost." A common theme.
>
> The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
> Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
> 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
> operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
> operations is unknown.
>
> It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
> Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
> had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
> is legally obliged to make such records public.
>
> Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
> not disturbing.
>
> I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly
> support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
> the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
> that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
> from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
> have not been released.
>
> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
> agree that these records should be made public immediately.
offspring.
>
>
John Hunt
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:428f7a34...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>>In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison
>>to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
>>disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
>>counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
>>obstruction of Congress, a felony.
>
> Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.
>
> He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
> CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy opportunity
> for him.
>
Cool! You're able to climb inside Blakey's mind and enlighten us about the
fact that Blakey was NOT REALLY DISTURBED by Joannides' intentional
suppression of his prior CIA connection to the JFK assassination. Thanks
for clearing that up, .John. Keep up the good work!!
John Hunt
stug...@aol.com
> Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.
>
> He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
> CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy
opportunity
> for him.
Taking a pounding from who, John? Certainly not you. Certainly not
the media. Oh YES!!! The conspiracy theorists have pounded him. The
ones you claim don't bother the government one bit; the ones you claim
have zero influence on the media; the ones who you say don't mean
anything to anyone but themselves.
But all along we have gotten to one man who has secretly hoped that he
could find some way, some means, of dodging the withering attacks of
Mark Lane and Harry Livingstone. That man is Robert Blakey. For 20
years he has looked for every opportunity he could find. The Liberty
Lobby Trial did not measure up for him. Phillips Melanson's book did
nothing for him. The release of John Newman's book and the Roman
admission fell way short of a pretext. None of Jeff Morley's articles
pre-2000 offered any hope. All along Blakey languished: "will
someone, PLEASE, PLEASE give me the opportunity to fall into Peter Dale
Scott's good graces! Will I die without the approval of Jim Lesar?"
And then finally, like a White Knight, came Jeff Morley. Just when
Blakey thought there would be no hope for him to wither the biting
criticisms of Lisa Pease and Gaeton Fonzi, the revelations about
George Joannides came along. Finally, Blakey could make the public mea
culpa he'd been wanting to make; finally, he could repent for his sins
and admit that he let the CIA off the hook in the late 1970s, even
though he knows he really didn't. He doesn't actually believe
anything Morley is writing --- no. Instead, this simply satisfies
Blakey's inner-needs to meet the approval of the next batch of Lancer
Conference attendees. Only John McAdams has seen through Blakey's
dense layers of self-denial and human psyche to root out the true core
of Blakey's recent claims. Sigmund Freud I bring you-- John McAdams.
-Stu
Robert Harris
>While the CIA's stonewalling is reprehensible and probably illegal, I
>am skeptical about arguments that the government will "never" release
>certain kinds of damaging information.
>
>By that logic, the CIA never would have released the Joannides story.
Yes, now and then something falls through the cracks - like those
arrest records that were locked away under federal seal in the
basement of the DPD for so long, or the 90 percent redacted memo that
Adams found, from 11/18/63.
But those were accidents. The FBI and CIA regularly thumb their noses
at the law whenever they have the opportunity to hide anything
important to the JFK case. Who do you report them to? George W?
Where is that debriefing report that the PBS crew uncovered?
Where are all the reports from the FBI interviews of Elrod and the
others who might have overhead the same thing he did?
Where is the unredacted version of the report that Adams found?
Where are all the documents related to the informant in the
Miller-Whitter case that the FBI lied about to federal prosecutors?
Marina begged for those reports as well as numerous others?
>
>But they did. And they did because they were forced to.
>
>There is no omnipotent intelligence in the government that decrees: "no
>damaging information about the JFK assassination shall be released."
I wish I could believe that.
So why do we see endless coverups of this information? Why are we so
often given the preposterous excuse that national security would be
endangered if they were released?
And why do they flatly and deliberately, lie about so many of these
issues? Tell me, do you really think the FBI has no records of their
interviews of Elrod and the tramps, because they never interviewed
them?
Do you think they didn't believe they should talk to arrested murder
suspects? And do you think that Elrod and the others lied when they
said they were indeed, interviewed by the FBI?
And why do we have to fight with these people? Why aren't THEY
investigating all this, with a tenth of the fervor that they use to
investigate a Cat Stevens?
There is something very rotten here, Jeff.
>
>Rather, intelligent searching and enforcement of the law will maximize
>the scope of the public record on the JFK case and from that
>information new dimensions of the story, if they exist, will become
>apparent.
>
>To put it less abstractly, I think we know more than they do at this
>point.
Hehe, I think you've been talking to certain people in S. Florida a
bit too long.
Look - these people have lied and done everything in their power to
prevent us from learning about their relationship with Oswald.
And they are not just a bunch of overworked filing clerks. They are
VERY proactive - especially when it comes to influencing the media -
as you should have learned by now:-)
Rober Harris
jeffersonm
They were effective in terms of rallying opposition to and taking
action against Castro. They published the monthly Cuban Report, which
circulated widely on Capitol Hill. Until Sept. 1962, they had an
organization inside Cuba which supplied U.S. policymakers with useful
information. As the New York Times reported during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, the DRE had reported on trucks carrying large missiles in the
Cuban countryside. They were also regarded as effective at mounting
operations inside Cuba. When the National Security Council discussed
the distribution of propaganda inside
Cuba in April 1963, the DRE was the only group mentioned as being able
to pull it off. This is documented in Foreign Relations of the United
States
jeffersonm
States.
CONTROL OVER THE DRE
No, he didn't have total control. the Fitness report says that he
established a "degree of control." And, in fact, there were fewer
public displays of DRE insubordination during Joannides's tenure as
case officer than under his predecessor. Before Joannides, the DRE had
attempted to assassinate Castro (Aug. 62), blabbed to a Miami Herald
reporter about their Agency connections (Oct. 62) and peddled the
"missiles in caves" story (Nov. 62), all without CIA authorization.
Such incidents ceased in 1963 and Joannides got credit.
THE OSWALD TAPE
The DRE gave the Oswald tape to Joannides." The tape is in the National
Archives in a box marked "To Howard." Luis Fernandez Rocha, the former
head of the DRE, says the handwriting on the box is his and that the
"Howard" in question was his CIA contact whom he says was Joannides.
THE OSWALD PRESS RELEASE
OK, let's say the DRE's exposure of Oswald was an example of the
group's independent ways and Joannides didn't authorize it. In that
case Joannides had a hell of problem on November 22 when he found out
that his assets whom he and his colleagues thought were under control
had, in fact, been gathering intelligence on the man who just shot the
President dead--without ever telling him.
The point is, whether Joannides "really" had the DRE under control or
not, he was responsible for their actions because they were spending
CIA funds.
You're assuming that because the DRE was "out of control" he had no
responsibility for their actions. No good operations officer--and
Joannides by all accounts was a good operations officer--would make
that assumption.
DRE GOING PUBLIC ON Nov. 22.
Sure it was natural for the DRE to denounce Oswald. The question is
whether Joannides and his superiors intended it to happen.
Afterall, the CIA gave the DRE lots of money for (and these are the
CIA's terms, not mine) "intelligence collection," "political action,"
and "propaganda" activities."
The DRE ran into this obscure pro-Castro character named Oswald and
they collected intelligence on him and generated propaganda, classic
examples of political action.
After President Kennedy was killed, apparently by Oswald, they
disseminated the intelligence and generated more propaganda, ie. more
political action. There is no record that Joannides ever objected.
So if they paid for the DRE's activities, "guided and monitored" those
activities (again the CIA's phrase) and condoned those activities
after the fact, one reasonable conclusion is that they intended these
things to happen.
JOANNIDES TOLD THE DRE TO GO TO THE FBI
Here's what happened: The DRE called Joannides around 5 pm on 11/22 and
said they were going public with what they knew. He told them to hold
off while he checked with HQ. They went ahead anyway and the wire
services were reporting on New Orleans encounters by 6pm Eastern Time.
Joannides called back and told them to go to the FBI.
That was certainly the correct thing to do under the circumstances.
The other correct thing to do, according to the six retired operations
officers who I've interviewed on the subject, would have been to report
to CIA headquarters on DRE contacts with the presidential assassin.
If Joannides did this--and I'm pretty sure he did--the CIA has never
disclosed it.
JOANNIDES NOT DISCLOSED TO THE WARREN COMMISSION
Straw man. No, I am not saying "anybody" connected with the DRE should
have been "a suspect."
The CIA purported to tell the Warren Commission everything its
employees knew about Oswald. Dick Helms said this under oath.
But he did not disclose the Agency's close collaborative relationship
with the exile group that first called public attention to Oswald's
duplicitous pro-Castro's ways.
This may not be perjury but it was certainly not the level of
disclosure that the Warren Commission expected.
BLAKEY
Another straw man. Blakey's statement that Joannides deceived him and
the Congress is indisputably true.
If a poster to this forum deceived you about their past in this way,
you would quickly and correctly
denounce them. Joannides did it and you blame the messenger.
NOT IF HE DIDN'T 'KNOW' ANYTHING ABOUT THE DRE AND OSWALD.
Those quotation marks are especially revealing here John.
To recap: The president of the United States is killed. Within hours, a
CIA officer learns that members of an organization that is wholly and
secretly funded by him has had a series of encounters with the accused
assassin. These encounters are of an intensely political nature,
involving support for an enemy of the United States (the Castro
government). The DRE has supplied him with a tape recording of the
accused assassin talking about his political views.
Your position is that he didn't have a professional obligation to
report any of this because he didn't "know" anything. Depends on what
you mean by "know."
All I can say is that no CIA operations officer who I have ever talked
to--and I've asked six about this point--agrees with you.
DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE HIDING
I don't know what they're hiding either John but thanks for your
support.
Robert Harris
Mr. Morley,
Have you come to the conclusion that Oswald really did attempt to
infiltrate the DRE by himself and that the altercation on Camp St. was
real and not staged?
Robert Haris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Anthony Marsh
There is no evidence that Nixon changed the landing location to the Bay
of Pigs and plenty of direct evidence that it was JFK who did that.
Nixon did not have the same concerns as did Kennedy about not letting it
be too noisy an operation.
tomnln
"Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116517953.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jefferson Morley wrote:"I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers
> willing to publicly
> support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act." Would it
> help to involve the Attorney-General? Isn't the Justice Department
> supposed to enforce the Law?
>
> Ray
>
> "Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce
>
>
jeffersonm
going on.
The CIA gave the the DRE for "intelligence gathering," "propaganda,"
and "political action." When they met Oswald, they engaged in all
three. Joanndies, the case officer for the group, was praised a week
before this happened for having established a degree of control over
the group and after it was over he got the highest possible marks for
his job performance concerning the group. His job review for 1963
praised him for "translating policy directives into action."
The most plausible conclusion is that someone at the CIA intended for
these encounters to happen. Of course, I can't prove that because of
the CIA's illicit withholding of documents. But that seems the most
plausible explanation.
The notion that all of this activity happened on the watch of George
Joannides, who was in New Orleans in 1963 and 1964, without him knowing
is hard to credit.
John McAdams
Only if you assume that the whole Oswald/Casa Roca thing was some sort
of government operation.
But if it wasn't, it's quite easy to believe that Joannides knew
nothing about it.
Just exactly when, and for how long, was he in New Orleans?
John McAdams
>
>> Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.
>>
>> He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
>> CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy opportunity
>> for him.
>
>
>Taking a pounding from who, John? Certainly not you. Certainly not
>the media. Oh YES!!! The conspiracy theorists have pounded him. The
>ones you claim don't bother the government one bit; the ones you claim
>have zero influence on the media; the ones who you say don't mean
>anything to anyone but themselves.
>
Let's try to keep straight what I've said, Stu.
Yes, conspiracy theorists have pounded him.
Yes, the ones that "bother the government" only because they can be a
nuisance sometimes, not because they the government is hiding evidence
of a conspiracy.
I've never said that buffs "don't mean anything to anyone but
themselves," but I have said that they are terrible self-absorbed, and
tend to believe things like (for example) a massive disinformation
operation still going on.
>But all along we have gotten to one man who has secretly hoped that he
>could find some way, some means, of dodging the withering attacks of
>Mark Lane and Harry Livingstone. That man is Robert Blakey. For 20
>years he has looked for every opportunity he could find. The Liberty
>Lobby Trial did not measure up for him. Phillips Melanson's book did
>nothing for him. The release of John Newman's book and the Roman
>admission fell way short of a pretext. None of Jeff Morley's articles
>pre-2000 offered any hope. All along Blakey languished: "will
>someone, PLEASE, PLEASE give me the opportunity to fall into Peter Dale
>Scott's good graces! Will I die without the approval of Jim Lesar?"
>And then finally, like a White Knight, came Jeff Morley. Just when
>Blakey thought there would be no hope for him to wither the biting
>criticisms of Lisa Pease and Gaeton Fonzi, the revelations about
>George Joannides came along. Finally, Blakey could make the public mea
>culpa he'd been wanting to make; finally, he could repent for his sins
>and admit that he let the CIA off the hook in the late 1970s, even
>though he knows he really didn't.
That's about right, Stu.
He's too sensible to fall for CIA conspiracy theories (admittedly,
he's not to sensible to fall for Mafia did it theories).
But if it's just fussing and fuming about documents that the CIA
withheld -- hell, why not!
You can blast the CIA, and make the buffs happy, all the time without
saying there was some CIA conspiracy.
>He doesn't actually believe
>anything Morley is writing --- no.
He doubtless believes Morley about the CIA withholding documents.
Are you saying he now believes the CIA conspiracy to kill Kennedy?
If so, just produce a quote.
>Instead, this simply satisfies
>Blakey's inner-needs to meet the approval of the next batch of Lancer
>Conference attendees. Only John McAdams has seen through Blakey's
>dense layers of self-denial and human psyche to root out the true core
>of Blakey's recent claims. Sigmund Freud I bring you-- John McAdams.
>
Kind of embarrassing to have to rehabilitate the guy you folks have
always hated, isn't it?
John McAdams
>DRE EFFECTIVENESS
>
>They were effective in terms of rallying opposition to and taking
>action against Castro. They published the monthly Cuban Report, which
>circulated widely on Capitol Hill. Until Sept. 1962, they had an
>organization inside Cuba which supplied U.S. policymakers with useful
>information. As the New York Times reported during the Cuban Missile
>Crisis, the DRE had reported on trucks carrying large missiles in the
>Cuban countryside. They were also regarded as effective at mounting
>operations inside Cuba. When the National Security Council discussed
>the distribution of propaganda inside
>Cuba in April 1963, the DRE was the only group mentioned as being able
>to pull it off. This is documented in Foreign Relations of the United
>States.
>
OIC. They were "mentioned."
Any evidence that they actually *did* pull off any such a thing?
BTW, isn't "distribution of propaganda inside Cuba" ineffective even
if they can actually do it?
Have you listened to the Oswald/Butler/Bringuier debate? Does
Bringuier strike you as a sophisticated propagandist?
Do you agree with Gus Russo that the entire anti-Castro movement was
thoroughly penetrated by Castro's agents?
>CONTROL OVER THE DRE
>
>No, he didn't have total control. the Fitness report says that he
>established a "degree of control."
IOW, some. Maybe not much.
And what was the evidence behind the fitness report? Joannides,
perhaps?
>And, in fact, there were fewer
>public displays of DRE insubordination during Joannides's tenure as
>case officer than under his predecessor. Before Joannides, the DRE had
>attempted to assassinate Castro (Aug. 62), blabbed to a Miami Herald
>reporter about their Agency connections (Oct. 62) and peddled the
>"missiles in caves" story (Nov. 62), all without CIA authorization.
>Such incidents ceased in 1963 and Joannides got credit.
>
A lot of things could account for that -- assuming you aren't
overlooking some things that happened in 1963.
>THE OSWALD TAPE
>
>The DRE gave the Oswald tape to Joannides." The tape is in the National
>Archives in a box marked "To Howard." Luis Fernandez Rocha, the former
>head of the DRE, says the handwriting on the box is his and that the
>"Howard" in question was his CIA contact whom he says was Joannides.
>
Did you show him a photo and Joannides, and get the ID from the photo?
The tape, according to your article, wasn't sent until after the
assassination.
Not very incriminating. Oswald is world famous at the guy who killed
Kennedy, and the DRE wants to cash in on their previous
"confrontation" in New Orleans.
>THE OSWALD PRESS RELEASE
>
>OK, let's say the DRE's exposure of Oswald was an example of the
>group's independent ways and Joannides didn't authorize it. In that
>case Joannides had a hell of problem on November 22 when he found out
>that his assets whom he and his colleagues thought were under control
>had, in fact, been gathering intelligence on the man who just shot the
>President dead--without ever telling him.
>
Why?
Are you actually saying that the DRE in New Orleans was supposed to
report to Joannides about every leftist oddball they confronted?
You understand the fallacy of thinking that since we *now* consider
Oswald a very important figure, everybody in 1963 had to think of him
the same way, right?
And you say "gathering intelligence" as though they were some sort of
slick spooks.
Their "gathering intelligence" involved sending one fellow to his
apartment, who was utterly transparent to Oswald.
That's not a lot of "gathering intelligence."
I fear you are falling into the trip of using language that *sounds*
sinister, but only because you leave out detail.
>The point is, whether Joannides "really" had the DRE under control or
>not, he was responsible for their actions because they were spending
>CIA funds.
>
Your whole theory requires that he had them under very firm control.
You really need to prove that Joannides (in Miami) actually had
detailed knowledge of what was going on between Oswald and the DRE in
New Orleans.
>You're assuming that because the DRE was "out of control" he had no
>responsibility for their actions. No good operations officer--and
>Joannides by all accounts was a good operations officer--would make
>that assumption.
>
"Responsibility" is really irrelevant.
For your conspiracy theory to fly, you really need to prove that
Joannides (in Miami) actually had detailed knowledge of what was going
on between Oswald and the DRE in New Orleans.
>DRE GOING PUBLIC ON Nov. 22.
>
>Sure it was natural for the DRE to denounce Oswald. The question is
>whether Joannides and his superiors intended it to happen.
>
And you have no evidence that this was the case.
>Afterall, the CIA gave the DRE lots of money for (and these are the
>CIA's terms, not mine) "intelligence collection," "political action,"
>and "propaganda" activities."
>
You don't routinely assume that government money is spent effectively,
do you?
>The DRE ran into this obscure pro-Castro character named Oswald and
>they collected intelligence on him and generated propaganda, classic
>examples of political action.
>
You are just completely ignoring the details and the texture of what
happened.
You really are using vague language to try to make a case when precise
language would give a very different impression.
Bringier listed to Oswald expound in the Casa Roca twice. He let
Oswald give him his Marine manual. He sent a very amateurish "agent"
to pretend to be pro-Castro and find out what he could about the "Fair
Play for Cuba Committee."
They went ballistic when Oswald was distributing pro-Castro literature
in Canal Street and created a confrontation.
They prodded Stuckey to set up a radio debate, which was seen as a
huge Oswald defeat (no thanks to Bringuier, who debated very badly).
And that was it until they found that this fellow Oswald had shot the
President.
>After President Kennedy was killed, apparently by Oswald, they
>disseminated the intelligence and generated more propaganda, ie. more
>political action. There is no record that Joannides ever objected.
>
There is no record he ever told them to do it or endorsed their doing
it.
Jeff, I think you actually believe that the DRE types were some sort
of Hispanic Jame Bonds.
>So if they paid for the DRE's activities, "guided and monitored" those
>activities (again the CIA's phrase) and condoned those activities
>after the fact, one reasonable conclusion is that they intended these
>things to happen.
>
Beautiful.
You are writing from Washington, DC, and you actually assume that
government programs always work as planned and claimed.
>
>JOANNIDES TOLD THE DRE TO GO TO THE FBI
>
>Here's what happened: The DRE called Joannides around 5 pm on 11/22 and
>said they were going public with what they knew. He told them to hold
>off while he checked with HQ. They went ahead anyway and the wire
>services were reporting on New Orleans encounters by 6pm Eastern Time.
>Joannides called back and told them to go to the FBI.
>
Translation: they were out of control.
You've just undermined your own argument.
>That was certainly the correct thing to do under the circumstances.
>
>The other correct thing to do, according to the six retired operations
>officers who I've interviewed on the subject, would have been to report
>to CIA headquarters on DRE contacts with the presidential assassin.
>
>If Joannides did this--and I'm pretty sure he did--the CIA has never
>disclosed it.
>
It's not so clear he should have "disclosed" anything he *knew* if he
*knew* nothing beyond what was all over the news.
If you *assume* that the DRE was setting Oswald up though some kind of
master spy operation in the Big Easy, and that they did that on orders
of Joannides, then he should "disclose" it.
Do you see how you are assuming things you need to prove?
>JOANNIDES NOT DISCLOSED TO THE WARREN COMMISSION
>
>Straw man. No, I am not saying "anybody" connected with the DRE should
>have been "a suspect."
>
>The CIA purported to tell the Warren Commission everything its
>employees knew about Oswald. Dick Helms said this under oath.
>
Given that you have no evidence that Joannides knew anything, you have
no case here.
Can't you see how you are begging the question?
Make a key *assumption* (Joannides directed the DRE in their actions
vis a vis Oswald in New Orleans) and you can huff and puff endlessly
about how "information was withheld."
But claims about "withheld information" are only as good as your
assumption, no better.
>But he did not disclose the Agency's close collaborative relationship
>with the exile group that first called public attention to Oswald's
>duplicitous pro-Castro's ways.
>
Which was only relevant given you *assumptions.*
>This may not be perjury but it was certainly not the level of
>disclosure that the Warren Commission expected.
>
>BLAKEY
>
>Another straw man. Blakey's statement that Joannides deceived him and
>the Congress is indisputably true.
>
>If a poster to this forum deceived you about their past in this way,
>you would quickly and correctly
>denounce them. Joannides did it and you blame the messenger.
>
You haven't even claimed that Joannides told the HSCA anything untrue.
You just claim that he should have told the HSCA some stuff that you
*assume* would have been relevant.
And you have to be aware that Blakey has taken a lot of heat from the
"CIA did it" types.
>NOT IF HE DIDN'T 'KNOW' ANYTHING ABOUT THE DRE AND OSWALD.
>
>Those quotation marks are especially revealing here John.
>
>To recap: The president of the United States is killed. Within hours, a
>CIA officer learns that members of an organization that is wholly and
>secretly funded by him has had a series of encounters with the accused
>assassin. These encounters are of an intensely political nature,
>involving support for an enemy of the United States (the Castro
>government). The DRE has supplied him with a tape recording of the
>accused assassin talking about his political views.
>
>Your position is that he didn't have a professional obligation to
>report any of this because he didn't "know" anything. Depends on what
>you mean by "know."
>
It means, "did he have any inside knowledge?" "Did he know anything
beyond what was all over the news?"
Jeff, you really have only your *assumption* that he did.
You have nothing more than that, and you doubtless took logic in
college and know that your conclusions can't possibly be any better
than the premises you start with.
>All I can say is that no CIA operations officer who I have ever talked
>to--and I've asked six about this point--agrees with you.
>
Then let me talk to them, and I bet I'll be able to report that they
agree with me.
>DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE HIDING
>
>I don't know what they're hiding either John but thanks for your
>support.
>
>
You certainly have my support in wanting the CIA to cough up the
documents -- although I think minimal redactions to conceal the name
or names of sources still living would be acceptable.
jeffersonm
jeffersonm
going to lose.
We are going to win this thing and I have a strategy for doing it. That
strategy does not begin with the belief that "they" are "never" going
to lose.
It begins with the fact that we have the law on our side, that
everybody--the public, the Congress, the "lone nut" faithful--agrees
that all JFK assassination-related records should be made public.
We have to identify and locate those records. We have reiterate and
clarify the law to the people responsible for those records. And we
have to take public action that forces (or shames) them into reviewing
and releasing those records.
Its tedious and should be unnecessary. Its shameful that we get no help
from news organizations. But it can be and is being done.
jeffersonm
only?
jeffersonm
presentation.
John McAdams
They do this by instinct, Peter.
A lot of papers have been "withheld" and when released, showed nothing
to explain why they were withheld. No "smoking gun" showing a
conspiracy. No good national security reason either.
.John
--
stug...@aol.com
Why don't we stick to what people are actually saying...
I never said that Blakey believed in a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK.
That's a pure red herring. Work harder.
You clearly were implying that Blakey's change of heart on a CIA
*COVERUP* was insincere on the absolutely ridiculous basis that he was
knuckling under to the pressure of conspiracy theorists. Do you
honestly hold to that claim or are you willing to admit that Blakey,
who had nothing but positive things to say about the CIA's cooperation
on through the 1990s, has sincerely changed his mind about how the CIA
worked with the HSCA?
I understand the reluctance to admit the change... after all, Blakey
was on your side of the cover-up issue for decades and now he is
actually changing his mind when confronted with evidence. I understand
how hard it is to accept the fact that most people don't go through
Blackwell's Guide to Rationalizations, when it comes to obvious
obstruction. But to claim conspiracy theorists have brainwashed the
man is ridiculous.
-Stu
tomnln
Assassin
Theory are complete Idiots.
Rather than admit a handful of people in Authority are Dishonest.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:42915d71...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
>John,
>
>Why don't we stick to what people are actually saying...
>
>I never said that Blakey believed in a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK.
>That's a pure red herring. Work harder.
>
>You clearly were implying that Blakey's change of heart on a CIA
>*COVERUP* was insincere on the absolutely ridiculous basis that he was
>knuckling under to the pressure of conspiracy theorists.
I don't even know that he saw himself "caving in."
But he has to understand that a bit of rhetoric to placate the
hate-the-CIA crowd would make them like him better.
>Do you
>honestly hold to that claim or are you willing to admit that Blakey,
>who had nothing but positive things to say about the CIA's cooperation
>on through the 1990s, has sincerely changed his mind about how the CIA
>worked with the HSCA?
>
I don't doubt that Morley has convinced him that the CIA has withheld
some documents. I *have* pointed out that he was probably easy to
convince.
>I understand the reluctance to admit the change... after all, Blakey
>was on your side of the cover-up issue for decades and now he is
>actually changing his mind when confronted with evidence.
Oh, my!!
He now believes that the CIA killed Kennedy and is engaged in a
coverup, does he?
>I understand
>how hard it is to accept the fact that most people don't go through
>Blackwell's Guide to Rationalizations, when it comes to obvious
>obstruction. But to claim conspiracy theorists have brainwashed the
>man is ridiculous.
>
Quit misrepresenting what I said.
He's taken a huge amount of abuse from the hate-the-CIA crowd. I'll
bet that *you* have abused him quite a bit.
So some protective cover by saying bad things about the Agency is
doubtless something that would appeal to him.
Brandon Alexander
What this man had to do with the assassination of President Kennedy
and/or Lee Oswald is speculative at best.
I say continue to seek the release of any document you want to.
And when you get it, don't be surprised if it tells you nothing we
don't already know, or nothing at all.
Al.
>I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
>Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
>me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
>from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
>an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
>not release IN ANY FORM.
>
>Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
>"national security."
>
>The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
>Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
>1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
>operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
>operations is unknown.
>
>It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
>Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
>had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
>August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA
>is legally obliged to make such records public.
>
>Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
>not disturbing.
>
>I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly
>support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
>the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
>that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
>from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
>have not been released.
>
>Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
>agree that these records should be made public immediately.
>
.
dshar...@yahoo.com
In the Valley of the Gizzlies, within earshot of Grizzly Falls, (which
is booming).
:)
Good luck.
(not even a word?...eesh...)
my own self
David Sharpness
Mail to:
PO Box 191
Yosemite
CA 95389
May 24, 2005
jpsh...@my-deja.com
receive it?
Jerry Shinley
jeffersonm
Joannides had a professional responsibility to report on the DRE's
activities in August and November 1963. His reporting would provide two
things that we never had before: the CIA's perspective on the
DRE-Oswald encounters, as well as the CIA's response to the first JFK
scenario ever published, the DRE's claim on November 23, 1963 that
Oswald and Castro were "the presumed assassins."
stug...@aol.com
call to accuse the CIA obstruction despite:
a) Complaints from his own staffers at the time
b) Books like Spy Saga by Melanson
c) The Jane Roman revelations by Morley/Newman
d) And twenty years of what you claim is influential CIA-hating
rhetoric (CIA-hating rhetoric that, mind you, has failed, in your
estimation, to have any influence whatsoever on the CIA itself, on the
media, on the government, etc.-- just Blakey apparently.)
You think he suddenly, insincerely, caved in to the "CIA-haters?" Is
this what you honestly think? It sounds like the biggest reach in a
long history of reaches. You can't seem to accept this fact: an
objective person, who was on your side on this issue, is convinced the
CIA obstructed justice based on the material Morley presented. He
accepts the idea that CIA officers are supposed to report information;
he doesn't buy into the coincidence that the only gap in Joannides
reporting came at the time of the Oswald request; he accepts the idea
that a job evaluation might actually reflect someone's job performance.
If there is denial, maybe it is by the person who wouldn't accept the
idea of CIA obstruction if E. Howard Hunt showed him a film of Richard
Helms shredding documents.
-Stu
John McAdams
>So let's just be clear, John. G. Robert Blakey who has resisted the
>call to accuse the CIA obstruction despite:
>
>a) Complaints from his own staffers at the time
You mean crackpots like Fonzi!
>b) Books like Spy Saga by Melanson
Another crackpot book.
>c) The Jane Roman revelations by Morley/Newman
Which, although interesting, in fact prove almost nothing.
>d) And twenty years of what you claim is influential CIA-hating
>rhetoric (CIA-hating rhetoric that, mind you, has failed, in your
>estimation, to have any influence whatsoever on the CIA itself, on the
>media, on the government, etc.-- just Blakey apparently.)
>
I never said the rhetoric of the buffs has had "no influence," just
that you folks kid yourselves that all of official Washington is
quaking it its boots worried that you will "blow the lid" on the
conspiracy.
It's an annoyance to them.
>You think he suddenly, insincerely, caved in to the "CIA-haters?"
You don't bother to read what I wrote. I'm sure Blakey is honestly
convinced that the CIA "withheld information." To a degree they
really did.
But he was an easy sell.
>Is
>this what you honestly think? It sounds like the biggest reach in a
>long history of reaches. You can't seem to accept this fact: an
>objective person,
Oh! My! He has now become "an objective person."
A fellow who was a scum CIA lackey is now "an objective person."
>who was on your side on this issue, is convinced the
>CIA obstructed justice based on the material Morley presented.
Again, he was an easy sell.
>He
>accepts the idea that CIA officers are supposed to report information;
>he doesn't buy into the coincidence that the only gap in Joannides
>reporting came at the time of the Oswald request; he accepts the idea
>that a job evaluation might actually reflect someone's job performance.
> If there is denial, maybe it is by the person who wouldn't accept the
>idea of CIA obstruction if E. Howard Hunt showed him a film of Richard
>Helms shredding documents.
>
Stu, we've seen too many bogus buff claims of "obstruction."
You might look at the thread about how the Rockefeller Commission
refused to release Wecht's testimony. This was supposed to have some
nefarious intent, but when it was finally released it showed that
Wecht said what the Commission said he said.
.John
--
stug...@aol.com
You can't have it both ways here: either we are "crackpots" who
shouldn't faze G. Robert Blakey one bit or we are "CIA-haters" with
loads of influence on the man? Take your pick. But if you go with
"crackpots" then you have to concede that Blakey has changed his mind
based on the *merits* of Morley's work. Which means that Morley has
work that is capable of convincing anyone other than the most blatant
CIA apologists.
If you go with "CIA haters with loads of influence" then you have to
explain why Blakey insisted on his original propositions vis a vis the
CIA for 20 years, despite the "influence" these researchers are
supposed to have.
You can't have it both ways. So take your pick.
-Stu
When you have the chance, John, I'd love the quote where I call Blakey
CIA-loving scum. Your rhetoric confuses the basic issue: someone
who thinks the CIA has obstructed justice in the JFK assassination,
which only the most blatant CIA apologists will deny (people from
Posner to AFIO member Gus Russo even admit it), isn't a
government-hater or a CIA-hater. They simply want some responsible
government. I'm surprised that there are political scientists out
there who have a problem with this fact. Btw, if I showed you a
video of Richard Helms singing a song about the JFK assassination while
shredding JFK assassination documents, would you concede that was
obstruction, or would you claim that he was simply drunk and under the
effects of Parkinson's?
-Stu
Brandon Alexander
>I would be very surprised if the documents told us nothing at all.
I asked you not to be.
>Joannides had a professional responsibility to report on the DRE's
>activities in August and November 1963. His reporting would provide two
>things that we never had before: the CIA's perspective on the
>DRE-Oswald encounters, as well as the CIA's response to the first JFK
>scenario ever published, the DRE's claim on November 23, 1963 that
>Oswald and Castro were "the presumed assassins."
>
Well, Lee Oswald sure ain't no "presumed assassin."
I don't mean to be derisive (when I say that, of course, you know it's
coming, don't you?) but, apparently because of the exhaustive
uncovering of facts over the past forty years by many, many
individuals and groups including at least three government sponsored
investigations, there isn't much out there not already discovered. And
I would be suspicious, were I you, and I certainly am suspicious
myself, of anything that comes across the board purporting to be
something new.
That's not to say everything is known; that's never going to be the
case in my estimation. On the other hand, as I say, most of what is
truly relevant is out.
Now this Joaniddes, for example. In your post:
QOn
People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block
release
of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George
Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United
States.
CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that
Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
July 1963, was credited with having established control over the
group.
QOff
First, I'd question whether or not there's anything in thse documents
pertinent to the Kennedy Assassination. The CIA's reason for not
releasing them, however confounding, may be related to something else.
Second, I'd question that dollar figure.
Third, I'd question the notion that he had control over the group.
Even if he did the question would be WHY, and the answer may well have
nothing to do with Oswald and/or the Kennedy Assassination.
Again, I say pursue this if you want. No breath will be held here,
however.
Students of the assassination know well the circumstances of late July
early August 1963. Oswald, according to himself, attempted to
"infiltrate" the DRE, or at least what he thought was the DRE, by his
involvement with Carlos Bringuier. Now if your study brings something
to the table that would shed some more light on this, or anything else
for that matter, fine.
And that's not to insinuate anything need be brought to light about
it. Oswald was obviously a loose cannon and probably found out most of
what he knew from the newspapers. Moreover, his reckless scrapes with
Bringuier hastened the end of Oswald's short-lived New Orleans-based
political career. Those scrapes, whatever their motivation, could not
have produced the desired effect.
Accordingly, there's probably not much more that is useful to know
about them, at least as far as Oswald's acts of 22 November 1963 are
concerned.
Al.
.
jpsh...@my-deja.com
in N.O. in 1963?
DISC 7 AARC RUSSELL HOLMES COLLECTION CD SET
Record number: 104-10435-10008 Originator: CIA
Pages: 3 Date: 2/28/68
Title: MEMO:GARRISON INVESTIGATION OF KENNEDY ASSASSIANTION:
ALLEGATIONS OF INVOLVEMENT, CIA AND CUBAN
Subjects: OSWALD,LEE
-----------
[...]
2. Mr. Arthur Dooley of CI/R&A discussed this matter [a
March 8, 1967 memorandum entitled "Possible DRE Animus Toward
President Kennedy"] with the following members of wH/COG:
b. Messrs. [REDACTED] then recently returned
from a tour of the Miami Station, and Carl Trettin, DC of the
CI Branch, WN/COG, who knew Bringuier and was stationed
in New Orleans at the time of the Oswald-Bringuier
confrontations in August 1963. It was concluded that
Oswald was never a member of the DRE, which in fact
rejected him, and that the DRE was not involved in the
assassination.
[...]
<end of excerpts>
Jerry Shinley
"The court notes in passing that Conan and He-Man hold different
world views."
jeffersonm wrote:
> People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
> CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
> of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>
> The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George
> Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
> Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>
> Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
> financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
> the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States.
> CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that
> Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
> they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
> July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>
jeffersonm
scenario. Let us imagine that a U.S. Senator visiting Israel is
assassinated tomorrow, apparently by a 24 year old Israeli Arab named
Mohomed Oswald who has served in the Israeli military and lived
overseas.
Let us further imagine, that by tomorrow night, an Israeli youth group,
wholly dependent on funds provided by a CIA officer in Jerusalem,
starts telling reporters that they know all about the accused assassin:
that he attempted to infiltrate their group, that he got into a fight
with them in the Old City, and that he debated them on the radio and
defended Yasser Arafat.
In your view, the CIA case officer running the Israeli group has no
obligation, indeed no real reason, to report to CIA headquarters
ANYTHING about the contacts between the senatorial assassin and his
assets. The reason he doesn't need to inform his superiors about
contacts between his assets and a killer is because he doesn't know
anything more than "what's all over the news." In your perspective,
the failure of the CIA officer to write down what he knows of these
events isn't really a failure. Its just the normal way U.S.
intelligence agencies work and should work.
That is a peculiar and unpersuasive position. It suggests the lengths
that you are willing to go to deny the accumulation of well-documented
fact that make the story of George Joannides so curious and potentially
disturbing. I make no assumptions about what Joannides was up to in
1963--only that his story is indeed curious and potentially disturbing
and needs to be clarified.
As for your other points, John, I will reply at greater length offline.
John McAdams
>John,
>
>You can't have it both ways here: either we are "crackpots" who
>shouldn't faze G. Robert Blakey one bit or we are "CIA-haters" with
>loads of influence on the man? Take your pick.
False dichotomy.
The fact that conspiracists and conspiracy theories have seldom been
taken seriously in DC (with some minor exceptions like the run-up to
the HSCA) doesn't mean that buffs haven't been a nuisance.
Some woman, a few years ago, was actually going to run against Arlen
Specter on the basis of his having invented the SBT.
>But if you go with
>"crackpots" then you have to concede that Blakey has changed his mind
>based on the *merits* of Morley's work. Which means that Morley has
>work that is capable of convincing anyone other than the most blatant
>CIA apologists.
>
I don't follow you. You simply are ignoring and not responding to my
arguments in previous posts.
>If you go with "CIA haters with loads of influence" then you have to
>explain why Blakey insisted on his original propositions vis a vis the
>CIA for 20 years, despite the "influence" these researchers are
>supposed to have.
>
CIA haters -- at least buff haters, as opposed to people who dislike
the agency for ideological reasons -- aren't terribly influential.
But as for why Blakey has blasted the CIA: he hasn't had a good
opportunity until now. Morley's claims have given him a bit of cover.
>You can't have it both ways. So take your pick.
>
See above.
>-Stu
>
>When you have the chance, John, I'd love the quote where I call Blakey
>CIA-loving scum.
I didn't say *you* had, but you've got to be aware of the hatred that
the hate-the-CIA types have always had for Blakey.
>Your rhetoric confuses the basic issue: someone
>who thinks the CIA has obstructed justice in the JFK assassination,
>which only the most blatant CIA apologists will deny (people from
>Posner to AFIO member Gus Russo even admit it),
You are forgetting that I signed on to that letter demanding that the
CIA release the documents on Joannides.
If you want to call me at "blantant CIA apologist" I'll have to call
you a "CIA hating buff."
Hatred isn't a good motivation for getting at the truth.
>isn't a
>government-hater or a CIA-hater. They simply want some responsible
>government.
You are failing to distinguish people who want the documents released
with people who actually believe that Joannides had some sinister role
in an assassination or coverup.
But that *is* what buffs do, isn't it?
>I'm surprised that there are political scientists out
>there who have a problem with this fact.
We political scientists are a lot more sophisticated about government
than buffs.
>Btw, if I showed you a
>video of Richard Helms singing a song about the JFK assassination while
>shredding JFK assassination documents, would you concede that was
>obstruction, or would you claim that he was simply drunk and under the
>effects of Parkinson's?
>
If I showed you a picture of Lee Oswald in the Sniper's Nest shooting,
would you admit he was an assassin, or claim the photo was faked?
.John
John McAdams
>For the sake of group discussion, I will offer this very hypothetical
>scenario. Let us imagine that a U.S. Senator visiting Israel is
>assassinated tomorrow, apparently by a 24 year old Israeli Arab named
>Mohomed Oswald who has served in the Israeli military and lived
>overseas.
>
>Let us further imagine, that by tomorrow night, an Israeli youth group,
>wholly dependent on funds provided by a CIA officer in Jerusalem,
>starts telling reporters that they know all about the accused assassin:
>that he attempted to infiltrate their group, that he got into a fight
>with them in the Old City, and that he debated them on the radio and
>defended Yasser Arafat.
>
>In your view, the CIA case officer running the Israeli group has no
>obligation, indeed no real reason, to report to CIA headquarters
>ANYTHING about the contacts between the senatorial assassin and his
>assets.
You don't seem to recognize your own assumptions.
You say "CIA case officer running the Israeli group."
Do you *really* believe Joannides was "running" the DRE?
>The reason he doesn't need to inform his superiors about
>contacts between his assets and a killer is because he doesn't know
>anything more than "what's all over the news." In your perspective,
>the failure of the CIA officer to write down what he knows of these
>events isn't really a failure. Its just the normal way U.S.
>intelligence agencies work and should work.
>
Yep, you don't see your own assumptions.
There are some huge gaps of logic here.
Suppose he literally knows nothing about this Oswald fellow because it
was members of the group in another city that had some peripherial
contact with the killer, and never even bothered to report the
contacts to the group in the city where the CIA guy was?
Or if they did (entirely unproven) the group never bothered to report
anything to the CIA guy?
You are fundamentally engaged in the post hoc fallacy. Because Oswald
*now* seems terribly important, you are assuming that he should have
seemed important in the summer of 1963 and that the New Orleans DRE
should have given a blow-by-blow account to Miami and then that the
guys in Miami should have given Joannides a blow by blow account.
But you have exactly *zero* evidence that anything like that happened.
>That is a peculiar and unpersuasive position. It suggests the lengths
>that you are willing to go to deny the accumulation of well-documented
>fact that make the story of George Joannides so curious and potentially
>disturbing.
Your position is fundamentally illogical. You are making whatever
assumptions and speculations you need to get to some sinister
conclusion.
Show that Joannides actually knew anything about Oswald before the
assassination and you have something.
If you don't, you have nothing.
So either produce something or face the fact that huffing and puffing
about Joannides fitness reports and vague claims of having the DRE
under control don't prove anything.
>I make no assumptions about what Joannides was up to in
>1963--only that his story is indeed curious and potentially disturbing
>and needs to be clarified.
>
No, your claim that he somehow concealed something important from the
HSCA is *entirely* dependent on his having known something that wasn't
readily available in the public record at the time.
>As for your other points, John, I will reply at greater length offline.
>
>
OK.
jpsh...@my-deja.com
> DRE EFFECTIVENESS
>
> They were effective in terms of rallying opposition to and taking
> action against Castro. They published the monthly Cuban Report, which
> circulated widely on Capitol Hill. Until Sept. 1962, they had an
> organization inside Cuba which supplied U.S. policymakers with useful
> information. As the New York Times reported during the Cuban Missile
> Crisis, the DRE had reported on trucks carrying large missiles in the
> Cuban countryside. They were also regarded as effective at mounting
> operations inside Cuba. When the National Security Council discussed
> the distribution of propaganda inside
> Cuba in April 1963, the DRE was the only group mentioned as being able
> to pull it off. This is documented in Foreign Relations of the United
> States.
>
>
> No, he didn't have total control. the Fitness report says that he
> public displays of DRE insubordination during Joannides's tenure as
> case officer than under his predecessor. Before Joannides, the DRE had
> attempted to assassinate Castro (Aug. 62), blabbed to a Miami Herald
> reporter about their Agency connections (Oct. 62) and peddled the
> "missiles in caves" story (Nov. 62), all without CIA authorization.
> Such incidents ceased in 1963 and Joannides got credit.
>
>
> The DRE gave the Oswald tape to Joannides." The tape is in the National
> Archives in a box marked "To Howard." Luis Fernandez Rocha, the former
> head of the DRE, says the handwriting on the box is his and that the
> "Howard" in question was his CIA contact whom he says was Joannides.
>
>
> OK, let's say the DRE's exposure of Oswald was an example of the
> group's independent ways and Joannides didn't authorize it. In that
> case Joannides had a hell of problem on November 22 when he found out
> that his assets whom he and his colleagues thought were under control
> had, in fact, been gathering intelligence on the man who just shot the
> President dead--without ever telling him.
>
> not, he was responsible for their actions because they were spending
> CIA funds.
>
> responsibility for their actions. No good operations officer--and
> Joannides by all accounts was a good operations officer--would make
> that assumption.
>
>
> Sure it was natural for the DRE to denounce Oswald. The question is
> whether Joannides and his superiors intended it to happen.
>
> CIA's terms, not mine) "intelligence collection," "political action,"
> and "propaganda" activities."
>
> they collected intelligence on him and generated propaganda, classic
> examples of political action.
>
> disseminated the intelligence and generated more propaganda, ie. more
> political action. There is no record that Joannides ever objected.
>
> activities (again the CIA's phrase) and condoned those activities
> after the fact, one reasonable conclusion is that they intended these
> things to happen.
The AARC Russell Holmes CD Collection has an 11/24/1963 JMWAVE
cable on disk 3:
AARC Russell Holmes CD Set Disk 3
Record number: 104-10414-10446 Originator: CIA
Pages: 2 Date: 11/24/63
From: JMWAVE To: DIRECTOR
Title: CABLE RE: REPORT THAT FIDEL CASTRO HAD MADE THREATS AGAINST
LIVES OF U.S. LEADERS IN EVENT U.S. AGGRESSION AGAINST CUBA
Subjects: LLANUSA, JOSE
---------
1. FYI LOCAL ODENVY [FBI] CONTACTED WAVE 23 NOV TO ADVISE THEY
RECEIVED TELETYPE THEIR HQS REQUESTING LOCAL OFFICE DETERMINE VERACITY,
TO INCLUDE SOURCES, OF STATEMENT MADE BY DRE LEADER JOSE LLANUSA
GOBEL [sic] TO EFFECT FIDEL CASTRO HAD THREATENED LIVES US LEADERS IN
EVENT US AGGRESSION AGAINST CUBA. LLANUSA CLAIMED POSSESSION THIS
INFO IN RECENT TELECON WITH PAUL BETHEL, ACTING EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
CITIZEN COMMITTE FOR FREE CUBA IN WASHINGTON, AND ATTRIBUTED ABOVE
THREATS TO FIDEL CASTRO DURING RECEPTION EARLY SEPT AT BRAZILIAN
EMBASSY HAVA.
2. LOCAL ODENVY STATED THEIR ATTEMPTS SATISFY ABOVE RQM THWARTED
BY JOSE LLANUSA WHO USED SERIES PRETEXES [sic] WHEN CONTACTED TO AVOID
NAMING SOURCES AND ULTIMATELY STATED HE HAD TO CHECK MATTER OUT
WITH WAVE BEFORE DIVULGING INFO. LOCAL ODENVY THEN CALLED WAVE FOR
ASSISTANCE.
WAVE CHECKED WITH LLANUSA AND LUIS FERNANDEZ AND DETERMINED FOLL:
A. DRE SOURCES FOR ABOVE INFO WERE ARTICLES WHICH APPEARED
MIAMI HERALD AND VOICE OF CUBA (INFORMES SOBRE CUBA) 9 AND 23 SEPT
[page 2]
RESPECTIVELY. IT LATER DETERMINED VOICE OF CUBA HAD TAKEN ITS INFO
FROM MIAMI HERALD ARTICLE.
B. DRE SOMEWHAT AMATEURISHLY ATTEMPTED DODGE LOCAL ODENVY
QUERY ORDER PROTECT FACT THEIR INFO STEMMED FROM NEWPAPER ARTICLE.
3. WAVE PASSED INFO PARA 2A ABOVE TO LOCAL ODENVY AND IT
APPEARED SATISFY THEIR QUERY.
4. DRE HAS BEEN MOST ACTIVE ANSWERING PRESS QUERIES RE OSWALD
ETC DUE FACT MOST NEWS MEDIA HAVE QUESTIONED DRE ON THEIR NEW ORLEANS
TV DEBATE WITH OSWALD. HAVING MEDIA ATTENTION DRE TRYING
CAPITALIZE ON THIS BY MAKING DRAMATIC STATEMENTS WHICH IMPLY TIE-IN
BETWEEN OSWALD AND GOC. WAVE HAS INSTRUCTED DRE NOT DRAMATIZE FACTS
OR ATTEMPT SLANT NEWS BUT DRE CONTINUES PURSUE COURSE OF ACTION WHICH
IN THEIR JUDGEMENT BEST SUITED PROPAGANDIZE U.S. RE CUBAN ISSUE.
HOPE ODENVY QUERY MAY INHIBIT FUTURE DRE SPOKESMEN FROM MAKING SLANTED
OR DRAMATIC STATEMENTS.
<end of cable>
RIFs from NARA database for follow-up cable
GENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : CIA
RECORD NUMBER : 104-10132-10184
RECORDS SERIES : JFK
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : CIA
FROM : JMWAVE
TO : CIA HQS
TITLE : CABLE AMENDING NAME OF JOSE LLANUSA GOBEL TO
ANTONIO
GONZALEZ-LANUZA MENA
DATE : 11/25/1963
PAGES : 1
DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT
SUBJECTS : LANUZA; LLANUSA; AMENDMENT
CLASSIFICATION : SECRET
RESTRICTIONS : 1B
CURRENT STATUS : OPEN
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 07/31/1993
COMMENTS : JFK47:F2B 1993.07.31.08:52:16:530046:
AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : CIA
RECORD NUMBER : 104-10300-10234
RECORDS SERIES : JFK
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : CIA
FROM : JMWAVE
TO : DIRECTOR
TITLE : CABLE AMENDING NAME - SHOULD READ JOSE ANTONIO
GONZALEZ-LANUZA.
DATE : 11/25/1963
PAGES : 1
DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT
SUBJECTS : LANUZA
CLASSIFICATION : SECRET
RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL
CURRENT STATUS : OPEN
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 01/29/1998
COMMENTS : OSW-SF:F2 1998.01.29.12:34:17:200092: DUP OF
104-10132-10184
>
>
> JOANNIDES TOLD THE DRE TO GO TO THE FBI
>
> Here's what happened: The DRE called Joannides around 5 pm on 11/22 and
> said they were going public with what they knew. He told them to hold
> off while he checked with HQ. They went ahead anyway and the wire
> services were reporting on New Orleans encounters by 6pm Eastern Time.
> Joannides called back and told them to go to the FBI.
>
> That was certainly the correct thing to do under the circumstances.
>
> The other correct thing to do, according to the six retired operations
> officers who I've interviewed on the subject, would have been to report
> to CIA headquarters on DRE contacts with the presidential assassin.
>
> If Joannides did this--and I'm pretty sure he did--the CIA has never
> disclosed it.
>
> JOANNIDES NOT DISCLOSED TO THE WARREN COMMISSION
>
> Straw man. No, I am not saying "anybody" connected with the DRE should
> have been "a suspect."
>
> The CIA purported to tell the Warren Commission everything its
> employees knew about Oswald. Dick Helms said this under oath.
>
> But he did not disclose the Agency's close collaborative relationship
> with the exile group that first called public attention to Oswald's
> duplicitous pro-Castro's ways.
>
> This may not be perjury but it was certainly not the level of
> disclosure that the Warren Commission expected.
>
> BLAKEY
>
> Another straw man. Blakey's statement that Joannides deceived him and
> the Congress is indisputably true.
>
> If a poster to this forum deceived you about their past in this way,
> you would quickly and correctly
> denounce them. Joannides did it and you blame the messenger.
>
> NOT IF HE DIDN'T 'KNOW' ANYTHING ABOUT THE DRE AND OSWALD.
>
> Those quotation marks are especially revealing here John.
>
> To recap: The president of the United States is killed. Within hours, a
> CIA officer learns that members of an organization that is wholly and
> secretly funded by him has had a series of encounters with the accused
> assassin. These encounters are of an intensely political nature,
> involving support for an enemy of the United States (the Castro
> government). The DRE has supplied him with a tape recording of the
> accused assassin talking about his political views.
>
> Your position is that he didn't have a professional obligation to
> report any of this because he didn't "know" anything. Depends on what
> you mean by "know."
>
> All I can say is that no CIA operations officer who I have ever talked
> to--and I've asked six about this point--agrees with you.
>
> DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE HIDING
>
> I don't know what they're hiding either John but thanks for your
> support.
Jerry Shinley
John McAdams
>jeffersonm wrote:
>>
>> CONTROL OVER THE DRE
>>
>> No, he didn't have total control. the Fitness report says that he
>> established a "degree of control." And, in fact, there were fewer
>> public displays of DRE insubordination during Joannides's tenure as
>> case officer than under his predecessor. Before Joannides, the DRE had
>> attempted to assassinate Castro (Aug. 62), blabbed to a Miami Herald
>> reporter about their Agency connections (Oct. 62) and peddled the
>> "missiles in caves" story (Nov. 62), all without CIA authorization.
>> Such incidents ceased in 1963 and Joannides got credit.
>>
>> THE OSWALD TAPE
>>
>> The DRE gave the Oswald tape to Joannides." The tape is in the National
>> Archives in a box marked "To Howard." Luis Fernandez Rocha, the former
>> head of the DRE, says the handwriting on the box is his and that the
>> "Howard" in question was his CIA contact whom he says was Joannides.
>>
>> THE OSWALD PRESS RELEASE
>>
>> OK, let's say the DRE's exposure of Oswald was an example of the
>> group's independent ways and Joannides didn't authorize it. In that
>> case Joannides had a hell of problem on November 22 when he found out
>> that his assets whom he and his colleagues thought were under control
>> had, in fact, been gathering intelligence on the man who just shot the
>> President dead--without ever telling him.
>>
Note Jeff's assumption that the DRE was "gathering intelligence" and
that they somehow *must* have reported it to Joannides.
>> The point is, whether Joannides "really" had the DRE under control or
>> not, he was responsible for their actions because they were spending
>> CIA funds.
>>
>> You're assuming that because the DRE was "out of control" he had no
>> responsibility for their actions. No good operations officer--and
>> Joannides by all accounts was a good operations officer--would make
>> that assumption.
>>
>> DRE GOING PUBLIC ON Nov. 22.
>>
>> Sure it was natural for the DRE to denounce Oswald. The question is
>> whether Joannides and his superiors intended it to happen.
>>
Does Jeff claim that the CIA *did* want it to happen?
It seems to me that he has to either take that position, or admit that
the DRE really wasn't under the "control" of Joannides.
Yes, these were the Hispanic James Bonds!
And they were getting their "revelations" from the MIAMI HERALD.
> 3. WAVE PASSED INFO PARA 2A ABOVE TO LOCAL ODENVY AND IT
>
>APPEARED SATISFY THEIR QUERY.
>
> 4. DRE HAS BEEN MOST ACTIVE ANSWERING PRESS QUERIES RE OSWALD
>
>ETC DUE FACT MOST NEWS MEDIA HAVE QUESTIONED DRE ON THEIR NEW ORLEANS
>
>TV DEBATE WITH OSWALD. HAVING MEDIA ATTENTION DRE TRYING
>
>CAPITALIZE ON THIS BY MAKING DRAMATIC STATEMENTS WHICH IMPLY TIE-IN
>
>BETWEEN OSWALD AND GOC. WAVE HAS INSTRUCTED DRE NOT DRAMATIZE FACTS
>
>OR ATTEMPT SLANT NEWS BUT DRE CONTINUES PURSUE COURSE OF ACTION WHICH
>
>IN THEIR JUDGEMENT BEST SUITED PROPAGANDIZE U.S. RE CUBAN ISSUE.
>
>HOPE ODENVY QUERY MAY INHIBIT FUTURE DRE SPOKESMEN FROM MAKING SLANTED
>
>OR DRAMATIC STATEMENTS.
>
><end of cable>
>
I think this blows all to hell Jeff's claim that the DRE was acting
under orders from the CIA.
black...@aol.com
Jeff:
.John is just .John, a committed skeptic when it comes to conspiracy
theories in the JFK case. Don't mind his sarcasm - he's an all right chap.
I think the Joannides matter is worth pursuing. You are right that the
available record at least raises the possibility that he might have had
some advance knowledge or even (organizational) contact with Oswald. Or it
might turn out that the DRE New Orleans cast were acting unilaterally and
Oswald never appeared on Joannides' radar screen. Keep hunting, and keep
us posted as to what you find.
Hidell
You're doing important work. Keep it up. There is a great difference
between what you're doing, which is attempting to force the release of
documents that should ostensibly have zero nat'l security value (since
Oswald was a lone nut), and what Dr. McAdams is doing, which consists
mainly of inaction, trying to play the CIA's current actions down, and
shoot holes in the basic questions you are asking. And really, what is
the purpose of shooting holes in it when all you're doing is trying to
get the CIA to do its job and release the entire Joannides record?
Hell, even Posner is curious about Joannides!
I fail to see the value of answering McAdams' points. He does not
serve to advance anyone's understanding of the assassination. And he
is clearly not interested in what the full Joannides record says.
Your earlier post asked for additional records to search for. I would
suggest any and all files relating to CIA/"OO" agent Andy Anderson. In
1993, John Newman & Frontline established sufficient evidence that
Anderson debriefed Oswald upon return home from Russia--a routine
occurrence, certainly, but covered up and lied about since the
assassination.
Also, could you explain a little more your need for names and cities of
residence? I would very much like to be included in any effort to get
the CIA (finally) on the ball.
Anthony Marsh
> John,
>
> You can't have it both ways here: either we are "crackpots" who
> shouldn't faze G. Robert Blakey one bit or we are "CIA-haters" with
> loads of influence on the man? Take your pick. But if you go with
> "crackpots" then you have to concede that Blakey has changed his mind
> based on the *merits* of Morley's work. Which means that Morley has
> work that is capable of convincing anyone other than the most blatant
> CIA apologists.
Blakey has learned from this incident that the CIA can not be trusted.
Eventually he will learn that the CIA had a motive to cover up.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Wasn't AARB given the task of determining what JFK records would be
released? I thought the agencies were asked to hand over all records
pertaining to the assassination for review.
>
>A lot of papers have been "withheld" and when released, showed nothing
>to explain why they were withheld. No "smoking gun" showing a
>conspiracy. No good national security reason either.
>
>.John
PF
John McAdams
<justplai...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>On 23 May 2005 17:58:57 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not so ancient for the CIA I guess since they are still trying to
>>>block some JFK-assassination related papers from being released. As
>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>They do this by instinct, Peter.
>
>Wasn't AARB given the task of determining what JFK records would be
>released? I thought the agencies were asked to hand over all records
>pertaining to the assassination for review.
>
>
Correct.
But it's not as simple as it might sound, because what is a "JFK
record" is a matter of interpretation.
Not to mention the fact that agencies often can't *find* all their
records -- JFK or otherwise.
.John
John McAdams
>Jeff~
>You're doing important work. Keep it up. There is a great difference
>between what you're doing, which is attempting to force the release of
>documents that should ostensibly have zero nat'l security value (since
>Oswald was a lone nut), and what Dr. McAdams is doing, which consists
>mainly of inaction, trying to play the CIA's current actions down, and
>shoot holes in the basic questions you are asking. And really, what is
>the purpose of shooting holes in it when all you're doing is trying to
>get the CIA to do its job and release the entire Joannides record?
>Hell, even Posner is curious about Joannides!
>
No, Jeff is trying to claim that (at a minimum) Joannides concealed
some important information from the HSCA.
If he wants to make that claim, I'll feel free to say he doesn't have
the evidence.
And he's made a lot of claims that are suspect -- like implying that
the DRE was taking orders from Joannides, or that Oswald's encounters
with the DRE in New Orleans likely were reported back to the DRE in
Miami and then to Joannides and then to the CIA.
If he wants to look for records that *demonstrate* that this happened,
dandy.
If he wants to say it was somehow likely, I'll tell him that he's
wrong.
>I fail to see the value of answering McAdams' points. He does not
>serve to advance anyone's understanding of the assassination. And he
>is clearly not interested in what the full Joannides record says.
>
Quit huffing and puffing. I'll be happy to see what the documents
show, but the odds are strongly against them showing anything
sinister.
>Your earlier post asked for additional records to search for. I would
>suggest any and all files relating to CIA/"OO" agent Andy Anderson. In
>1993, John Newman & Frontline established sufficient evidence that
>Anderson debriefed Oswald upon return home from Russia--a routine
>occurrence, certainly, but covered up and lied about since the
>assassination.
>
The ARRB worked very hard on this, and didn't turn anything up.
The whole problem is that, if you take Newman at face value, Anderson
worked for the Domestic Contact Service.
There would be no reason to cover up any interview with the DCS.
Those were all very routine.
It's possible that some record just got lost. That does happen.
>Also, could you explain a little more your need for names and cities of
>residence? I would very much like to be included in any effort to get
>the CIA (finally) on the ball.
>
>
.John
Martin Shackelford
defined) available for ARRB review. Some agencies concealed records, and
CIA was clearly one of them. Secret Service actually DESTROYED some
after the law was passed.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
information" from the HSCA--they were looking at the DRE, among other
things, and he concealed his relationship with them, as well as his
records relating to them.
Martin
jer...@my-deja.com
in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders
of the DRE are divided on the question."
The fact that Oswald had approached Bringuier in New Orleans pretending
to be sympathetic was revealed in the Summer of 1963 during a radio
interview.
This was no big news item.
In the summer of 1963, the DRE, was shut down in America.
The only thing Joannides wanted from the DRE - the focus of his
interest - was to see the boys didn't get into anymore trouble and
didn't embarrass the Administration again.
After they'd embarrassed JFK by claiming the missiles hadn't really
been withdrawn from Cuba they were cut off and shut down.
Yes, they were very unhappy campers.
But, the biggest story in their life at the time was that some American
ex-Marine had showed up in New Orleans and made a very inept attempt to
penetrate them.
Our Washington Post foreign news wrap up guy - who occasionally posts
here - made the boys very unhappy when he suggested that the DRE
"leadership" was somehow involved in killing Kennedy.
He had to eat his words doubletime after his articles - in a small
Miami weekly - were published.
Hidell
>You're doing important work. Keep it up. There is a great difference
>between what you're doing, which is attempting to force the release of
>documents that should ostensibly have zero nat'l security value (since
>Oswald was a lone nut), and what Dr. McAdams is doing, which consists
>mainly of inaction, trying to play the CIA's current actions down, and
>shoot holes in the basic questions you are asking. And really, what is
>the purpose of shooting holes in it when all you're doing is trying to
>get the CIA to do its job and release the entire Joannides record?
>Hell, even Posner is curious about Joannides!
No, Jeff is trying to claim that (at a minimum) Joannides concealed
some important information from the HSCA.
If he wants to make that claim, I'll feel free to say he doesn't have
the evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~
Joannides and the CIA began their relationship with the HSCA with a
lie. That *is* at least one proven instance of concealing important
information and it's painfully obvious. Someone like Mr. Morely, who's
actually interested in this case, would see a red flag there and try to
find out more. It's understood that the files may show nothing--no one
ever doubted that. We won't know until we see them, however.
You want to sit there and say he has no evidence, when the whole
purpose of his thread was to let everyone know the CIA was *still*
standing in the way of those files coming out. Don't you see how you're
not making any sense?
>And he's made a lot of claims that are suspect -- like implying that
the DRE was taking orders from Joannides
~~~~~~
Yeah, I know. Crazy to even *imply* that the DRE would take any
orders--or even a suggestion--from the guy who gave them money.
Astonishingly far fetched, in the extreme.
>Your earlier post asked for additional records to search for. I would
>suggest any and all files relating to CIA/"OO" agent Andy Anderson. In
>1993, John Newman & Frontline established sufficient evidence that
>Anderson debriefed Oswald upon return home from Russia--a routine
>occurrence, certainly, but covered up and lied about since the
>assassination.
The ARRB worked very hard on this, and didn't turn anything up.
The whole problem is that, if you take Newman at face value, Anderson
worked for the Domestic Contact Service.
~~~~~~
The ARRB report, in the section relating to DCD or "OO" and Oswald
(p86), does not mention Anderson at all, even to clear him for ever
having met Oswald. It does not discuss Donald Deneselya or Frontline's
claim that additional CIA personnel verified for them (off the record)
that such a debriefing took place. Is there some other place where I
can see evidence of the ARRB's "hard work" on this topic?
There would be no reason to cover up any interview with the DCS.
Those were all very routine.
It's possible that some record just got lost. That does happen.
~~~~~~~~~~
As I stated, yes I agree that such debriefings were routine. But they
"lost" the record? Really, with all due respect, that one doesn't
deserve a response.
jpsh...@my-deja.com
The DRE was no Iraqi National Congress...
>
>
> > 3. WAVE PASSED INFO PARA 2A ABOVE TO LOCAL ODENVY AND IT
> >
> >APPEARED SATISFY THEIR QUERY.
> >
> > 4. DRE HAS BEEN MOST ACTIVE ANSWERING PRESS QUERIES RE OSWALD
> >
> >ETC DUE FACT MOST NEWS MEDIA HAVE QUESTIONED DRE ON THEIR NEW ORLEANS
> >
> >TV DEBATE WITH OSWALD. HAVING MEDIA ATTENTION DRE TRYING
> >
> >CAPITALIZE ON THIS BY MAKING DRAMATIC STATEMENTS WHICH IMPLY TIE-IN
> >
> >BETWEEN OSWALD AND GOC. WAVE HAS INSTRUCTED DRE NOT DRAMATIZE FACTS
> >
> >OR ATTEMPT SLANT NEWS BUT DRE CONTINUES PURSUE COURSE OF ACTION WHICH
> >
> >IN THEIR JUDGEMENT BEST SUITED PROPAGANDIZE U.S. RE CUBAN ISSUE.
> >
> >HOPE ODENVY QUERY MAY INHIBIT FUTURE DRE SPOKESMEN FROM MAKING SLANTED
> >
> >OR DRAMATIC STATEMENTS.
> >
> ><end of cable>
> >
>
> I think this blows all to hell Jeff's claim that the DRE was acting
> under orders from the CIA.
WAVE's disapproval of the DRE statements seems rather mild.
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jerry Shinley
tomnln
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:d76me2$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Anthony Marsh
Of course there would be a reason to cover up an interview with the DCS.
The CIA always denies and always lies, no matter what the situation. The
CIA denied having any relationship with Clay Shaw. You know that was
perjury. And that relationship was not any more sinister than debriefing
Oswald upon his return from Russia. As you say, that is quite routine
and is EXPECTED to happen.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The Joannides/DRE material CLEARLY fell under the ARRB definition.
>
Then post the ARRB definition for us.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>There's a prima facie case that Joannides concealed "important
>information" from the HSCA--they were looking at the DRE, among other
>things, and he concealed his relationship with them, as well as his
>records relating to them.
>
Feel free to try to spin it in that way, but there was no evidence
(and still isn't) that anything about Oswald made it to Miami.
John McAdams
>Jeff~
>>You're doing important work. Keep it up. There is a great difference
>>between what you're doing, which is attempting to force the release of
>>documents that should ostensibly have zero nat'l security value (since
>>Oswald was a lone nut), and what Dr. McAdams is doing, which consists
>>mainly of inaction, trying to play the CIA's current actions down, and
>>shoot holes in the basic questions you are asking. And really, what is
>>the purpose of shooting holes in it when all you're doing is trying to
>>get the CIA to do its job and release the entire Joannides record?
>>Hell, even Posner is curious about Joannides!
>
>No, Jeff is trying to claim that (at a minimum) Joannides concealed
>some important information from the HSCA.
>
>If he wants to make that claim, I'll feel free to say he doesn't have
>the evidence.
>~~~~~~~~~~
>Joannides and the CIA began their relationship with the HSCA with a
>lie.
And the "lie" was?
I don't think Jeff claims a "lie," but only "concealing information,"
and he can't show that anything was "concealed" since "concealed" only
makes sense for information that is material.
>That *is* at least one proven instance of concealing important
>information and it's painfully obvious. Someone like Mr. Morely, who's
>actually interested in this case, would see a red flag there and try to
>find out more. It's understood that the files may show nothing--no one
>ever doubted that. We won't know until we see them, however.
>
That's right, which is why I hope the CIA simply turns them over.
>You want to sit there and say he has no evidence, when the whole
>purpose of his thread was to let everyone know the CIA was *still*
>standing in the way of those files coming out. Don't you see how you're
>not making any sense?
>
I've afraid you are the one whose paragraph (above) makes no sense.
>
>>And he's made a lot of claims that are suspect -- like implying that
>the DRE was taking orders from Joannides
>~~~~~~
>Yeah, I know. Crazy to even *imply* that the DRE would take any
>orders--or even a suggestion--from the guy who gave them money.
>Astonishingly far fetched, in the extreme.
>
You don't seem to understand the relationship between the CIA and the
exile groups.
Nor the fact that the CIA has often funded groups that turned out to
be an embarrassment.
Even Jeff admits that the DRE was "off the reservation" in the wake of
the assassination, engaging in propaganda that the CIA didn't approve
of.
>>Your earlier post asked for additional records to search for. I would
>>suggest any and all files relating to CIA/"OO" agent Andy Anderson. In
>>1993, John Newman & Frontline established sufficient evidence that
>>Anderson debriefed Oswald upon return home from Russia--a routine
>>occurrence, certainly, but covered up and lied about since the
>>assassination.
>
>
>The ARRB worked very hard on this, and didn't turn anything up.
>
>The whole problem is that, if you take Newman at face value, Anderson
>worked for the Domestic Contact Service.
>~~~~~~
>The ARRB report, in the section relating to DCD or "OO" and Oswald
>(p86), does not mention Anderson at all, even to clear him for ever
>having met Oswald. It does not discuss Donald Deneselya or Frontline's
>claim that additional CIA personnel verified for them (off the record)
>that such a debriefing took place. Is there some other place where I
>can see evidence of the ARRB's "hard work" on this topic?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part08.htm
Part of the mystery surrounding Oswald's defection and return to the
U.S. is the question of whether the CIA's Office of Operations (later
the Domestic Contacts Division) interviewed Oswald upon his return
from the Soviet Union. The available evidence is contradictory. The
Review Board requested additional information and records in an
attempt to coroborate a November 25, 1963, memorandum which discusses
the recollections of a CIA staff officer that the Agency considered
interviewing Oswald. The CIA, however, did not locate any
corroborating information or records in its files.
In an effort to better understand this mystery, the Review Board
searched for records which might confirm or deny whether there was any
contact between Oswald and the CIA before or after his time in the
Soviet Union. The Office of Operations (OO), which in 1963 was a part
of the Directorate of Intelligence, interviewed American citizens who
might have come into contact with information or individuals of
intelligence interest while overseas.7 The Review Board staff examined
OO records and operational histories to gain an understanding of OO
practices in the early 1960s. The Review Board staff found no evidence
of contact between Oswald and OO either before or after his time in
the Soviet Union. While the records showed that OO was interested in
interviewing tourists to the Soviet Union for general information in
the 1950s, by 1962 only travelers with special access, knowledge, or
skills were of intelligence interest. OO had no specific policy
covering contacts with returning defectors; however, a local field
office could initiate a contact if justified by a particular
situation. CIA could not locate any records or reporting showing any
OO contact with Oswald.
While a DCD "A" file does exist in the CIA's sequestered
collection, most of the documents in the file are from the mid-1970s;
none predate the assassination. Furthermore, the file appears to have
been created as DCD personnel attempted to locate any evidence of
contacts with Oswald in response to various congressional
investigative bodies. CIA processed this file for release to NARA.
>
>
>There would be no reason to cover up any interview with the DCS.
>Those were all very routine.
>
>
>It's possible that some record just got lost. That does happen.
>~~~~~~~~~~
>As I stated, yes I agree that such debriefings were routine. But they
>"lost" the record? Really, with all due respect, that one doesn't
>deserve a response.
>
>
You mean you aren't aware that records really do get lost?
You might try looking at the notes of HSCA staffers who went through
CIA documents. Often the documents they were looking at are now
missing.
But according to the notes they weren't in any way sinister.
John McAdams
My impression was that they simply refused to comment on it during the
Garrison trial, but perhaps you can point me to something that was a
flat denial.
>You know that was
>perjury. And that relationship was not any more sinister than debriefing
>Oswald upon his return from Russia. As you say, that is quite routine
>and is EXPECTED to happen.
>
Not quite the same. Coming up with an OO report showing a debriefing
of Oswald would make the Agency seem *less* sinister.
Martin Shackelford
that this demand is simply one of your usual diversionary tactics.
But for those who don't have ready access to the ARRB Final Report, the
following may be of interest:
1) The JFK Records Act defined an assassination record as a record
related to the JFK assassination, or collected in the course of an
investigation into the JFK assassination by any federal state or local
agency,
2) The Senate Report on the JFK Records Act indicated that Congress
expected the ARRB to go beyond that definition and create its own.
3) The ARRB defined any records as assassination records that were
"reasonably related" to the subject: "all records, public or private,
regardless of how labeled or identified, that document, describe, report
on, analyze or interpret activities, persons, or events reasonable
related to the assassination of President Kennedy and investigation of
or inquiries into the assassination." [DRE clearly fits this definition,
with it's interactions with Oswald].
4) One of the major headings in their listing of records released was
"Pro and Anti-Castro Cuban Matters." The fifth heading under that was
"Anti-Castro Cuban Groups, Including DRE, Alpha 66, SFNE, JURE, FRD, CRC
and Commandos-L."
Any more question that they intended the release of records relating to
the New Orleans DRE?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
also about INFORMATION about Oswald that was circulated in Miami--to,
among others, reporter Hal Hendrix.
Martin
jeffersonm
Congressional committees about the CIA's non-compliance with the JFK
Records Act. I would like to append to that a list of people interested
in the subject who endorse the effort. On that list, I would like to be
able to say where the person is from. eg Joe Jones, Indianpolisis IN.
I hope to get across the point that reasonable people support the
effort.
jeffersonm
former members of the JFK review board. All agreed that the documents I
am seeking may well include "assassination-related" material, as the
board defined the term between 1994-98.
As for what the DRE received from the CIA, the dollar figures comes
from contemporaneous records of the CIA and the DRE. I would be glad to
share these records with you.
jeffersonm
cc to morle...@yahoo.com
jeffersonm
Joannides deceived the HSCA. On July 12, 1978, the HSCA requested
records of the DRE. In his log, Joannides recorded what he provided
"misc[ellaneous] documents." On that day, Joannides chose to conceal
the full extent of the Agency's relationship with the DRE from
investigators seeking knowledge of same. We don't know Joannides's
motive for this apparent deception. But we do know it happened. We have
the evidence in a document that he himself prepared.
The CIA attempted to deceive the JFK Review Board about Joannides. When
the Review Board asked for the name of the DRE's case officer, Barry
Harrelson of the CIA replied that the Agency had spoken with
"knowledgable officers" who simply had no idea who the man might be.
Harrelson's memo suggests that the CIA's relationship with the DRE was
pretty much over by August 1963 and that "Howard" referred to in Agency
communications wasn't actually a person.
This was, as the ARRB discovered, almost entirely fictional. Your
entitled to your oddly defensive position that there is no conceivable
reason to question the CIA's credibility in any way shape or form. But
reasonable people will still wonder: why the misrepesentations if they
have nothing to hide?
jeffersonm
That's a lie.
I never ate my words about the Miami New Times article. No one ever
disputed a single fact in that article.
The DRE was not shut down in America in the summer of 1963. It had
active chapters in New York, Chicago, Tampa, New Orleans, and Dallas .
DRE co-founder Juan Manuel Salvat attended a meeting of the Dallas
chapter in October 1963.
So you are either ignorant or you are deliberately misrepresenting the
facts.
Anthony Marsh
W. Anthony Marsh, Somerville, MA
jer...@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: "jeffersonm" <morl...@gmail.com> - Find
I never said the DRE leadership was involved in killing Kennedy, Jerry.
That's a lie.
Jeff, read my original note and you'll see that I didn't say that you
did. I said that the men took offense at your implication that they
did.
In their indignant replies to you they asserted that they had nothing
to do with the assassination.
I think they had reason to respond as they did.
Are you thinking that they were just a bit over sensitive?
Jerry
James K. Olmstead
jeffersonm <mor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117455380.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
James K. Olmstead.....Warren, Ohio
I can provide my list of the FOIA records requested and denied on Cuban matters, directly or
indirectly relating
to the JFK Records Collection Act.
jko
Martin Shackelford
Martin