Sam Halpern Comments On Morley's Article
G. McNally
He told me that he was a long time friend of George Joannides and that the
portrait Morley painted of him bore no resemblance to the man he knew.
I asked Sam what interest a DRE case officer would have about an American
engaged in FPCC activities in a US city and he answered "none whatsoever."
Thus, he doesn't believe that info on Oswald was passed on to Headquarters.
But, he added, that kind of info would go to the DI, not the DO.
He commented that Ted Shackley ran a tight ship and knew everything that was
going on. And he and Joannides were friends, in fact, Joannides next
assignment was to Saigon to work for Shackley.
Shackley told Morley that it's useless to speculate about where Joannide's
reports are. Things like that are difficult to find out as people are dead
and
there is too great a passage of time - "Some things you're never going to
know."
As for Richard Helms, Sam said that he never immersed himself in the details
of the assassination. As for him knowing that Miami heard about Oswald in
New
Orleans, the likelihood is very remote.
Sam's conclusion is that the article is sensational and wrong-headed and
often
demonstrably false: its theories do not hold water.
Jerry
Clark Wilkins
G. McNally <jerr...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AFB...@MailAndNews.com...
>
> I asked Sam what interest a DRE case officer would have about an American
> engaged in FPCC activities in a US city and he answered "none whatsoever."
He probably wouldn't have much interest in Oswald. But did he report it
anyway?
That would explain why his DRE reports turned up missing, wouldn't it?
>
> Thus, he doesn't believe that info on Oswald was passed on to
Headquarters.
> But, he added, that kind of info would go to the DI, not the DO.
And was Sam Halpern in DI?
Because if he wasn't then he would be totally clueless whether a DRE report
on Oswald was passed up the line.
>
> He commented that Ted Shackley ran a tight ship and knew everything that
was
> going on. And he and Joannides were friends, in fact, Joannides next
> assignment was to Saigon to work for Shackley.
>
> Shackley told Morley that it's useless to speculate about where Joannide's
> reports are. Things like that are difficult to find out as people are dead
> and
> there is too great a passage of time - "Some things you're never going to
> know."
Joannides was alive during the HSCA investigation.
Unfortunately, his policy at the time seems to have been, "Some things
you're never going to know."
>
> As for Richard Helms, Sam said that he never immersed himself in the
details
> of the assassination.
Ya. He just handed it off to Angleton and said "You're in charge. I'll back
whatever you say. Screw Mexico."
> As for him knowing that Miami heard about Oswald in
> New
> Orleans, the likelihood is very remote.
Agreed.
G. McNally
>"G. McNally" <jerr...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>news:3AFB...@MailAndNews.com...
>
>> He told me that he was a long time friend of George Joannides and that the
>> portrait Morley painted of him bore no resemblance to the man he knew.
>What "portrait"? And why didn't Halperin tell Morley this.
Read the article, Stu. Sam did. The image of a Geo Joannides, a lawyer who
spent much of his career in the Legal office being called back to thwart the
efforts of the HSCA is one glaring example. In fact, Breckinridge called him
back because he was had the skills to be helpful to the HSCA.
The darker subtext is that J. was involved with DRE in the assassination. Of
course you buy Morley's unsuported claim that the DO loathed Kennedy, right?
>> I asked Sam what interest a DRE case officer would have about an American
>> engaged in FPCC activities in a US city and he answered "none whatsoever."
>
>Well-- the DRE and six CIA officials were quoted saying the exact opposite.
>Ask Sam if he would be willing to testify to Congress on that.
They didn't say that. They were asked hypothetical questions. One even
assummed that the DRE was "up to their eyeballs" with Oswald. That's very
far
from the case.
>> Thus, he doesn't believe that info on Oswald was passed on to
>Headquarters.
>
>That's nice. Perhaps he can explain why Joannides-- AND ONLY JOANNIDES--
>reports are ALL missing.
It doesn't surprise Sam that after all these years some documents cannot be
found. Does it surprise you?
>
>> But, he added, that kind of info would go to the DI, not the DO.
>
>Meaning what? The CIA didn't look in the right place for these reports?
As Ted Shackley said: it's useless to speculate.
>> He commented that Ted Shackley ran a tight ship and knew everything that
>was going on. And he and Joannides were friends, in fact, Joannides next
>> assignment was to Saigon to work for Shackley.
>Shackley told Morley that Joannides reported regularly on the DRE. Why
>don't we have any of his reports and yet have plenty of other DRE
>information?
We don't have plenty of other DRE info. We have some very early reports of
Ross Crozier.
>> Shackley told Morley that it's useless to speculate about where Joannide's
>> reports are. Things like that are difficult to find out as people are dead
>> and there is too great a passage of time - "Some things you're never going
to
>> know."
>Ain't that convenient. Shackley ain't dead. Halperin ain't dead. Nor are
>many other CIA agents. You made the claim before that the present CIA
>people aren't competent enough to find those reports. Well--
>if nothing is in them then Sam and Ted and Ned shouldn't have a problem
>trying to find them themselves. Volunteer their services.
They'd do that for Morley? They wouldn't even answer his phone calls, Stu.
They do not respect the man's work.
>> As for Richard Helms, Sam said that he never immersed himself in the
>details of the assassination. As for him knowing that Miami heard about
Oswald in New Orleans, the likelihood is very remote.
>
>All that matters is where those reports are-- ANY of them. Whether they
>mention Oswald or not, SOME should exist.
I'm sure they do exist - probably in a huge government warehouse for
document
archives in northern Virginia. Finding them is a different story.
>> Sam's conclusion is that the article is sensational and wrong-headed and
>> often demonstrably false: its theories do not hold water.
>
>How is it DEMONSTRATABLY false?? He has 6 intelligence experts and DRE
>officials who all attest to the essential premise. It's pretty simple:
>
>1) The DRE would have reported that information to Joannides--
I assume they did pitch it to him - just as they told the HSCA.
> as they said, the type of propaganda efforts that they were doing with
Oswald was exactly what the CIA paid them for.
That's plain wrong. The DRE had two sections - the international and the
military. At this juncture they were pitching a large military operation in
Cuba. That's what they talked about over and over - trying to get US
support.
J. passed the info to Shackley who hit the roof and thought the DRE nuts and
very dangerous. They were launching frm the Dominican Republic: we shut this
down - with prejudice. They had just months to go before they were cut off
completely.
Now as to the international section and their propaganda efforts through two
publications - Cuba Today and La Trincadera - that was something J. was
interested in - gathering info from their Latin American sources and guiding
their propaganda efforts.
An American in New Orleans is of interest to DRE - not the Agency. I repeat
NOT THE AGENCY.
>2) Shackley says that Joannides regularly wrote reports-- none of which we
>have, whether they include Oswald's name or not.
>
>3) BUT 6 intelligence experts were FIRMLY on the side that that kind of
>information would have been written about.
FALSE. Read it again. They say that IF J. remembered the name of the
American
on or after 11/22/63, then AT THAT TIME HQ would be informed.
*NOT IN HIS REGULAR REPORTING.*
>The only way you can demonstrate anything is to produce all of Joannides
>reports. Conveniently, they are all missing.
They are unfound.
Morley's sleight of hand is to make you think this reports have relevance to
the assassination of JFK.
Jerry
>
>-Stu
>
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>
AScholastic
>>many other CIA agents. You made the claim before that the present CIA
>>people aren't competent enough to find those reports. Well--
>>if nothing is in them then Sam and Ted and Ned shouldn't have a problem
>>trying to find them themselves. Volunteer their services.
>
>They'd do that for Morley? They wouldn't even answer his phone calls, Stu.
>They do not respect the man's work.
Jerry--
Would David Corn be worthy of "respect" in this context?
Which books on CIA/intel would you suggest?
Bill B
G. McNally
I don't believe Geo J. sent reports to Headquarters, any more than Dave
Phillips did when he worked in Mexico City for Win Scott.
Recall that both men held identical positions.
Geo J. reported to Ted Shackley - a notorious micromanager - much like
Scott.
Now, in 1963 things got wrapped up and WAVE was soon to be shut down.
Indeed, both Shackley and J. left for Siagon soon afterwards.
So, I'd say that J's reports are in the mass of WAVE files that got
transferred to the large federal archive in N. Virginia. Finding them
would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Jerry
G. McNally
I'd suggest Ron Kessler's revised edition of his Inside the CIA. I've only
seen it in paperback; it's a significant improvement over the basic
edition.
Secondly, read John Ranlaugh's The Agency: The Rise And Decline of the CIA
- it's comprehensive and excellent throughout.
If you want more, read Thomas Power's, The Man Who Kept The Secrets, about
the career of Richard Helms - he's very good; and so is Evan Thomas, who
wrote: Four Who Dared.
I havn't read David Corn, but, I know that Shackley refused to talk to him
and took exception to the title.
Jerry
G. McNally
>G. McNally <jerr...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>news:3AFB...@MailAndNews.com...
>>
>> engaged in FPCC activities in a US city and he answered "none whatsoever."
Hey Clark,
>He probably wouldn't have much interest in Oswald. But did he report it
>anyway?
>That would explain why his DRE reports turned up missing, wouldn't it?
All of the officers Morley cites state that on Nov 22, 1963, after the
assassination of JFK by Oswald that DRE - having been associated with
Oswald - becomes a suspect and info on them should be passed on.
And, as Morley writes, this is exactly what happened: DRE called WAVE with
the news release they'd prepared; WAVE consults with Headquarters and gets
the instructions to tell them to hold onto it (which they don't) and that
the FBI will come by to get their info. That's right in Morley's article.
Now, Morley writes that SA O'Connor came by "three days later", but, we
know that indeed he met the DRE leadership on 11/23/63, interviewed them
and took their documents.
This is exactly the way things should have been done - as you know, Clark.
>> Thus, he doesn't believe that info on Oswald was passed on to
>Headquarters. But, he added, that kind of info would go to the DI, not the
DO.
>
>
>And was Sam Halpern in DI?
>Because if he wasn't then he would be totally clueless whether a DRE report
>on Oswald was passed up the line.
After Nov '62 when DRE caused Kennedy severe embarrassment with the
"missiles in caves" story, Helms met with the leadership (Borjas) and
found their story to be dubious. Thereafter he assigned J. to keep an eye
on these guys - in other words play babysitter to a group of "problem
children."
But the DRE defied federal travel bans, relocated military operations to
the Dominican Republic and planned a big military operation (200 men) in
the fall of 1963. That was the last straw and Shackley cut them off from
all funding soon after the assassination.
CIA didn't see DRE as an asset to be exploited, but, as problem children
who had to be reigned in and kept in check. That was the focus of the
interest; that was what Helms wanted to hear about: that they hadn't gone
out and started WWIII and dragged us into it.
>> He commented that Ted Shackley ran a tight ship and knew everything that
>was going on. And he and Joannides were friends, in fact, Joannides next
>> assignment was to Saigon to work for Shackley.
>>
>> Shackley told Morley that it's useless to speculate about where Joannide's
>> reports are. Things like that are difficult to find out as people are dead
>> and
>> there is too great a passage of time - "Some things you're never going to
>> know."
>
>Joannides was alive during the HSCA investigation.
>Unfortunately, his policy at the time seems to have been, "Some things
>you're never going to know."
Clark, the HSCA knew all about CIA's funding of DRE and that case officers
were assigned. Indeed they spoke with the late Ross Crozier. They
investigated DRE.
But, DRE wasn't involved in the assassination of JFK; so, what does it
matter who was meeting with them??
Why would a a committee investigating the assassination of JFK care?
Nor is there any evidence that they even looked into the question of who
succeeded Crozier.
>> As for Richard Helms, Sam said that he never immersed himself in the
>details
>> of the assassination.
>Ya. He just handed it off to Angleton and said "You're in charge. I'll back
>whatever you say. Screw Mexico."
That's about it, with the exception of the Mexico part. This is what
senior management is all about.
>> As for him knowing that Miami heard about Oswald in
>> New
>> Orleans, the likelihood is very remote.
>
>
>Agreed.
We often quibble about details but agree on the main points.
Good hearing from you, Clark!
Jerry
Llliibb
>>Which books on CIA/intel would you suggest?
>
>I'd suggest Ron Kessler's revised edition of his Inside the CIA. I've only
>seen it in paperback; it's a significant improvement over the basic
>edition.
>
>Secondly, read John Ranlaugh's The Agency: The Rise And Decline of the CIA
>- it's comprehensive and excellent throughout.
>
\\\ Will check the used book stores. Have vaguely heard of the titles.
\\\
>If you want more, read Thomas Power's, The Man Who Kept The Secrets, about
>the career of Richard Helms - he's very good; and so is Evan Thomas, who
>wrote: Four Who Dared.
>
\\\ Read Powers an age back. Thomas much more recently; interesting book
(put away somewhere) by no means hagriographical towards its subjects.
\\\
>I havn't read David Corn, but, I know that Shackley refused to talk to him
>and took exception to the title.
>
My recollection is that The Blonde Beast was Reinhard Heydrich. Corn
attributes Blonde Ghost as used by colleagues in Asia. Reasonably,
Shackley might have preferred a different title. On the other hand, Corn
deconstructs the Christic Institute in an impressive manner.
In the epilogue, Corn says that he had a single three hour talk with
Shackley, getting answers to perhaps 1/5 of the questions. Nothing of any
significance is quoted therefrom (pages 404-408) nor claimed. Plainly,
Shackley was leery of the author pre-publication.
Any thoughts you'd care to share on the new Bamford book?
Bill B