Interview With Jane Roman - 5/10/99
Amethyst
She is an 83 yr-old window - her husband passed away 10 years ago - who
was approached by Jeff Morley for an interview. She found him charming
and very presentable. He told her that only she could clarify a a bit of
history.
She verified that he was an editor and granted him the interview. She
looked forward to chatting with this charming man.
What the elderly widow got was not the presentable Morley, but, an
aggressive and argumentative John Newman!
Mrs Roman found the experience very unpleasant and was sorry she agreed
to the interview. She was sorrier when Jeff Morley did't provide her a
copy of the text of her statements that he intended to use for her
review prior to publication. She had been promised that courtesy.
Mrs Roman was exceedingly sorry she had granted the interview when she
read the article that soon appeared. She felt her words were contorted,
taken out of context or, at best, misunderstood.
Although Mr Morley used her words to build a case that "6 weeks before
the assassination the CIA wasn't telling all they knew," Mrs Roman
believes that nothing of significance was held back. Certainly, she
knows of nothing.
I asked her if she had ever read John Newman's book, Oswald And The CIA,
and she said she'd stopped reading books like that - sensational books
that unfairly smeared the CIA.
Next, I related to her the two statements that John Newman cites over
and over, in his book, in his talks, in his articles. The first is that
Jane Roman said that she signed off on something that she knew to be a
lie.
Jane Roman became very upset on hearing this. She said she would never
call her colleagues liars and certainly knows of no lie. She repeated
that the FBI cables that she had initialed were still being circulated
and had not been integrated into Oswald's 201 file.
You'll search in vain in Morley's or Newman's work to find that
statement - a significant statement that sheds new light - cited! In
fact, they ignore it and suggest the opposite.
I told Jane Roman that I had asked - in a phone message - Jeff Morley to
provide the context for the statement that Newman quotes. She said,
"Good for you! I'd like to see him come up with a statement like that. I
never said it and I don't believe
that."
Then, I mentioned the second phrase that Newman cites - supposedly said
by Roman - to wit that the absence of a summary of the FBI cables in
HQ's reply to the Mexico station was evidence of operational involvement
with Oswald that was closely held on a need to know basis. She was
incredulous.
She said she emphasized to Morley and Newman that she couldn't imagine
what difference it would make to Mexico City one way or the other. She
said that she emphasized that she knew of no involvement - however
remote - of CIA with Oswald.
And she had emphasized that she felt that HQs had furnished MEXI with
the pertinent information.
Yet in Morley's article and Newman's book not one of those statements is
cited!
I will try again to get through to Morley. The latest information I have
from him is that he is preparing a "rebuttal" to this 83 yr-old widow's
protests to the ARRB
and to the information in the draft of her letter to the Post.
Maybe Morley can convince Jane Roman that she is a crypto conspiracy
believer.
Well, I don't think so. I think Morley and Newman should cut their
losses and come clean about this sorry episode.
Jeff Morley should post a transcript of the interview on the internet.
In fact, I'll do it for him. And, I'll transcribe the tape if he'll send
it.
Jeff, let's see some of the charm and presentability that won over Jane
Roman in the first place! Provide me with a copy of the tape and/or
transcript.
Jerry
Stugrad98
>I spoke with Jane Roman today.
>
>She is an 83 yr-old window - her husband passed away 10 years ago - who
>was approached by Jeff Morley for an interview. She found him charming
>and very presentable. He told her that only she could clarify a a bit of
>history.
>
>She verified that he was an editor and granted him the interview. She
>looked forward to chatting with this charming man.
>
>What the elderly widow got was not the presentable Morley, but, an
>aggressive and argumentative John Newman!
>
>Mrs Roman found the experience very unpleasant and was sorry she agreed
>to the interview. She was sorrier when Jeff Morley did't provide her a
>copy of the text of her statements that he intended to use for her
>review prior to publication. She had been promised that courtesy.
>
>Mrs Roman was exceedingly sorry she had granted the interview when she
>read the article that soon appeared. She felt her words were contorted,
>taken out of context or, at best, misunderstood.
But no letter to the editor. And Morley, in a very unPosnerlike fashion,
is releasing his tapes.
>
>Although Mr Morley used her words to build a case that "6 weeks before
>the assassination the CIA wasn't telling all they knew," Mrs Roman
>believes that nothing of significance was held back. Certainly, she
>knows of nothing.
>
>I asked her if she had ever read John Newman's book, Oswald And The CIA,
>and she said she'd stopped reading books like that - sensational books
>that unfairly smeared the CIA.
So she comments without actually knowing what the book says.
>
>Next, I related to her the two statements that John Newman cites over
>and over, in his book, in his talks, in his articles. The first is that
>Jane Roman said that she signed off on something that she knew to be a
>lie.
>
>Jane Roman became very upset on hearing this. She said she would never
>call her colleagues liars and certainly knows of no lie.
The great avoiding of the actual question. The facts are as follows. No
matter WHAT the FBI cables were-- and I believe Roman is wrong about their
circulation-- SHE read them. And that was BEFORE she signed off on the
documents. Notice, she doesn't say "well, I was doing X or Y" she says "I
wouldn't call OTHERS liars". That's interesting, since she herself would
be the one who was signing off on the untrue statement, even if the
others, as she said, didn't have the properly routed cables.
She repeated
>that the FBI cables that she had initialed were still being circulated
>and had not been integrated into Oswald's 201 file.
I believe the record shows that to be untrue.
>
>You'll search in vain in Morley's or Newman's work to find that
>statement - a significant statement that sheds new light - cited! In
>fact, they ignore it and suggest the opposite.
Because the routing sheet was fully completed. IOW, everyone who needed
to see the document had seen it before the cable went to MEXI-- that is a
week before. The problem with this is, is that Roman has the cables in
limbo, just straggling somewhere in the CIA. If we found a dated
signature on the routing sheet AFTER the cables were sent to MEXI, then
she'd have a case. But the logical place for the FBI docs to be after
everyone had read them was Oswald's file, there was a full week for this
to occur, and no other place for them to go.
>
>I told Jane Roman that I had asked - in a phone message - Jeff Morley to
>provide the context for the statement that Newman quotes. She said,
>"Good for you! I'd like to see him come up with a statement like that. I
>never said it and I don't believe
>that."
Well Morley appears to be pretty confident. He'll be releasing a
transcript and a tape. We won't mention your complete hypocrisy in not
slamming Posner who is also accused of lying, who the record shows is
almost definitely lying in regards to Tague and Boswell, and who is
running scared from releasing those tapes. Typical LN hypocrisy.
>
>Then, I mentioned the second phrase that Newman cites - supposedly said
>by Roman - to wit that the absence of a summary of the FBI cables in
>HQ's reply to the Mexico station was evidence of operational involvement
>with Oswald that was closely held on a need to know basis. She was
>incredulous.
The quote Newman cites is that it was evidence of keen-interest in Oswald,
held tightly, on a need to know basis. She didn't say operational
involvement. But interest of that level prior to the assassination, given
everything else we know, would lean in that direction.
>
>She said she emphasized to Morley and Newman that she couldn't imagine
>what difference it would make to Mexico City one way or the other.
Well, that's extremely odd, if you are quoting her correctly, because she
says QUITE CLEARLY in her letter to the ARRB, that-- had the FBI cables
been in with Oz's 201 (and I think she is wrong that it wasn't)-- THEN the
info would have been passed on to MEXI.
She
>said that she emphasized that she knew of no involvement - however
>remote - of CIA with Oswald.
She said in her letter that the CIA would use all of their resources to
find out about Oswald, and that he would be of high interest to them.
That, in and of itself, contradicts the CIA's official position. But more
to the point, she also doesn't exclude the possibility of operational
*interest* in Oswald in that letter. She says she doesn't know of any.
No one, including Newman-- who says so in his book-- would even expect her
to have any first hand knowledge. She was a releasing officer, not a
covert operative.
>And she had emphasized that she felt that HQs had furnished MEXI with
>the pertinent information.
That's not what her letter says. Her letter makes the assumption that the
FBI cables didn't get to Oswald's 201. [where they were in the
intervening week is hard to fathom]. But the point is that she then
said-- HAD they been there-- the info would have been included.
>
>Yet in Morley's article and Newman's book not one of those statements is
>cited!
Let's see in the transcripts if Roman made any mention of it. Let's also
get her to directly answer the question at hand instead of changing the
subject--- why did SHE sign off on something that didn't include info she
has said would have been included if SHE had read the document beforehand.
>
>I will try again to get through to Morley.
Morley has been well informed about you, Jer. He knows about how you,
without foundation whatsoever, have accused him of lying without getting
his side, have made a completely baseless charge about him being demoted,
and have called him "lowly." Let's see how responsive he is to you. He
unlike, many others, has had the courtesy of reading what you had to say
about him behind his back before you go to him for help. I'm sure Crozier
would love you other posts, where you call him an unreliable alchoholic
(who becomes a reliable one once he says what you like). And those
friendly conversations you had with Newman I'm sure would have remained as
such if he knew that you have, among other things, invented quotes he
never said and completely misrepresented his book.
The latest information I have
>from him is that he is preparing a "rebuttal" to this 83 yr-old widow's
>protests to the ARRB
>and to the information in the draft of her letter to the Post.
It's more than a mere rebuttal. He's going to release tapes and
transcripts.
>
>Maybe Morley can convince Jane Roman that she is a crypto conspiracy
>believer.
Or maybe he can convince normal people that she said what he had her
saying and that she changed her tune once she realized the serious
implications of what she said.
>
>Well, I don't think so. I think Morley and Newman should cut their
>losses and come clean about this sorry episode.
Well, unlike you pal Posner, they are coming "clean". They are releasing
the tapes and the transcripts which will show that they have nothing to
come "clean" about. Now what's so lovely is the nonstop hypocrisy you
show vis a vis your own people. Posner gets the benefit of the doubt with
his miraculous once-in-a-decade, run-scared-from-the-ARRB quotes, but
Morley gets harassed even though he IS releasing the tapes.
>
>Jeff Morley should post a transcript of the interview on the internet.
>In fact, I'll do it for him. And, I'll transcribe the tape if he'll send
>it.
How thoughtful of you. But I don't think he'll deal with you now that he
knows the kind of things you'll say about someone behind your back. He IS
releasing the transcripts and tapes. And you should be ashamed of trying
to run from the fact that he is, by making it look like you'd have to be
the one to transcribe it given his nonexistent reluctance.
>
>Jeff, let's see some of the charm and presentability that won over Jane
>Roman in the first place! Provide me with a copy of the tape and/or
>transcript.
He's going to provide the entire public with it. I doubt he will deal
with someone who talks negatively behind peoples' backs and tries to be
charming to their face.
-Stu