I have to say that I really don’t understand why this item is not getting a lot more attention than it seems to be – perhaps it’s that a number of us have begun to take it for granted.  But it is is truly explosive – on a great many levels.

The basic point is that a former CIA officer has gone on public record talking about an old Agency friend of his, the fellow that actually recruited him.  And he identifies that individual as David Phillips, otherwise known as Maurice Bishop.  He seems to take this pretty matter a matter of fact, noting relly new.  You can see his remark at:


It may be that Mr. Carle is not aware that the HSCA, focused by the researches of investigator Gaeton Fonzi officially and consistently denied that David Phillips or any other of its officers had used that name.  Indeed, Director McCone, who at first had thought the name might be one he had heard was adamantly informed by his staff that he was mistaken (even though Fonzi had talked to one of Phillips assistants in Miami who initially acknowledged Bishop’s use of the name).  And David Phillips repeatedly and consistently denied use of that name in any fashion.  All this is addressed in great detail in Fonzi’s book The Last Investigation and I take the whole matter even further in SWHT.

So, Mr. Carle may not realize that his friend Dave Phillips lied about his use of the name, that his Agency lied about it to its own Director and that in turn a result  line of inquiry by the HSA was thwarted (and most definitely not a line that would lave led to Fidel Castro).

Of course there is an alternative, and that would be that Dave Phillips used the name as his own private alias and that his activities under that name – which reportedly included both multiple attempts at political assassinations in Latin America, support for Alpha 66 attacks on Russian targets in direct violation of Agency guidelines and Kennedy administration directives and reportedly, direct contact with Lee Oswald and a number of counter intelligence activities in Mexico City built around Oswald’s activities there.

Given the confirmation of Phillips as Bishop we would seen to have either a) confirmation that individuals within the Agency aggressively covered up a variety of explosive activities by David Phillips under the Bishop name, activities approved by currently unknown senior CIA officers or b) Phillips himself had gone totally rogue as Bishop, pursuing his own projects and Agendas and the Agency apparently had no knowledge of the fact?

Perhaps if we can persuade Mr Carle to let us know exactly when, where and under what conditions his friend used the Bishop name, we can resolve the question – but in either case it appears we have another major incident in which senior CIA officers knowingly liked to not only Congress but to their own superiors?









About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

7 responses »

  1. david thornberry says:

    Great breaking info, but Larry, please proofread your writing.

    • David, I did proof it and just reread it again. I’d certainly be more careful with sentence structure if this were going to print but as it is it seems to me to be readable, if there is something so poorly written its confusing I’ll be happy to change it or expand on it. My thought with a blog is that its pretty free flowing (although heaven knows my editors and readers always have reason to challenge my sentence structure and rather arcane punctuation – my wife has even harsher words for it). If you want to drop me an email with what is unclear and I’ll try to fix it – I did actually take the time to check spelling in a couple of places but that’s another sin I have to acknowledge.

      — regards, Larry larryjoe@westok.net

  2. Winston Smith says:

    Good post. This seems to me a curious issue – I wonder if Mr Carle is aware of Phillips’ ‘backstory’ as it were, regarding the assassination, and the work done by Gaeton Fonzi regarding his connection to the whole affair.

    In the post of his website, Mr Carle mentions that ‘While conspiracy theorists harp on an alleged meeting between Oswald and Phillips, Lattell shows that Castro actually had advance knowledge of Oswald’s desire to kill Kennedy;’, he doesn’t put forth any specific evidence to show that the Phillips-Oswald meeting didn’t take place, merely moving on to the claim that Castro having advance knowledge of Oswald’s desire to kill JFK. This seems to me disingenous.

    So Antonio Veciana was RIGHT on the fact that Phillips was Bishop but WRONG on Phillips connection to Oswald or anything else to do with the events in Dallas?! Well I’m glad he cleared that up! Although maybe us ‘conspiracy theorists’ should just trust his statement that “I know for certain that the CIA did not kill President Kennedy.”

    • Winston, it’s difficult to tell how much background Mr. Carle has on these questions – clearly he is aware that there have been allegations made against David Phillips and that conspiracy theorists have linked him to the JFK assassination. Beyond that, I haven’t found anything in his posted materials that gives much more insight. I have emailed him and would like to talk with him. I’ll be posting an update shortly on what background I have found.

      Mr. Carle seems to be a stand up fellow and his book on his CIA duties related to secret interrogations demonstrates that he is very much aware that the Agency routinely performs CYA on its activities. He complains of mistakes by Sr. Officers and institutional inertia. Given that context I was a bit surprised that he would so firmly state a position on the CIA and JFK, especially as any of that would have occurred long before his time. And I think he will be rather amazed to learn that David Phillips himself, at the end, admitted his belief in a conspiracy in which US intelligence officers were involved.

      — Larry

  3. grassyknollgirl63 says:

    Larry, I was just re-reading this post and went to click on Carle’s website but the page link you give has now mysteriously vanished! Very interesting – maybe after he did realise what he wrote about Phillips being Bishop…..I don’t suppose anyone saved the page while it was still up? I kick myself for not having done so..

    • A couple of months after his remarks became known, Stu and I were able to persuade a third party who was in contact with him to pursue the question. I had failed to get any response from Carle in several emails. As I recall he really would not comment definitively one way or the other to our friend but not long after that exchange I checked back and could not find Carle’s initial statement on Phillips being known as Bishop – if its still there it must be somewhere on the site I couldn’t locate. He seems to be a person of considerable integrity and we cite material from his book in Shadow Warfare. I’m thinking that he had not realized the full impact of the Phillips/Bishop connection when making his initial remark and decided that if Phillips had not wanted to admit it himself then there was no reason for him to do so.

  4. grassyknollgirl63 says:

    Thanks for the info. Yes, it seems like he didn’t want that comment still up there after realising the enormity of his comment. I will look again to see if I can find it anywhere else. I’d like to know what he makes of Veciana’s recent signed confirmation of Phillips being Bishop…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s