The more I read the editorials and see the TV comments, from a host of “quotable” figures, to the effect that over some 50 years nothing significant has emerged to give any insight to a conspiracy related to President Kennedy’s murder  –  the more I wonder if the individuals are truly sincere or subconsciously in denial.  One reason I say that is that I simply can’t find any sign that those folks have done recent study of the available research.  Reading Posner and Bugliosi don’t really count in that regard nor does their habit of referring to the same old simplistic conspiracy theories that have been circulating since 1964 – even though this anniversaries’ television specials are pretty much stuck on that mode when they do float scenarios and suspects.

Absolutely none of them seem to be aware that there was a considerable amount of focused suspicion about just the scenario I’ve been describing in my last several posts, we can actually trace and document those suspicions and concerns from the immediate 48 hours following the attack in Dallas, though 1968.

For example, on Sunday morning Nov. 24, met with CIA Director McCone .  National Security Adviser McGeoge Bundy joined them with the latest word from Mexico City.  Apparently Bundy had briefed Sec. of State Dean Rusk on the subject and the ARRB discovered a reference to an actual meeting between Johnson, McCone and Bundy on a “Message from Mexico City regarding President Kennedy’s assassination”. The ARRB noted that a number of McCone’s records and files which might have disclosed the subject of that message or of the meetings had either been destroyed or were otherwise missing.   If you want to get a real feel for just what might have been so explosive out of Mexico City, I suggest you look at Bill Simpich’s most recent Mexico City chapter:


Beyond that we now have an indication that Ted Shackley, at the JMWAVE station was quite concerned that there might be a link between the station, Cuban exiles and the assassination.  Shackley himself would later lie, stating that he had ordered no inquiry because the Warren Commission was investigating the murder and there was no reason for him to have done any internal inquires.  However we now have an actual JMWAVE station activity document which describes that the head of the AMOT intelligence group, the group initially trained by David Morales and them later providing information for Jame’s Angletons’s headquarters reports on Cuban counter intelligence, had indeed conducted an intensive inquiry.  The AMOTs CIA officer, Tony Sforza, had given them an extensive list of topics to trace, ranging from money transfers and vehicle movements to a directive to compile lists of those inviduals suspected of being eager to provoked a conflict with Cuba. Now we know that Sforza ordered the inquiry and apparently prepared a report – we don’t actually know if Shackley or perhaps someone above him ordered it and there is certainly no trace of the resultant investigation or any related reports.


There seems to be every reason to suspect that senior CIA officers were very concerned that something might have gone very much out of control. Which leads us back to the Harvey/Roselli Castro assassination effort still going on in 1963 which virtually nobody seems to have known anything about.  I mentioned in my last post that when the HSCA interviewed Roselli they initially failed to really pursue the period following the Bay of Pigs and exactly what he was doing with William Harvey.  And with something I learned just today, in material from Dan Hardaway forwarded to me by my friend Tim Gratz is that following Roselli’s coming forward with the rogue exile sniper team story discussed in my last post, it appears that the CIA itself was pretty well clueless.  Hardaway has recently presented a 2013 paper on his experiences with the CIA and it includes the fact that in his work with the HSCA, he became aware that the CIA had actually pulled John Roselli into a safe house for a “debriefing” lasting for some two weeks when they became aware of his story. Hardaway states that as he recalls, the CIA had pulled Sheffield Edwards out of retirement to lead the debrief. When Hardaway began to pursue the Roselli debrief, the CIA suddenly called George Joannides out of retirement to assume a HSCA / CIA liaison role and suddenly began changing procedures.


When given the Roselli file, Hardaway found out that it had been totally retyped and expurgated and was told that was all he was going to get.  Later, Hardaway was advised that another staff member had been allowed to review the Roselli debrief and he was assured there was nothing relevant to his work in it.  Years later, after providing testimony to the ARRB, Hardaway suggested the Roselli file would be a key item to recover, eventually he was told that the ARRB could not only not find the file but they could not find any reference that the Roselli debrief ever occurred or documents had existed. 


(it’s at this point I become really irritated when I read current editorial statements that state or infer that the U.S. Government can’t really keep secrets so we skeptics need to just get over our delusions and relax)


In any event, there is a good deal of really intriguing material in Dan Hardaway’s recent presentation – The View from the Trenches: The HSCA and the CIA.  I have not come across it online yet but if I do I’ll put up a link, his Roselli and Harvey file comments are something I really want to chat with him about.


What does stand out from the above is that it seems very likely CIA headquarters was also very much out of the loop with what Harvey and Roselli were doing and if anybody knew about it they knew via verbal dialog, Helms and Angleton would be two people that Harvey could have been in communications with but it’s doubtful there were ever any memos and I’d certainly bet that Director McCone was not in the loop.


As I’ve maintained for some time, the CIA itself may not have known or had records of a conspiracy associated with their trainees, assets or officers – however in certain places there was a lot of quite accurate suspicion.  I’ll try to wrap this all up a bit more neatly along with comments on the JFK Lancer conference sometime before Thanksgiving.  In the meantime I hope this series of “connecting the dots” posts has been helpful.


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.

3 responses »

  1. Anonymous says:

    The lament for an informed media continues, unfortunately. Ive watched bits and pieces of the stuff that’s being broadcast now, and it’s disgraceful both to their profession and to what should be a concern for the truth. However, as we’ve been seeing lately, the truth will out one way or another. The media just continues to look stupid as they lap up the official pronouncments of whatever and regurgitate it.

  2. Gene Kelly says:

    This is a very difficult “story” to relate to people, especially those who haven’t dug deep into the background of pertinent events. When you mention Oswald imposters and the existence of two Oswalds, most look at you like you’re crazy. Most have never bothered to read all of the facts associated with Tippit’s murder… if they did, they’d see inconsistencies, sloppy evidence, and a setup of the patsy. Most don’t question the ballistic evidence or the questionable provenance and accuracy of the rifle, and Oswald’s proficiency … they loosely quote ‘studies’ that purportedly showed the shots could be made in 5 seconds. Many that I discuss the assassination with are incredulous and surprised that Oswald had ties to intelligence and exhibited trade-craft. We all tend to seek and seize upon simple explanations. But the plotters and enablers who orchestrated JFK’s murder and coverup were experts at distraction, intimidation and disinformation. I personally find it hard to convince friends who ask but then can’t believe. The problem that i see is many don’t want to do the work … they don’t want to read the books and articles, research the websites and threads, and are intimidated by the sheer volume of information and sources. They don’t simply ask “wouldn’t someone have talked?” They want to know the best book to read, because they have limited patience and want a short synopsis. Appreciating this story and what actually happened (and why) requires tenacious research, digging into a mountain of facts (much of which may be intentional obfuscation), and keeping an open mind. One needs to sift amongst many anecdotes and opinions. And you won’t get the true facts and unvarnished truth in history books or on television.

  3. Frank says:

    Here’s a link to a partial transcript of Mr. Hardway’s presentation:

    JFK Conference: Dan Hardway Detailed how CIA Obstructed HSCA Investigation

    The transcript is continued in Reply 19.

    An amateur JFK researcher, but a professional reporter — Octafish attended the Duquesne conference.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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