CIA Sabotage of the Investigation

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

CIA Sabotage of the Investigation

Postby JDThomas » Tue Apr 14, 2020 12:53 pm

In these difficult times, with many of us in lockdown, there can be no more productive use of time than to watch this presentation by HSCA investigators Dan Hardway and Eddie Lopez:

https://aarclibrary.org/aarc-conference-2014-the-hsca-and-the-cia-the-view-from-the-trenches-and-the-view-from-the-top/

This also includes a written statement from HSCA chief Bob Blakey, read-out by Hardway. Although long overdue, Blakey's conversion must be one of the greatest since St. Paul.
I have always considered Blakey one of the villians in the case, but on this basis, perhaps he was just a naive pawn of the establishment.

I was glad to have a glass of cold water at hand when watching this - it help prevent my blood boiling from hearing the scale of deception spun by the CIA.
User avatar
JDThomas
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: CIA Sabotage of the Investigation

Postby Phil Dragoo » Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:43 pm

Excellent presentation by Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez. Those who have read Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation will understand the hidden and not-so-hidden hand of the Agency in thwarting a real investigation.

Torpedoing Sprague was a real hit--and Blakey for my money was as useful to the truth as a sand bag--he sandbagged attempts at discovery.

Then Johannides said, "Hold my beer"--I'll tell you for a truly emetic photograph get the one of Johannides receiving a Benedict Arnold award from Stan Turner.

Phillips weeping to his brother near the former's death--crocodile tears.

As Angleton said, "World's best liars. . .I shall see them in hell soon."

Gates told Leahy, "All governments lie to each other--it's how business gets done"--a far cry from Dr. George Lipsky my poli sci chair, "International relations rely on a concept of limits"--

--JFK thought the latter principle to be true--and suffered three head wounds--David Mantik is among the post-presentation questioners, his book posits the right temple shot as blowing out the Harper Fragment--and I think we know who did the right temple shot.

Harvey once insisted, "nothing on paper"--it's how the Manhattan Project could succeed, how Hitler could kill jews without a smoking gun.

To believe there is a file extant to show what we know is naive.

A college friend from Dr. Lipsky's classes Yiannis Roubatis was recently head of Greek intelligence (these positions change rather frequently) and authored Yiannis Roubatis and Karen Wynn, CIA Operations in Greece, Agee sobbed out an opus, Colby blabbed and got a canoe ride in '96--

We're not in Kansas anymore--gentlemen read other gentlemen's mail.

Gary DeVore was working on a screenplay on CIA regime change in Panama, had a CIA Liaison officer, left Santa Fe for L.A. and was found a year later.

https://www.spyculture.com/review-writer-no-hands/

Blakey's statement.

G. ROBERT BLAKEY'S 2003 ADDENDUM TO THIS INTERVIEW:

I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission's investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee's investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency's DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

I don't believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

During the relevant period, the committee's chief contact with the Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but "happy." Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might "facilitate" the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would be of help to us.

I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.

That the Agency would put a "material witness" in as a "filter" between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.

The committee's researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.

They were certainly right about one question: the committee's researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency's integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.

For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp.


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/blakey.html#addendum

Phil's note: As Dylan notes, "a patsy like Patsy Cline"--Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez put "Oswald's visit to Mexico City" in air quotes.

Which is the way to view everything from the Agency.

Best viewed in Trust No One V.2.0

Image
User avatar
Phil Dragoo
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:09 am

Re: CIA Sabotage of the Investigation

Postby JDB4JFK » Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:45 pm

Great Post JD! Wish they would have allowed more time for questions. Also wish someone would have ask them about the two Oswald's!!!

I remember one time in a interview with Jim Garrison, that he stated about a month or two before the assassination, that there were Oswald's popping up everywhere???

So my question is if we know Oswald didn't do the shooting that day, should we stop researching Oswald because its not going to lead us anywhere, but into another rabbit hole of deception, and disinformation???
JDB4JFK
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:32 am

Re: CIA Sabotage of the Investigation

Postby JDThomas » Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:38 pm

For anyone who wants to read Fonzi's Last Investigation, the original manuscript version can be found on http://cuban-exile.com/. I'll try to dig-up the exact webpage tomorrow if I remember.


***********************************************
Last Investigation link

https://cuban-exile.com/menu2/2fonzi.html

***********************************************
User avatar
JDThomas
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: CIA Sabotage of the Investigation

Postby JDThomas » Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:55 am

JDB4JFK wrote:
So my question is if we know Oswald didn't do the shooting that day, should we stop researching Oswald because its not going to lead us anywhere, but into another rabbit hole of deception, and disinformation???


I feel that concentrating too much on Oswald will lead us nowhere. There is no doubt that Oswald was impersonated - even J. Edgar Hoover understood this by November 23, but the point is that there is too much missing to the Oswald legend that can only be added to with open speculation. Any documentary evidence that could help has likely been destroyed as Hardway and Lopez discuss in their presentation. Importantly too they both pointed-out that the details on many agents and assets were only recorded in the personal, un-numbered, unreferenced files of their handler - once these are gone there is no tracing-back (and can plausibly be denied). So for example, if Oswald was a false-defector, this would probably only be in Angleton's personal files and it is known that these were destroyed.

Adding to the Oswald impersonation story is interesting for some researchers, but it will not lead to the case being re-opened and in opinion just distract from it. Re-open the case then all bets are off.
User avatar
JDThomas
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron