‘Jim [Angleton] would prefer to wait out the Commission…’

“Jim would prefer to wait out the Commission on the matter covered by paragraph 2…”

CIA’s Raymond Rocca, writing to Richard Helms regarding counterintelligence chief James Angleton’s desire to stonewall the Warren Commission on certain CIA materials passed to the Secret Service.

James Angleton

James Angleton, chief of counterintelligence in 1963.

What was so sensitive that Angleton, one of the most powerful figures in the CIA, preferred “waiting out the Commission” to cooperating with investigators.

One of the matters at hand was photographs of a “mystery man” taken in Mexico City and rushed to Dallas on the evening of November 22, 1963, and subsequently provided to the Secret Service via the White House.

On February 12, 1964, the Warren Commission wrote to CIA Director McCone, asking for all materials that the CIA had passed to the Secret Service since JFK’s assassination. Rocca’s internal letter to Deputy Director for Plans Richard Helms of March 5, 1964, transmitted his boss Angleton’s desire to demur on this request.

The materials were photographs of the so-called “Mexico City mystery man” and cables regarding the photos. In a meeting on March 9, 1964, Helms told Commission staffer Howard Willens that the CIA had “certain unspecified problems” in complying with the request. Willens refused to accept this response.

After further discussion, on March 24,1963, the CIA sent to Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin a letter that included paraphrased versions of the cables, and arranged to allow a Commission staffer to review the original materials and the photos themselves at Langley.

The above chronology is laid out in some greater detail in investigations of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA Volume XI, p.63).

Was Angleton’s desire simply based on the need to protect CIA’s secret photo surveillance operation? The matter seems a little deeper than that.

When the Warren Commission expressed its desire to publish a single photo of the “mystery man,” to refute Marguerite Oswald’s assertion that she had been shown a photo of Jack Ruby by the FBI before Ruby shot her son, the Mexico City station went ballistic.

There were already plans to crop the background. The CIA’s Mexico City station added a request to have Allen Dulles prevail on the Commission to retouch the person’s face as well.

Why? Perhaps the answer lies in a letter that Mexico City station chief Win Scott sent to colleague J.C. King, the chief of CIA operations in the Western Hemisphere, on November 22. Scott enclosed three photos of the mystery man, describing him as “a certain person who is known to you.”

For more on this strange story, see the essay “More Mexico Mysteries: Part V. Publishing the Mystery Man Photograph.”

88 comments

  1. Photon says:

    What is so hard to understand about the Agency trying to protect its intelligence gathering sources, particularly in sensitive diplomatic circles? What was the point of destroying those sources for releasing information on a crime that had already been solved? Granted, there may have been some embarrassing information on surveillance of Oswald, but wouldn’t that have strengthened the case against Oswald- and merely confirmed what was already common knowledge before the Conspiracy advocates went off on their various wild goose chases?

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Or maybe he knew the guy in the picture looked nothing like Oswald. Heaven forbid there might have been two Oswalds.

    • rollo says:

      Yeah, who really needs a thorough investigation of the assassination of a US President?

    • Mitch says:

      If you had read John Newman’s ‘Oswald and The CIA’, you would know why Angleton would not cooperate with the Warren Commission.

    • JSA says:

      “What is so hard to understand about the Agency trying to protect its intelligence gathering sources, particularly in sensitive diplomatic circles?”

      Does this also apply to a historian trying to find out why and how the US military and FBI didn’t get proper information about the Japanese prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor? After all, that’s “sensitive” information, right? And let’s not forget, Pearl Harbor was only 22 years earlier than the JFK assassination. So, when do you make your cut off for allowing historians to get all the access they need? Is the Revolutionary War off limits too? How about Lincoln’s assassination? I don’t see how this makes any sense.

    • Thomas says:

      The crime had already been solved?

      There is a major objectivity and credibility gap here.

    • TLR says:

      And despite all of this surveillance, the CIA officially never debriefs Oswald (or his Russian wife) after all of his travels and contacts. If LHO really met with a KGB assassination specialist, don’t you think the Feds would want to talk with Oswald about that?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Why wouldn’t they use such ‘embarrassing information’ if it would strengthen the case against Oswald?

      It’s more logical to believe that it was not incriminating against Oswald as it was damning of the CIA.

    • Paulf says:

      Once again, photon, you reveal a hilarious double standard. If someone who advocates a conspiracy is caught lying or says anything remotely dubious, you say they they can’t be viewed as credible about anything ever again.

      Someone on your “side” is found to be lying, you claim it makes them more credible.

      Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous you sound?

  2. Shane McBryde says:

    Hmmm…let’s see, possible foreknowledge of a plot to kill the president? Joseph Milteer, Rose Cheramie, Richard Case Nagell, John Martino. Those are a few that come to mind. Someone would’ve talked? More like someone ought to listen!

    • mball says:

      Good point. Actually Larry Hancock wrote an excellent book entitled SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED. His point? People did talk, before and after the assassination.

  3. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

    Photon, first let’s look at the simple answer…..witholding evidence is witholding evidence, and illegal…regardless of the guise you try to hide behind.

    Second…

    “Granted, there may have been some embarrassing information on surveillance of Oswald, but wouldn’t that have strengthened the case against Oswald- and merely confirmed what was already common knowledge”

    ….not sure I’d call “framing” someone “embarrassing” information, frankly, it displays further willingness to violate the laws of the land. Yes, “framing” Oswald would most definitely would have strengthened the case against him, if they had gotten away with it. The common knowledge is that they were caught doing it.

    Or did you mean the common knowledge that Hoover stated that it wasn’t Oswald? What’s hard to understand that the CIA violated the law by witholding or refusing to release certain documents to the HSCA? Who decided that you or anyone else gets to declare the CIA above the laws of this Country? What legal Court and jury declared this crime solved? NONE…..

    Assumptions, insinuations and opinions are not facts, far from it.

    • JSA says:

      “Who decided that you or anyone else gets to declare the CIA above the laws of this Country?”

      I fully and wholeheartedly agree. The KGB was above the laws, but in this country we are supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. I suspect that many people who love police states would be happy living in a totalitarian regime, and are uncomfortable with democracies.

    • Photon says:

      “Assumptions, insinuations and opinions are not facts”- but seem to be the standard of evidence for virtually every conspiracy theory.
      Where is the documentation that Hoover stated that it wasn’t Oswald? Since when is “common knowledge” proof of anything?
      Exactly what “proof” do you have that anybody framed Oswald, aside from your belief that he was? How was that “frame ” done and specifically what actions were taken?
      How can you say that the CIA violated the law when Jeff has to go through these legal hoops to get records released PRECISELY because the law protects the CIA and confidential information?

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        “Assumptions, insinuations and opinions are what you serve up on a regular basis, as if no one has noticed.”

        Let’s try something new…..try listing some citations, some documentation, some film, or photographs to support your claims.

        I can list proof all day long….direct evidence and indirect evidence…but you, like others of your mindset simply choose to ignore completely because they don’t bolster your claims.

        Now, this is not a personal attack, just observations of your tactics from previous posts. I don’t disagree with everything you state, just most of the time.

        Anyone can prove LHO didn’t take the fatal shot, your willingness to ignore direct evidence to that fact doesn’t make it false or mean that it doesn’t exist.

        • JSA says:

          I think Hoover said to LBJ that there was another person impersonating Oswald in Mexico City. Here’s a transcript of a telephone call FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover made to President Johnson just six hours after the plane arrived in Dallas which supports the belief that FBI agents listened to a tape that suggested an impersonation.

          “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy using Oswald’s name,” Hoover told Johnson, according to a transcript of that call released in 1993. “That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.”

          • John McAdams says:

            I’m afraid Hoover was simply wrong about this, apparently because Belmont misunderstood what Shanklin told him early Saturday morning. All the statements at FBI headquarters in DC were second-hand from Belmont.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

            By Saturday evening, this was cleared up.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Sorry .John, the ‘clueless’ link to your website does not reconcile the fact that J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ at 10 a.m. in a telecon from Washington on November 23, 1963, that he had a tape.

            He said,

            …—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Mexico_City_Tapes

          • mball says:

            Belmont thought that Shanklin told him there was a tape, but was wrong? And Shanklin couldn’t explain why Belmont wrote that in a report? And HQ is repeating the “error” two days later, asking the legat for the tape that Dallas reviewed? I don’t think so. It sounds more like a sloppy job of changing direction on this issue. And Hoover’s memo to his staff, once again, about distrusting the CIA in re the “charade” in Mexico City (among other things) speaks volumes for me.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Since all of Hoover’s information was second- or third-hand, he got a lot of things wrong in those early LBJ phone calls.

            The FBI Legat who received the CIA material in Mexico and Shanklin in Dallas told Hoover *at the time* that he was wrong: there were only transcripts, no tapes.

            On 11/23 Shanklin cabled Hoover: “Set forth hereinafter is transcript received by Legat Mexico …. It should be noted that the actual tape from which this transcript was made has been erased…”

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5581&relPageId=47

            On 11/25 the FBI Legat in Mexico told Headquarters: “There appears to be some confusion in that no tapes were taken to Dallas but only typewritten transcripts supplied by CIA…”

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=8923&relPageId=3

            Hoover was right that the photos weren’t of Oswald, but he didn’t say someone was impersonating Oswald, he spoke of a “second man.”

          • Stanley says:

            Odd the way the nation’s investigators are deemed infallible when it fits one narrative, yet morph into Keystone Cops when it comes to another one. The fable of the tapes has as many unlikely twists as turns as the bullet in the single bullet theory.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Correction: I misread Hoover’s statement, sorry. He did claim the man was “using Oswald’s name.” I apologize for the error.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=807&relPageId=2

            During this same conversation, Hoover said he thought the shots were fired from the fifth floor and that “A. Hidell” was a woman. At this point LBJ was probably getting better information from the news media.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I’m sorry Jean, but there is no way in the world that Hoover would state TWICE (orally and later in writing), that a VOICE does not match Oswald, if it was only second hand info in the form of a written transcript.

            Hoover was not dumb and in fact, very meticulous.

            Also, his reference to a second man clearly means the other person using Oswald’s name, whose voice and appearance do not correspond to Oswald.

            Read that transcript I quoted heretofore.

            In fact, ‘second man’ could even imply ‘accomplice’.

            Someone or persons heard that tape, realized it wasn’t the so called lone assassin Oswald, and buried it (later to destroy or erase it).

        • Gerry Simone says:

          @ John McAdams:

          Why does that CIA memo direct that photos of ‘Oswald’ be suppressed even from the police?

          Why are tapes mentioned in that memo erased?

          I guess photos of another person or a voice that doesn’t sound like Oswald would be suppressed or destroyed, if it’s actually not him.

          It makes any purported mistake by Hoover a minor issue.

          I also don’t see a memo by Shanklin ‘clearing this up’, and Hoover’s ‘muddying international waters’ excuse for keeping the KGB embassy officer out of a public hearing surely taints everything as possibly being covered up.

          • mball says:

            I’m sure it was all cleared up by Saturday evening. Like the note Oswald left at the FBI office got “cleared up” (flushed down the toilet); like the page in Oswald’s notebook with Hosty’s name, number and license plate got “cleared up” (removoved from the notebook and hushed up for about 10-12 years). Yeah, the FBI wouldn’t lie and destroy evidence in this case. Except when they needed to.

          • mball says:

            BTW, the actual unfolding of that tape of Oswald reveals that it certainly existed, and that the story on it changed as the weekend progressed. There was an Oswald tape dub that was sent to Dallas, Shanklin made a report on it to Hoover, Hoover informed Rowley at Secret Service. CIA Mexico City’s Anne Goodpasture verified the dub to both the HSCA and the ARRB, and that it had been sent to Dallas. With the shadow play that was occurring with evidence in this case, Hoover publicly accepted the CIA’s fiction about the tape having been destroyed. But Hoover memo’d his staff later about not trusting the CIA and specifically mentioned “…the false story re: Oswald’s trip to Mexico City…” Tip of the hat to Larry Hancock and SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED for the fleshing out of this story.

          • John McAdams says:

            Please try to get this straight: two memos on the page I linked to date before any Dallas FBI agents could have listened to any tapes, and they both mention “photos” and “transcripts” but no tapes.

            One explicitly says that tapes have been erased.

            So it’s just not possible that the tapes got to Dallas, were said not to be of Oswald by agents, and then a “cover story” was created.

            The “story” was in place before any “tapes” got to Dallas. In fact, the early evidence says there were no tapes.

            As for not showing the photos to local cops: the CIA was very sensitive about “sources and methods,” and apparently didn’t want to commies to know they were photographing people going in and out of their embassies.

            Of course, the commies apparently knew that anyway.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            An after thought:

            If this matter about absence of a tape was resolved later in the evening by Shanklin, why didn’t the Master of Memos, J. Edgar Hoover retract the gross error?

            I can’t believe that an error or misinterpretation by the Director of the FBI would be ‘cleared up’ by an underling.

            To me, I sense missing pieces, backtracking and CYA taking place.

            Robert K. Tanenbaum argued with David Atlee Phillips at the HSCA hearing that the listening of that tape by the FBI occurred after DAP said it was already cycled, and when pressed to reconcile the fact, Phillips didn’t – he got up and walked out, never to be called or heard again (ergo, Tanenbaum’s resignation later).

          • mball says:

            Yes, the CIA told the FBI that the tapes had been erased. There is also a good portion of that comment blacked out. But Anne Goodpasture siad that there was a dub of the tape, and she testified twicwe to its existence and to its transfer to Dallas. The problem here may be an over reliance on the FBI’s word in a case where they have demonstrably lied and destroyed evidence.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ .John:

            Something is fishy here. Hoover also says in a telecon with LBJ that ‘we have the tapes up here’.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Mexico_City_Tapes

            Regardless of safeguarding CIA secret surveillance of the embassy, the CIA did disclose those photos to the FBI.

            Hoover twice confirms it visually isn’t Oswald, so the issue regarding the tapes seems moot.

            This is still proof positive that the CIA and FBI covered up the fact that there was an LHO impostor.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Considering that Hoover confirms orally AND in writing about the existence of those tapes, is it possible that the CIA withheld those tapes from certain FBI agents (who were told same were erased), but gave access to Hoover somehow?

            Things don’t always happen in concert.

          • John McAdams says:

            But Anne Goodpasture siad that there was a dub of the tape, and she testified twice to its existence and to its transfer to Dallas.

            You are going to need to post a source on that.

            If memory serves, that’s a Morley thing, based on decades-old testimony.

            And indeed, from Morley’s assumptions about what happened, and not what Goodpasture actually remembers.

          • John McAdams says:

            Hoover twice confirms it visually isn’t Oswald, so the issue regarding the tapes seems moot.

            Only if you think the fellow in the photo claimed to be Oswald.

            If the CIA in Mexico City was merely confused, thinking this was a photo of Oswald (when it wasn’t), then you have no evidence of an imposter.

          • mball says:

            Goodpasture recollected that an FBI agent (Eldon Rudd is who she belives it was) took some material for handover to others, and she believes that it consisted of photos and a dubbed tape. Apparently Rudd denied anything about a tape. On 11/23/63, Belmont reported on his conversation that morning with SAC Shanklin of Dallas office, stating that Shanklin told him of a review of tapes and photos. That same date, Shanklin reports that the actual tape had been erased. Shanklin had no explanation for Belmont’s report in re his conversation with Shanklin that morning. On 11/25, two days after Shanklin reported that the tapes had been erased, Burt Turner at HQ cabled the FBI legat in Mexico City to send any tapes they had in re Oswald’s contact with Soviet and/or Cuban embassies, and to include the tapes “previously reviewed Dallas if they were returned to you.” I think the weight of the evidence is that the dubbed tape was reviewed.

          • mball says:

            The info comes from Goodpature’ testimony for the ARRB, and from the Reference To FBI Review Of Tapes Of Oswald’s Oct.1, 1963 Mexico City Conversation on the Mary Ferrell web site. It was prepared by Church Committee staffers.

          • John McAdams says:

            The info comes from Goodpasture’ testimony for the ARRB, and from the Reference To FBI Review Of Tapes Of Oswald’s Oct.1, 1963 Mexico City Conversation on the Mary Ferrell web site. It was prepared by Church Committee staffers.

            You seem to have been reading a secondary source that distorted what Goodpasture said.

            Here is the source:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146573&relPageId=147

            She first thinks that the tape would have been send to DC, and then mentions Rudd taking it to Laredo. But Rudd insisted he had no tapes.

            The other document you cite does not show any evidence of tapes in Dallas, just the Church Committee staff trying to sort out the issue.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1465

            Here are the two documents that are decisive:

            http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Shanklin112263.pdf

            Both are from too early to have been part of any “coverup,” and both mention photos and transcripts. The document Rudd carried explicitly says the tapes have been erased.

          • John McAdams says:

            Burt Turner at HQ cabled the FBI legat in Mexico City to send any tapes they had in re Oswald’s contact with Soviet and/or Cuban embassies, and to include the tapes “previously reviewed Dallas if they were returned to you.”

            At that point, everybody at FBI HQ believed there was a tape in Dallas, since Belmont had thought that Shanklin had told him that.

            But nobody in Dallas believed there was any tape.

            Rudd had brought photos, and transcripts, and no tapes.

            http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

          • John McAdams says:

            Robert K. Tanenbaum argued with David Atlee Phillips at the HSCA hearing that the listening of that tape by the FBI occurred after DAP said it was already cycled, and when pressed to reconcile the fact, Phillips didn’t – he got up and walked out, never to be called or heard again (ergo, Tanenbaum’s resignation later).

            Tannenbaum was acting as an irresponsible fanatic. It’s good that he was forced out.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ .John

            Tannenbaum was acting as an irresponsible fanatic. It’s good that he was forced out.

            Forced out?

            He resigned after Sprague’s departure.

            Is Richard Sprague also a fanatic?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Only if you think the fellow in the photo claimed to be Oswald.

            If the CIA in Mexico City was merely confused, thinking this was a photo of Oswald (when it wasn’t), then you have no evidence of an imposter.

            Shanklin’s memo certainly says that the CIA took photos of someone calling themselves Oswald right after those phone calls.

            They wouldn’t waste their time sending Rudd to Mexico City for just a transcript (they could have dictated it over the phone, or send it by teletype machine).

            Rudd wrote his memo on the basis that the CIA believed it was someone who claimed they were Oswald, as depicted in photos or in a taped call. Twice they mention that the attached photos relate to Lee Harvey Oswald.

            It is too much of a coincidence that both tapes and photos are erased or non-existent for such a crucial evidentiary matter.

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        November 23, 1963 from the White House recordings J. Edgar Hoover talking to LBJ:

        “We have the tape & the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy using Oswald’s name. That picture & the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there was a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.”

        The more we dig into this quagmire it becomes quite clear that whoever planned & carried out the assassination was intent on creating rabbit holes for those of us intent on trying to find the truth to stumble into.

        It is quite clear that Hoover had stumbled into one himself & some group had plotted and/or conspired to photograph & record someone other than Oswald & attempt to pass him off as Oswald. Apparently this individual was known to both J C King & Winston Scott of the CIA.

        It is interesting to note that Will Fritz after interrogating Lee Oswald stated that the backyard photographs – according to Oswald were fakes & that he (Oswald) said he could prove it – he had worked at photographic firm Jaggers-Chiles. Oswald also stated to the press that he was “a patsy” & “they were taking me in because I had lived in the Soviet Union”. The diary he had purportedly written while in the Soviet Union for almost three years was determined by the House Select Committee to be written in on the same paper & not over periodic intervals of time as would be the normal custom for a journal or diary hence probably not totally reliable.

        If you can’t CONSIDER the evidence presented here in an objective fashion – then you should not be involved in these discussions. Photon & McBuff – I am talking to you. Respond & refute with objectivity & documentation.

  4. John Kirsch says:

    Did anyone speak in Oswald’s defense before the Warren Commission? I suspect the answer is no, since the report reads like the world’s longest brief for the prosecution.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Mark Lane tried to.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I posted in another thread about an Oswald advocate appointed by the WC, who was actually the President of the ABA.

      He had junior lawyers attend as he wasn’t present all of the time.

      Incidentally, even Vincent Bugliosi remarks that they did a terrible job.

  5. McAdams is hysterical isn’t he? He really thinks no one else understands the data in this case.

    On page 653 of the reissue of Oswald and the CIA,there is a transcript of the deposition of Goodpasture before the ARRB’s Jeremy Gunn.There she says she recalled a tape dub being carried to Laredo.

    See, that is in Texas, which is where Dallas is also.

    As I note in my book Destiny Betrayed, the contents of the tape was devastating to the CIA. Because the voice on the tape, as well as the photo she mentions, were not Oswald.

    Since Goodpasture handled the daily take from the embassies, she understood how fatal that dub was. Therefore, on 11/23, she started the cover up story that the tapes had been destroyed prior to the assassination, by October 1st. (Destiny Betrayed p. 358)

    This is simply and provably false. For two reasons.

    First, to have done so would have violated her own rules about keeping tapes for at least ten days. Secondly, too many people heard the tapes, including FBI officer Burt Turner, who admitted they had been reviewed in Dallas.(ibid)

    In Pittsburgh, Dan Hardway revealed that the HSCA prepared two indictments for perjury: one for Phillips and one for Goodpasture.

    John McAdams knows this. He was at that talk.

    • John McAdams says:

      On page 653 of the reissue of Oswald and the CIA, there is a transcript of the deposition of Goodpasture before the ARRB’s Jeremy Gunn.There she says she recalled a tape dub being carried to Laredo.

      See, that is in Texas, which is where Dallas is also.

      But Laredo is not Dallas. And Rudd carried the photos and transcripts into Dallas on a DC3. Not into Laredo.

      It’s clear Goodpasture has no personal knowledge of what happened to the supposed dub.

      http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146573&relPageId=147

      Secondly, too many people heard the tapes, including FBI officer Burt Turner, who admitted they had been reviewed in Dallas.(ibid)

      The HSCA talked to every FBI agent who might have heard a tape in Dallas, but all of them said they had heard no audio recording of Oswald.

      But Jim, I guess you think they were all lying.

      In Pittsburgh, Dan Hardway revealed that the HSCA prepared two indictments for perjury: one for Phillips and one for Goodpasture.

      Which shows the sort of irresponsible fanatics some of the HSCA staffers were.

    • John McAdams says:

      Since Goodpasture handled the daily take from the embassies, she understood how fatal that dub was. Therefore, on 11/23, she started the cover up story that the tapes had been destroyed prior to the assassination, by October 1st. (Destiny Betrayed p. 358)

      But here, Jim, is the document Eldon Rudd brought up from Mexico City to Dallas.

      http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

      It clearly says the tapes have been erased.

      Here is a document from Nov. 22 saying that a “transcript of the call” (no mention of a tape) will be brought up by Eldon Rudd.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Shanklin112263.pdf

      • mball says:

        But there’s that pesky memo from Belmont on
        the 23rd in re tapes info from Shankin and the HQ communication on the 25th wanting the tapes that Dallas reviewed, if Dallas returned them to the legat. Something more than just crossed wires here.

        • John McAdams says:

          I think you fail to understand how, when one error gets into the trail of memos at the FBI, it just repeats itself as it is copied and passed on.

        • John McAdams says:

          I think you fail to understand how, when one error gets into the trail of memos at the FBI, it just repeats itself as it is copied and passed on.

          Thus multiple sources saying the same thing do not corroborate each other if they are not independent, but rather derive from a common (erroneous) source.

          • mball says:

            This was no small error, and at some point it should have been corrected at HQ. No, the smell is still there.

          • John McAdams says:

            This was no small error, and at some point it should have been corrected at HQ.

            But it was corrected at HQ.

            You folks just refuse to accept the correction.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams:

            Correct at HQ? By whom?

            Did Hoover retract his call and/or letter to LBJ?

  6. Anyone who pressed for facts and would not accept the BS of Phillips and Goodpasture is now a fanatic. In other words, if you can prove someone is lying, on a material point, you are a fanatic.I mean, this is the JFK murder case,go ahead, lie your head off. Fine with John.

    ANd I don’t care what Bob Blakey said 15 years later. I mean how often will you use that one, thinking no one understands Blakey.

    What about the contemporaneous record made then by Hoover (a memo and phone call), Turner, Belmont. Stanley Watson of the CIA, Deputy Station Chief in Mexico City also said all the tapes were not destroyed. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 358)

    Not enough Johnny: how about CIA officer John Whitten, who also said some of the Oswald tapes had been reviewed and a copy of the October 1 tape had been discovered After the Assassination! (ibid) I think that last statement got Whitten fired by Helms. So Angleton came in and made sure the deception about the “lost tapes” would live on.

    I mean, how many witnesses do you need?

    LOL, Eldon Rudd? Please John, tell us what happened with Rudd before the HSCA. You must know right? But as with Hardway, and Goodpasture’s provable perjury, you are silent.

    Goodpasture has no personal knowledge of what happened to the dub?

    Are you serious? As the Lopez Report proves, Goodpasture supervised the daily take of photos and tapes from both target embassies, USSR and Cuba. She go this even before Phillips or Win Scott did. And she lied to Dan and Ed about this, so she would not be suspect with the whole fake tape and phony pictures about Oswald in Mexico; when in fact,as Phillips later admitted, there was no evidence Oswald was at the Russian consulate. And he lied about why the report of him meeting with Kostikov was seven days late.

    Why do you think he lied John?

  7. John McAdams says:

    Jim, you always label a “lie” any testimony you find inconvenient. But unfortunately for you, it doesn’t work that way.

    You haven’t addressed the fact that the memo that Rudd carried from Mexico City to Dallas said the tapes had been erased.

    http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

    So the Mexico City station was saying that the tapes had been erased before any agents in Dallas could possibly have listened to the tapes and said that the voice was not Oswald.

    As for Rudd: are you saying he lied to the HSCA? Since you believe that everybody else who gave testimony you find inconvenient lied, I imagine you think Rudd lied too.

    Then of course you have this, from the HSCA:

    Shanklin stated in a committee interview that no recording was ever received by FBI officials in Dallas. Moreover, former FBI Special Agents James Hosty, John W. Fain, Burnett Tom Carter, and Arnold J. Brown, each of whom had conversed with Oswald at one time, informed the committee they had never listened to a recording of Oswald’s voice.

    But you think all of those guys were liars too, right?

    • mball says:

      Well, Shanklin and Hosty lied and destroyed evidence on at least one occasion, and were a party to it on at least one other occasion. That was to avoid certain evidence of contacts with Oswald. So yes, Shanklin and Hosty certainly would lie. The others? Certainly not impossible, not in this case.

      • John McAdams says:

        So you have a generic excuse for dismissing any evidence you find inconvenient.

        • mball says:

          I’m comparing Rudd against the rest of the record. Rudd and Shanklin have some explaining to do. You’ve pretty much hung your hat on Eldon Rudd.

          • John McAdams says:

            You still haven’t looked at the two documents, both dating from less than 24 hours after the assassination, that corroborate what Rudd has said ever since.

            http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Shanklin112263.pdf

            And you are ignoring the fact that every FBI person in Dallas told the HSCA there were never any tapes in Dallas.

            Shanklin stated in a committee interview that no recording was ever received by FBI officials in Dallas. Moreover, former FBI Special Agents James Hosty, John W. Fain, Burnett Tom Carter, and Arnold J. Brown, each of whom had conversed with Oswald at one time, informed the committee they had never listened to a recording of Oswald’s voice.

            Finally, on the basis of an extensive file review and detailed testimony by present and former CIA officials and employees, the committee determined that CIA headquarters never received a recording of Oswald’s voice.

            But you think all these folks lied, right?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ .John,

            The memo to file by Shanklin is dated November 22, 1963 and before the arrival of Rudd from Mexico City about securing info of Oswald making calls from the Cuban embassy to the Russian embassy.

            He states “ANDERSON has arranged for a transcript of the call”.

            Hoover mentions the tape to LBJ at 10 a.m. and later writes about it in a letter to Rowley.

            In either case, he states that the voice on the tape does not match Oswald.

            I doubt one can make two such statements about the voice being wrong on the basis of a transcript!

            Moreover, if Rudd’s memo the next day is true about erased CIA tapes, how could ANDERSON arrange for a transcript?

            Did the CIA transcribe all tapped calls before erasing them? I really doubt that.

            I have a feeling that this aspect of information that could mitigate Oswald’s guilt was suppressed after the fact, and both the CIA & FBI colluded in the charade.

          • John McAdams says:

            Moreover, if Rudd’s memo the next day is true about erased CIA tapes, how could ANDERSON arrange for a transcript?

            You seem not to understand that the memo “dated the next day” is actually the document that Rudd carried from Mexico City to Dallas.

            Please read it!

            The CIA had transcripts. Those had been preserved.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Why would these FBI underlings jeopardize the charge against Oswald and cross Hoover by admitting that there was a tape (if they had known about it)?

          • mball says:

            I suppose the answer is that since some of them DID lie and destroy evidence, I consider that when looking at what they had to say in re Oswald and matters surrounding him.

  8. John, its inconvenient for you to recall what Hardway said in front of 200 people in Pittsburgh. He said that he found out that Phillips had lied about the Kostikov cable. Which was delayed by about six days. When, in fact, it should have been sent up overnight since it should have been labeled “hot”.

    Phillips knew this was trouble for any real investigator, which eliminates the WC. Hardway and Lopez were genuine investigators.

    So Phillips made up all kinds of stuff he recalled and did concerning that cable in Mexico. Where he had a desk.

    Guess what John? Danny and Ed found out that, lo and behold, Phillips was not even in Mexico at the time! They found the documents which said he was on TDY! This is one reason why he was lighting a new cigarette when he had one already going during his interrogation. DId you leave that one out of your notes?

    Now, why would he want to obfuscate and confuse a crucial point like that? Maybe because he understood there was no rational way that cable should have been sent to HQ that late.

    As per Rudd, he was actually tasked by Hoover to bring the Mexico CIty materials to Dallas. And he knew some of the pics could not be Oswald, since they were taken on October 4th. This was part of Goodpasture’s deliberate “errors” as exposed in the Lopez Report. ( See, for example, pgs 139-41)

    Now since Rudd was working hand in hand with Goodpasture, who Eddie said was essentially Phillips’ right hand in Mex City, he began to cooperate with this cover up story. How do we know this? Because when he ran for congress, he campaigned against the formation of the HSCA. And when they tried to question him, the conservative congressman declined.

    Why?

    • mball says:

      Interesting. In one of the documents I recently read on the Mary ferrell website there was a sentence mentioning what was a blacked out name (at a minimum), and an indication that it was an FBI agent that someone at the CIA Mexico City station had recruited. Maybe Rudd?

  9. John McAdams says:

    John, its inconvenient for you to recall what Hardway said in front of 200 people in Pittsburgh.

    I’m supposed to take seriously anything said at Wechtfest? Sorry, I don’t.

    As per Rudd, he was actually tasked by Hoover to bring the Mexico City materials to Dallas. And he knew some of the pics could not be Oswald, since they were taken on October 4th.

    Then why did he deliver them? If the CIA in Mexico City knew the fellow could not be Oswald, why would they produce those photos? Why not just go ahead and say “our cameras were not working?”

    Now since Rudd was working hand in hand with Goodpasture, who Eddie said was essentially Phillips’ right hand in Mex City, he began to cooperate with this cover up story. How do we know this? Because when he ran for congress, he campaigned against the formation of the HSCA. And when they tried to question him, the conservative congressman declined.

    So anybody who opposed the HSCA must be a liar?

    Rudd has certainly testified to the Church Committee, and told them there there were no “tapes.”

    As late as 1999 he told Deb Riechmann of the AP the same thing.

    And again, the document you refuse to address:

    http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

    • mball says:

      I believe that I did address it. I don’t trust it at this point. And that isn’t me being paranoid. That’s what happens when an official body lies and destroys evidence. Everything is suspect after that.

      • John McAdams says:

        So you are claiming a generic right to dismiss and disregard any evidence that you find inconvenient.

        So of course, you will accept nothing that debunks a conspiracy factoid.

  10. Gerry Simone says:

    Can someone explain this please (point no. 9)?

    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=799&relPageId=21

    So the HSCA thought the CIA probably photographed Oswald but the CIA says there is no such photo?

    LMAO! What a farce!

    Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

    (Seems to me that they never had a photo).

    • mball says:

      There were statements by a number of people thatthey saw and/or heard of an Oswald photo taken at one of the embassies, Cubban I think. I aalso recollect reading in the Lopez report that the cameras were supposedly off line on one or more of the days that Oswald visited the Cuban embassy. But there was also a statement in there about a new camera that was up and being tested on that day or days. It was a new pulse camera, and the take from that was something that they couldn’t get out of the CIA.

  11. If you read the Lopez Report closely, you will see that this is another point Phillips lied about. Whether or not the CIA had photo coverage on the Cuban embassy at the time Oswald was there.

    See, this is the charge which Tanenbaum wanted to indict Phillips on. I guess he is another fanatic, right? Even though he was a first class homicide DA. With an even better record than Bugliosi’s.

    Dan and Ed wanted to indict Phillips on the separate perjury charge of lying about the Kostikov memo.

    This was when the CIA started monitoring their apartment with a laundry truck. Dan and Ed figured out what it was and brought them coffee and donuts.

    McAdams ignored that also in his so called reporting on the Wecht seminar.

  12. John McAdams says:

    McAdams ignored that also in his so called reporting on the Wecht seminar.

    Do you actually think I’m supposed to accept every claim by any buff at Wechtfest that so-and-so “lied” about this or that?

    You folks chronically see any conflict among sources as evidence that somebody (inevitably somebody you don’t like) was “lying” for some nefarious purpose.

    To get your claims accepted by sensible people, you need to establish that (1.) the statement was untrue, and (2.) it had some nefarious purpose.

  13. Dan Hardway is a buff?

    Wow, that is really something.

    What book has he published? None.

    What essay has he published? None that I know of.

    The guy is a lawyer and he spends most of his time in court.

    What was remarkable about his presentation is that it was remarkably fact based. Just like the Lopez Report is, since it was so many footnotes to it.

  14. Steve Rosen says:

    John McAdams,

    Why do you denigrate as “buffs” and “fanatics” experienced investigators and attorneys like Robert Tannenbaum and Dan Hardway?

    If you want your arguments accepted by sensible people, you should keep your remarks civil and dispassionate, and avoid ad hominem attacks.

    It really detracts from the validity of any point you are trying to make.

    • John McAdams says:

      DiEugenio was invoking Tannenbaum and Hardway as somehow experts and authorities.

      He somehow thought I was supposed to accept Hardway’s opinions and conclusions.

      I’m not obligated to do that. Surely, you know how many crackpot theories and crackpot notions surround this case.

      If Jim wants to argue that Phillips “lied” about this or that, he needs to post the information that supports that.

      The mere opinions of Hardway and Tannenbaum mean nothing.

      One thing I do remember about Wechtfest is Tannenbaum recounting how he called David Phillips a “liar” to his face when Phillips said the tapes of Oswald’s phone calls had been erased.

      But Tannenbaum was wrong, and his jumping to the conclusion that Phillips was lying shows him to be a fanatic, not a prudent investigator.

      BTW, why is is OK for you conspiracists to call everybody under the sun that you dislike “liars,” but nobody is supposed to say anything unkind about any conspiracist?

      Aren’t you guilty of a double standard?

  15. Steve Rosen says:

    John McAdams,

    I would venture that Robert Tannenbaum and Dan Hardway are experts regarding the HSCA and their respective areas of investigation. If they aren’t, than who is?

    Did you hear Dan Hardway’s talk about Ed Lopez and his experiences researching at the CIA Headquarters, and the stonewalling they received from George Joannides and others? About how Dan’s written report on motive, means and opportunity of certain covert operatives was deep-sixed, along with a debriefing of John Roselli that was undertaken by the CIA’s Office of Security? These are Dan’s on the ground, first-hand recitations, not theories or opinions. Dan is open to questions, just ask him.

    I don’t recall you in the room during Dan’s talk. It was recorded, and his speech is available in print. Perhaps Jeff can post the speech text.

    I don’t recall Robert Tannenbaum, during his talk at Duquesne University (which was approved for legal ethics credits for several states) specifically saying David Atlee Phillips was a “liar”. Certainly, Tannenbaum said Phillips was evasive under questioning.

    David Phillips gave differing and contradictory statements to Congress, the press, and in his books The Night Watch and Secret Wars Diary. Pull them all and compare, if you have the stomach for that type of detailed analysis. Was Phillips being deceptive, forgetful or something else? I don’t know, but his varying accounts do not match.

    Finally, your reply here is unfortunately more of the same, with “Wechtfest” (pejorative term, though it was worthy of your time for several days); “crackpot”; “fanatic”; and “conspiracist”.

    These words aren’t necessary, civil, or professorial. You should be better than lean on them like crutches.

    • John McAdams says:

      I don’t recall Robert Tannenbaum, during his talk at Duquesne University (which was approved for legal ethics credits for several states) specifically saying David Atlee Phillips was a “liar”.

      He said he accused Phillips of being a liar when Phillips said the tapes of the Oswald calls in Mexico City were erased.

      David Phillips gave differing and contradictory statements to Congress, the press, and in his books The Night Watch and Secret Wars Diary.

      I don’t doubt that, but he was telling the truth when he said the tapes were erased.

      And I wouldn’t blame him for just screwing around with people’s heads, especially since he certainly viewed the conspiracists and their theories with contempt.

      These words aren’t necessary, civil, or professorial. You should be better than lean on them like crutches.

      You have no standing to lecture me. It’s ad hominem on your part.

      You buffs will call everybody under sun “liars” and then you whine when somebody says something unkind about one of your folks.

  16. John McAdams says:

    You are still not getting this, Steve.

    I’m under no obligation to accept any of the opinions or conclusions of people like Tannenbaum and Hardway.

    Either they have evidence they can put forth, or they don’t.

    The fact that they think that Phillips or Goodpasture lied has no value as evidence.

  17. The problem with all this is simple, these are not opinions. They are matters of fact.

    I mean, really, do we all have to read through the Lopez Report now just because it has documented information that McAdams does not like?

    That fine report catches Goodpasture in a number of material lies. At least five. One real whopper is that she did not know who actually handled the daily take, photos and tapes from the target embassies.

    Guess what John? After spending days investigating this matter, Dan and Ed found out something funny.

    It was her.

    Now let me guide you to what the next question should be: Its not why are Lopez and Dan intent about finding out who handled the take. It is this : Why would she lie about something like that?

    The report shows why, in detail. Because, among other things, it reveals that she could not have mistaken the Russian KGB agent in the Mystery Man photo for Oswald. It further explains why she likely committed this” error”.

    This is what criminal investigators are supposed to do. And its why the WC is inoperative today. Because in 19,000 pages, you will not see the names of Phillips or Maurice Bishop in the 26 volumes.

    With what we know today about the man, that is astonishing. For me, in and of itself, it shows the WR to be wholly inadequate today.

    • John McAdams says:

      The report shows why, in detail. Because, among other things, it reveals that she could not have mistaken the Russian KGB agent in the Mystery Man photo for Oswald.

      Why not?

      The Mexico City station quite clearly thought that was Oswald, since had they known otherwise they would never have sent the photo to Dallas.

      Remember, they could have wheeled out the “our cameras were not working” excuse immediately.

      BTW, the opinions of people like Hardway and Lopez about who was “lying” count for little.

      P.S. How do you know the man was a “Russian KGB agent?”

  18. Steve Rosen says:

    “It was her.” Classic. Good reply, Jim. Remarkable that Goodpasture forgot what her duties were, isn’t it?

    It would be nice to start cataloging all the backpedalling, conflicting accounts from Dave Phillips and Anne Goodpasture, with citations.

    When you compare Phillips’ statements under oath, in his books, to colleagues, in speeches, and to the media, it really looks like 10 different people are giving 10 different accounts. Quite interesting.

    And here’s one to ponder: Why is Anne Goodpasture’s 155 page HSCA testimony – which deals with Oswald’s post Russian period, travel, and Mexico City visit – postponed in full til 2017 by the CIA? And why did the ARRB censor her thoughts on David Phillips’ political views?

    Nothing to see here, citizens …

  19. That is one I was not aware of, about her HSA testimony being withheld in full.

    I would love to read that one to see how many times she got tripped up.

  20. Jonathan says:

    Angleton’s comment about waiting out the Commission suggests to me he (the CIA) knew things about Oswald the Commission didn’t know. If this is true, the questions are what things, and how did the CIA come to know them? My guess is the CIA had information on Oswald but nothing directly related to the assassination; and that some interloper such as David Morales knew that by setting up Oswald as the fall guy, the CIA would be backed into a corner.

  21. Mike says:

    I recently read Wilderness of Mirrors, written by David Martin on the heels of the HSCA. I read it to try to get a better understanding of Angleton and Harvey. Martin was a national security correspondent and the son of a CIA man, and he quotes liberally from anonymous sources within the agency, so it would seem that the book was a venue for some in the agency to be heard. The timing of the book makes one suspicious that it was damage control, with the concern that the HSCA was opening up a can of worms.
    This book describes Angleton as spiraling out of control in paranoia during the 60′s. He was convinced that the Kennedy White House was full of communists, and he was keeping explicit photos of JFK and women in his safe, courtesy of Hoover, no doubt. He was certainly brilliant in his earlier days, but the deception by his friend, KGB mole Kim Philby, dealt him a blow from which he didn’t recover. Harvey is portrayed also as brilliant and tireless in his younger days, but he transformed into an angry, bitter alcoholic after his demotion, courtesy of RFK.
    To me this book, in subtle ways, kicked these two under the bus.
    Was Angleton stonewalling the WC to protect himself, or to protect his friend Harvey (and Morales)? After reading the depiction of these two men, it isn’t difficult to imagine them taking a step over the precipice; one out of a delusional paranoia, and one out of sheer anger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more