Bill Harvey, armed and dangerous

Bill Harvey

William King Harvey

Since we published the first on-camera interview with CIA widow, CG Harvey, I’ve been getting grief for publishing her allegedly false statements about John, Jackie and Robert Kennedy.

I don’t see anything demonstrably false in what CG Harvey said. I believe the story that JFK had invited Italian prostitutes into his bed two at a time but I can’t prove that it’s true. I agree that CG Harvey’s comments need more context.

Who was William K. Harvey?

He was the CIA’s best. While fat and alcoholic, he was also agile, energetic, and blessed with a phenomenal memory. He was deeply versed in espionage techniques and audacious in his secret operations. He was “America’s James Bond” (though hardly as svelte or debonair as the fictional British spy).

I am not alone among JFK scholars in thinking Harvey is a plausible suspect in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Why?

  • Harvey was openly contemptuous and insubordinate to Robert Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. RFK demanded the CIA remove him from Cuba policy and Harvey was sent to Rome where he stewed in alcohol and played with guns.
  • He was a dangerous man. More than one person who encountered Harvey in Rome recalled how he liked to settle arguments: by taking out a favorite handgun, loading it, pointing it at the head of the other person, and asking if they perhaps agreed with him after all.
  • His colleagues regarded him as dangerous. John Whitten, a senior CIA officer who worked with Harvey for many years both in Berlin and Langley, described him as a “hard-boiled, unsubtle, ruthless guy who was in my opinion, a very dangerous man.”
  • Harvey was involved in the CIA’s plot to kill Fidel Castro in the fall of 1963. The latest CIA releases show that Harvey had a role in the AMLASH operation in October 1963, long after he had supposedly been banished from Cuba operations. In other words, Harvey pursued an assassination conspiracy outside of his job assignment.
  • Harvey had something to hide. When Congress re-opened the JFK assassination investigation in 1976, Harvey was dying and knew they would come looking for him. He told CG to destroy all of his personal papers after his death. She complied.

With all that in mind, watch the CG Harvey interview again.

Other interesting facts: CG’s initials stood for Clara Grace. She was also a CIA officer and participated in the operation to bring Nazi rocket scientists to America. She died in 2000 at age 86.

CIA Suspicions

By the way, Whitten, who retired as the chief of the CIA’s Mexico and Central America desk, knew CG Harvey and thought she was “a fine person.” Her husband was a different matter.

“Harvey was a man who did great damage to the agency,” Whitten said. (See HSCA testimony of “John Scelso,” May 17, 1978, p. 151.)

CIA officer John Whitten

Whitten’s candid comments about Harvey, made under oath, show that JFK conspiracy suspicions, while sometimes scoffed at in the media, permeated to the highest levels inside the CIA.

When asked why Harvey might have told his wife to destroy his papers, Whitten’s reply was sardonic and telling.

“He was too young to have assassinated McKinley and Lincoln,” Whitten said. “It could have been anything.”

Whitten was not accusing Harvey of being involved in a conspiracy. But he clearly didn’t think such suspicions were far-fetched.

(Whitten was cashiered from the CIA for trying to mount a normal counterespionage investigation of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, a revealing story that I told  in “The Good Spy,” for the Washington Monthly.)

In 2006, Bayard Stockton, a former CIA officer who worked with Harvey in Berlin and went on to become a Newsweek correspondent, published a critical but fair biography of the man, entitled “Flawed Patriot.” Once an admirer of Harvey, Stockton concluded that he ultimately became a menace. The book offers a careful assessment of Harvey’s role in JFK’s assassination story. Stockton found no proof of involvement but didn’t exclude the possibility.

JFK co-Conspirator?

Without all the evidence, questions about Harvey cannot be answered definitively.

The CIA retains 123 pages of material on Harvey’s secret operations that have never been made public. These operations took place more than 50 years ago, yet the CIA says they cannot be released until October 2017, at the earliest — for reasons of “national security.

Do these records concern Oswald or the assassination of JFK?

Some people will dismiss the possibility. But the CIA does not dismiss the possibility, so I do not dismiss it. The CIA won’t say anything about what’s in those files. So it is possible that they will shed light on Oswald, or JFK, or the Castro assassination plots. If so any conclusions drawn now would be premature.

65 comments

  1. Jonathan says:

    One thing’s for sure: if Harvey did it, Angleton didn’t. They hated each other. Harvey had been correct in the early 1950s that Kim Philby was KGB. Angleton had been wrong.

    In my estimation, Harvey wasn’t involved in the assassination. His fingerprints are absent from the cover-up. The purpose of the cover-up was to conceal the killers. Why would the USG go to such great lengths to protect Bill Harvey? He wasn’t that important. Something far greater was at stake, I believe.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Jonathan:]

      “if Harvey did it, Angleton didn’t. ”

      ===========================

      Professor John Newman is a highly credible source.

      “In my view, whoever Oswald’s direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald’s files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president’s assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were, their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence.”

      http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKnewmanJ.htm

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Ramon F Herrera November 9, 2014 at 7:16 pm

        If you think John Newman is a “highly credible source” you must have your bar lowered to the ground.

        His scholarship is sloppy at best and he is prone to making unsubstantiated speculations.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          Hi Bill:

          Professor Newman is endorsed by Tony Marsh (IIRC) and Jeff Morley:

          http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_1.htm

          In my view, there is no recommendation better than that.

          What author/researcher do you recommend?

          ==============================

          “John M. Newman spent 20 years with the U.S. Army Intelligence. This included serving in in Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, and China. He eventually became executive assistant to the director of the National Security Agency (NSA).

          “After leaving the NSA Newman joined the University of Maryland where he taught courses in Soviet, Chinese Communist, East Asian, and Vietnam War history, as well as Sino-Soviet and U.S.-Soviet relations.

          “John M. Newman is the author of JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power (1992) and Oswald and the CIA (1995). He also served as served as an adviser to Oliver Stone while he was making JFK and was one of the experts called upon to advise the JFK Assassination Records Review Board.

          http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKnewmanJ.htm

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Ramon F Herrera November 10, 2014 2:50

            Hello Ramon. Do you really think an endorsement from Tony Marsh is going to get Newman into heaven?~~

            I can’t debate the conspiracy work by Newman since I haven’t read any of it. My problem with Newman comes from “JFK and Vietnam”. His work here was not good. Now I know my opinion doesn’t count for much so I’ll post a message from my old friend, the late Ted Gittinger.

            Ted Gittinger

            – Show quoted text –

            Yes, I know of Dr. Newman’s work. I first met Dr. Newman when he was
            researching his topic in the early nineties.

            He was a participant in the LBJ Library symposium, “Vietnam: The Early
            Decisions,” which met in 1993. The proceedings of that conference were
            published and are available through amazon.com.

            Dr. Newman’s thesis was that JFK had decided to withdraw from Vietnam, but
            that LBJ had reversed that decision when Kennedy was assassinated. Newman
            presented his ideas at length, accompanied by a slide presentation of the
            physical evidence which he had assembled during his research in the original
            documents.

            My impression, gained by casual conversation with the other historians who
            were present, was that they were quite unpersuaded by Dr. Newman’s
            arguments. But that impression easily could be checked by inquiry.

            The other historians I here refer to were Lloyd Gardner, William Duiker,
            John Prados, George Herring, William Gibbons, and Larry Berman. I believe a
            search on their names will reveal their contributions to the literature.

            Should you wish to verify what I have given as my impression of their opinions of Dr.Newman’s thesis, that should be possible.

            Warm regards,
            ted

        • mitch says:

          The previous commenter may consider Newman highly credible compared to most who have written on the assassination – Warren Commission included, of course. I’d like to know what you found sloppy in “Oswald and the CIA”. The speculation in that book was just about right if you ask me.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            mitch November 10, 2014 at 4:35 am

            That might be correct, Newman might be more credible than most who have written on the assassination including the WR. But again, that is sitting the bar pretty low.

            I haven’t read,“Oswald and the CIA” nor do I plan to. I read Newman’s “JFK and Vietnam” and it was dishonest enough I won’t waste time reading another of Newman books. If it was just me would be one thing but Newman was roundly booed when he presented this work in a seminar back in the 90s when he was peddling his book.

            Newman has many fans in the conspiracy business, DiEugino being one of them that regurgitates the rather wild Newman speculations. That is the way much of this junk gets started.

        • lysias says:

          Robert McNamara confirmed that JFK decided to withdraw from Vietnam.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            lysias November 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm

            Halberstam said McNamara’s book was “shockingly dishonest” but we’ll bypass the self serving lies of McNamara here for a moment.

            The policy of JFK in Vietnam is clearly written in NSAM 263. It calls for about an 80% reduction of our forces in Vietnam as the SVG becomes trained to handle the situation. Be aware that it doesn’t call for a complete withdrawal nor is 1965 a deadline set in stone.

            I assume you and McNamara are talking about a complete withdrawal and this isn’t the case. Best I remember McNamara expressed his opinion that JFK would not have done what LBJ did in 1965. He doesn’t claim to have any secret order or anything from JFK that implies a complete withdrawal. If you have something else I’d appreciate seeing it.

      • John Newman for a long time said he was not sure the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. That is pretty “incredible” to me. The man is over rated, but he may be right on Angleton.

      • James Angleton was the CIA’s point of contact with the Warren Commission and that alone makes him a suspect in the JFK assassination.

        • Jonathan says:

          Why? Because he covered up CIA information about Oswald?

          What if the CIA had a lot of information on Oswald and was using him: Would that mean Angleton or the CIA as an institution played a role in killing JFK?

          • “Would that mean Angleton or the CIA as an institution played a role in killing JFK?” ~Jonathan

            As far as Counter Intelligence, Angleton was the institution.
            \\][//

  2. GM says:

    Bill Harvey is a very intriguing figure in the story of the Kennedy administration, and perhaps even the assassination of JFK. It would be interesting to know if those who interviewed Mrs Harvey asked her whether she read her husband’s documents before destroying them or not. Is there not a theory that Bill Harvey would have known the identities of those who took part in the false defector programs into the Soviet Union?

  3. George Taylor says:

    Jeff you should make a documentary on the assassination. It should include interviews with the CIA Officers of that time that are still living or their spouses. This stuff is fascinating.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [George Taylor:]

      “Jeff you should make a documentary on the assassination.”

      ===========================

      George: The people who make this kind of coup denial (related to Evolution and Climate Denial) documentaries:

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

      … have no problem getting generous funding. The documentary above was financed by the Koch Brothers.

      Meanwhile Peter Coyote (Democrat)…

      http://www.nndb.com/people/415/000024343/

      … and his companions cannot get the film “A Coup In Camelot” shown anywhere.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        I recently got this e-mail from one of the film producers:

        ===============================
        From: Stephen Goetsch
        To: Ramon F Herrera
        Subject: Re: When?
        Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 09:44:25 +0000

        ​Ramon,

        Great to hear from you, thanks so much for your interest in the film! The wait is also bothering me as well!

        The film is still in the process of being screened by potential distribution/release partners. Nothing is set yet. Once we know a little more in terms of future theatrical, cable or home viewing availability, I will make sure that you are notified. We do have European distribution set up but are still looking for something domestic.

        Thanks for reaching out!

        ART​​​

        ________________________________________
        From: Ramon F Herrera
        Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:35 PM
        To: Stephen Goetsch
        Subject: When?

        I am sure I am not the only one impatiently waiting to watch your movie.

        Can you provide an ETA?

        What is the delay?

        -Ramon F Herrera
        Houston, Texas

  4. Ramon F Herrera says:

    [Jonathan:]

    “One thing’s for sure: if Harvey did it, Angleton didn’t. They hated each other. ”

    ==============================

    Politics makes strange bedfellows. People that hate each other cooperate nonetheless, even smile for the cameras. See Establishment v. Tea Party, or any group of presidential candidates. RFK and LBJ, JFK and Hoover.

    It is completely plausible that Angleton was in charge of setting up and preparing Oswald as a “sleeper”, while Mr. Harvey would be in charge of his specialty: selecting and hiring murderers from the mafia to do the dirty work. After all, his expertise -job description, indeed- ran the gamut from magnicides to more pedestrian homicides.

    Probability Analysis and Database of JFK Assassination Witness Deaths:

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/a-probability-analysis-of-witness-deaths-within-one-year-of-the-jfk-assassination/

  5. Pat Speer says:

    I suspect Jeff left off one of the most damning things about Harvey. The most comprehensive book on Harvey, Flawed Patriot, was written by Bayard Stockton, who’d worked with Harvey in the CIA. But instead of being the defense of Harvey one might normally expect, the book takes seriously the possibility Harvey was involved in, among other things, the Kennedy assassination. It comes out, as I recall, concluding that it’s possible…

    To be honest, it’s been awhile since I looked at the book… If someone has it and considers it a defense of Harvey, please fire away…

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      It’s been a while since I read it too. But it was not a defense of Harvey Per Se. It was mostly a biography on his ascension and the highlights of his career. It didn’t deal with his possible involvement in the assassination in any great depth but did not dispel any such notions at the same time. Interesting perspective from a former employee of his.

  6. LMB says:

    Andy Alderton states in his Nov. 8 comments “I do recall vividly her saying that WKH intentionally did not kill Castro and misled RFK but made it look like he was” trying”. My brother may recall a little better but she mentioned the passing of poison pills to someone for show and that if he wanted Castro dead he would be dead. But WKH did not believe in killing heads of state.”
    I would like to know more on this. In Jack Anderson 1994 investigative reports, I believed there were six supposedly unsuccessful attempts mentioned about Castro. One of these being the one she mentioned. Could this be a very important point about “misled RFK but made it look like he was” trying”. Could it be another action plan was placed underneath (the Kill Castro) as mentioned by J. Newman in these types covert activities? That Freudian slip said a lot too.

  7. Jim R says:

    Based on Harvey’s background with the Berlin Tunnel, it is plausible he was the CIA’s point man for cooperation with the NSA. It is a reasonable assumption that whatever was going on in New Orleans and Mexico City in 1963 had something to do with gathering intelligence on the Soviet listening post under construction in Cuba at the time. This could be the reason Harvey’s operation files are still secret after 50 years.

  8. leslie sharp says:

    Harvey was openly contemptuous and insubordinate …
    He [WKHarvey] was a dangerous man….
    His [WKHarvey] colleagues regarded him as dangerous….
    Harvey was a “hard-boiled, unsubtle, ruthless guy who was in my opinion, a very dangerous man.”
    Harvey was involved in the CIA’s plot to kill Fidel Castro
    Harvey had something to hide.

    Substitute the name Lee Harvey Oswald in every instance that William K. Harvey’s name is mentioned. Is there a pattern?

  9. Jeff Pascal says:

    The simplest common theme of a JFK Assassination conspiracy is the plots against Castro were somehow turned against JFK. This is what most of our better Kennedy Assassination Authors already believe to some extent, so this understanding can build unity.

  10. Bogman says:

    IMO, if Harvey wasn’t involved in a conspiracy to kill the president, then nobody was.

    There was so much treasonous word and deed going on among high-level intel operators like Harvey during this time, it’s not difficult to see them taking the “patriotic” next step to stop a communist “appeaser” in the WH.

    Harvey hated JFK but was buddies with the mobster hired for his skills in murder for hire? Harvey sends commando crews into Cuba at the height of the Cuban missile crisis against direct orders of the president? Harvey is feared by his own colleagues as a maniac in an agency known for nurturing them? Harvey is humiliated and banished by RFK?

    Harvey had means, motive and opportunity, turning around the team built to kill Castro and aiming it at Kennedy. In fact, the Castro plot may have been the cover for the JFK plot to begin with. Maybe Harvey’s wife was right the first time and didn’t mispeak – Roselli was recruited to kill Kennedy not Castro.

    While Harvey played the choir boy in his testimony to the Church committee, he did offer at least one possible scenario for moving ahead with a political assassination:

    “I can conceive of it being perfectly within the province of an intelligence service, on proper orders from the proper highest authority in case of utter necessity, to eliminate a threat to the security of this country by any means whatever, whether it’s a nuclear strike or a rifle shot, if I may be that blunt.”

    One just wonders who he would consider the “highest authority” if he had no respect for the Kennedy’s.

    https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=33940&relPageId=24

    • Photon says:

      You have already placed this man in a conspiracy to kill JFK simply because he didn’t like the man.
      There is zero evidence that he was a member of a plot to kill JFK.
      There is zero evidence of any CIA involvement in the assassination of JFK.
      The only evidence uncovered concerning the CIA ( and the FBI for that matter) has been largely CYA attempts to hide the fact that nobody really paid attention to Oswald prior to Nov. 22, 1963. Was it criminal negligence ? Possibly. Active participation? Show me the money.Not speculation. Not innuendo. Not even “eyewitness” testimony. Show a single authentic document.

      • Mike Chesser says:

        Bill Harvey had David Sanchez Morales transferred to Miami in early 1963, to head up operations of the ZRrifle assassinations program.

        The same David Sanchez Morales who said to his friends, including Ruben Carbajal, about JFK – “well, we took care of that SOB, didn’t we?”

        Harvey’s files from that time period remain withheld.

        Why did Harvey continue to meet with Johnny Roselli in 1963, after Harvey’s transfer to Rome?

        [Jack Anderson, of the Washington Post, interviewed Roselli just before he was murdered. On 7th September, 1976, the newspaper reported Roselli as saying : “When Oswald was picked up, the underworld conspirators feared he would crack and disclose information that might lead to them. This almost certainly would have brought a massive US crackdown on the Mafia. So Jack Ruby was ordered to eliminate Oswald.”]

        Hard evidence, no. But these guys weren’t amateurs, were they?

      • George Simmons says:

        In response to Photon, Nov 10 6:49am

        You state that there is zero evidence that WKH was a member of a plot to kill JFK. However, we can not dismiss the possibility that such evidence exists because the CIA retains 123 pages of material on Harvey’s secret operations.

        You also state “show a single authentic document”. But the CIA are retaining many documents until 2017, at the earliest. For example, documents relating to George Joannides. Maybe your request to produce an authentic document would make more sense once all the documents have been released.

        What we do know regarding the CIA, is that they lied to and mislead official investigations into the assassination. I would imagine that, for many, these deceptions by the CIA speak just as loud as any document.

      • bogman says:

        I will add to the comments above with this:

        I never saw any comment from the lone nut theorists on this but the government lead on the second major investigation into the JFK case released this statement at a conference in September.

        “I no longer trust anything that the Agency has told us in regard to the assassination. It lied to the Warren Commission. It lied to the ARRB. It lied to the HSCA.

        I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on anypoint. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all his testimony. The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation.

        It is time that either Congress or the Justice Department conducts a real investigation of the CIA. Indeed, in my opinion, it is long past time.”

        — Robert Blakey, former chief counsel, HSCA

        With that, as an American, I will feel free to speculate on what a high-level U.S. intelligence officer in charge of assassinations, who disobeyed presidential orders in a time of crisis, was a close friend of a mobster, was doing in 1963.

      • Steve R. says:

        You expect there would be government documents about CIA involvement in the assassination of JFK that have survived to this day?

        That is unrealistic. Maybe even ridiculous.

        However, you could try to track down the investigation report Ted Shackley ordered regarding JMWAVE assets knowledge of JFK’s assassination. Shackley tasked Tony Sforza to handle that. Tony was a trainer of AMOTs (top anti-Castro operatives), good friends with Dave Morales, and a very formidable man himself.

        Though I don think the results were ever disclosed to the HSCA or anyone else.

        Or, you could ask Dan Hardway about the motive, means and opportunity paper he wrote for the HSCA about Harvey and Roselli, which was deep-sixed and presumably lost.

      • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

        Prior to the assassination, the CIA did pay attention to Oswald. In Mexico City, the COS abstained to report him as operational interest, although he was detected trying to travel illegally to Cuba in route to the URSS. Against its own protocol, the CIA erased the tapes of the tapped phone calls with some Oswald speaking. The CIA also sent different cables to Mexico City and to federal agencies regarding the same subject (LHO). CIA officers Phillips and Goodpasture blatantly lied to Lopez and Hardway not only about the tapes, but also about the conspiracy fact that the CIA never produced an Oswald´s photo despite its routine of photo surveillance over both the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic compounds. Just for summarizing, the senior liaison officer on the Counterintelligence Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Jane Roman, admitted that the handling of the relevant files at the CIA indicates “a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.”

      • James says:

        There is zero evidence of any CIA involvement. Lol photon you really are a piece of work. Like many others in time you’ll end up with egg on your face and look an ever bigger prat.

  11. Ronnie Wayne says:

    THANK YOU to the Alderton brothers for recording this important History and sharing it. Thanks to Jeff for providing a place it could be done. I still believe there is more yet to be shared by others.

  12. John Kennedy for decades was a heavy, heavy user of prostitutes and a completely sexually unhinged man. You would think the Kennedy groupies would quit screaming every time this man’s demented sex life was documented YET AGAIN (this time by Mrs. Harvey)… but the truth is not purifying to cult members.

    And that is one thing I detest about JFK research; there are far too many people in it who deludedly worship the Kennedys and cover up for them just as the Warren Commission covered up for JFK’s murderers (LBJ, CIA, military intelligence). Robert Kennedy was making a whole lot of enemies and it came back to bite him with his brother’s murder.

    I suggest folks go to the 21 minute mark of Lawrence Wright’s speech about the atmosphere of Dallas in 1963. Lawrence Wright’s father was a banker in Ponca City, Oklahoma in the year 1950 when Sen. Kennedy came to visit. The advance people for JFK told Lawrence Wright’s banker father that John Kennedy required the services of a prostitute for his trip to Oklahoma.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_J0j2RYdg

    I think Mrs. Harvey is 100% correct that JFK ordered the CIA to bring him 2 hookers for his Rome trip. Standard operating procedure for John Kennedy. JFK also had hookers before his debates with Nixon in 1960, in addition to his meth shots.

    • JSA says:

      No doubt the Kennedy’s were ruthless politicians, and that John F. Kennedy had sexual affairs all over the place, although, to borrow from Photon, I don’t have any documents to prove these allegations, yet I still find them to be credible. And although I can’t prove it, I would wager to say the death of Marilyn Monroe was probably aided or covered up by the Kennedy’s and wasn’t just a suicide. But I can’t prove it, so it’s just speculation…

      My issue is that Kennedy was killed because of his politics, not because he was screwing women right and left. To me it doesn’t matter how many people JFK had sex with. The only issue in that realm that I would care about would be Judith Campbell and maybe the East German spy, both of whom could have seriously compromised our security. I think if all JFK did was sleep around, he would have lived to run in 1964. But it was his politics (specifically regarding his attempts to cut CIA back, his reluctance to go to war, and the threat of the partial nuclear test ban deal that signed his death warrant. Add to that an extremely dangerous Vice President who would murder and stuff ballot boxes to seize power, and you have the elements of an assassination.

      Mrs. Harvey’s views were common among the far right wing, the kind of people who put up the full page “Wanted for Treason” page in the Dallas newspaper. And let’s not forget, Abraham Lincoln was killed in a conspiracy by right wing nuts who didn’t like the fact that the North had won and that the slaves had been given emancipation. I happen to think that even with his reckless sexual affairs and his often pain in the ass brother, Bobby, JFK was one of the better presidents we ever had, POLITICALLY. Certainly better than LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and the Bushes. No contest.

      • lysias says:

        And, if sexual promiscuity is someone’s reason for objecting to JFK, LBJ was at least as bad in that department. So it’s difficult to understand someone supporting or tolerating the assassination of JFK for that reason.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        JSA November 10, 2014 at 11:22 am

        You left out Obama. Please tell me you think JFK was a better president than Obama.

        • JSA says:

          For the record, I voted for Obama: Twice. He’s not Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt, or FDR for that matter. His policies (trying to get universal health care, trying to fight global warming, trying to use Keynesian-style stimulus methods to ward off a great depression in 2009, siding with net neutrality to keep the web open and free, etc.—-I generally support. I think he’s been stymied by the extreme partisanship that this country hasn’t seen since the Civil War, and because he hasn’t actively tried to dismantle what Dana Priest calls the “Massive Intelligence Versailles on the Potomac” that grew on steroids after 9/11 he hasn’t been assassinated as JFK was. I don’t know where to rank Obama yet. I support him, and I think he’s not as bad as FOX News and the public opinion polls have him. History may rank him close to Harry Truman after the baby boomer white male population has died off.

        • sgt_doom says:

          JFK established the Interest Equalization Act to benefit American industry, appointed the real winners for the creation of the Internet, which led to the Web and untold progress for years to come, and the NASA/Apollo Project (Moon landing) which led to untold technological advances for many years to come; promised Latin America he wouldn’t send troops there, unveiled the Alliance for Progress, radical land reform in South America similar to what Jacobo Arbenz had proposed (greatly changed after Kennedy’s murder), stood up to US Steel and GE on behalf of the workers, was responsible for Executive Order 11110, which pumped out $4.3 billion debt-free money directly to the American economy, going around the Federal Reserve, which would have created debt-based monies, established the US NAVE SEAL commandos to aid in global pro-democracy insurgency movements (instead of what they are used for the past few decades), and save the US Army Special Forces from extinction, for the same reason, and sent out memos that a complete withdrawal, starting the end of November 1963, was to begin regarding US military advisors in Vietnam.

    • R. Andrew Kiel says:

      Not one of these charges about JFK’s use of prostitutes or even affairs was ever documented while he was alive. Most if not all of these charges came out in the press after he and RFK were murdered.

      Is it likely that JFK was an adulterer – yes – but the only reliable sources would be from SS agents who would be outside the bedroom door – there are no films, photos, or audio recordings to prove what happened inside the room. Mary Meyer probably had an affair with JFK but her diary has not been produced – how can one truly document their affair since Meyer herself was murdered?

      In 1997 three SS agents including Tim McIntyre ( who was riding in the SS car & was implicated in the drinking incident the night before JFK was killed) appeared on ABC television “Dangerous World – The Kennedy Years” & criticized JFK for his womanizing & that he was difficult to protect as a result. SS agents Roy Kellerman, Jerry Kivett, Floyd Boring all disagreed with McIntire. Kivett stated that “JFK was “beloved by his agents on the detail & not difficult to protect”. Whom do we believe & why? It is also quite possible that some of JFK’s SS agents failed to protect him – did it benefit them to portray JFK in a bad light as an adulterer?

      Jimmy Hoffa claimed he had a copy of a sex tape of JFK but as Hoffa’s associate Harold Gibbons said “If Jimmy had something on the Kennedy’s he would have used it. The pressure was on him, and he would’ve done just about anything to turn it off” – he never produced the tape & Hoffa lived until 1974 & had plenty of time to further sully JFK’s reputation.

      Seymour Hersh in the Dark Side of Camelot attempted to use letters from Marilyn Monroe & JFK to prove an affair took place between the two. The letters were proven to be fakes & Lawrence Cusack – who furnished the letters was convicted on 13 charges of mail & wire fraud.

      As stated before – JFK most likely had affairs but why all the efforts to forge information on these affairs – apparently some wanted to tarnish his legacy with forged info just as E. Howard Hunt was documented forging cables linking JFK to the assassination of Diem in South Vietnam.

      If JFK was actually guilty of these charges – why not allow the “real” documentation to come to the surface?

      • JSA says:

        Most women (girls in the case of Mimi Alford the WH intern) didn’t get any “documentation”. All we have is their (in some cases incredibly detailed) accounts, but no signed document by JFK saying “I had sex with you.” No tapes or films either. But all you have to do is read about the Kennedy family to know that sexual infidelity was all over the place. As I said however, to me except for possible blackmail or security leak threats, these things didn’t matter. Leaders’ private lives aren’t the same as their public policy-making decisions. JFK didn’t have to buy prostitutes (at least later in his life) because they came freely furnished or women came to him (or he to them) with no strings attached (during the affairs). Most historians accept that this went on. It’s not new information.

        • R. Andrew Kiel says:

          Mimi Alford waited 40 years to tell her story – Dave Powers, Ken O’Donnell, Jackie Kennedy & the others who might support Alford or JFK are all dead. Yes – I believe that JFK & her relationship has been documented.

          However – JFK never got to tell his side of the story. DId Alford embellish her story to sell a book? Did JFK really tell her that he would rather have his children under communist rule than be dead from a nuclear war as she stated in her book.

          These are questions that are hard to find a definitive answer to!

          • JSA says:

            I agree. She could have embellished. She waited in part out of shame, if her story is true. I didn’t say I could prove her story is true, but I find most of it to be credible. Some people need to see stains on dresses. But in our society, women have had to assert themselves in what was once a male-dominated society. Ms. Alford came from that world. I’m sure that must have weighed on her mind when she thought about saying something in public earlier, as well as sparing hurt to the survivors in the family.

            It took YEARS before Charles Lindberg’s two other German families were finally revealed, from his time after WW2 in West Germany as an Air Force General. His Anne Morrow Lindbergh family accepted it as true.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        [R. Andrew Kiel:]

        “the only reliable sources would be from SS agents who would be outside the bedroom door – there are no films, photos, or audio recordings to prove what happened inside the room. ”

        ==========================

        Andrew:

        The basic _premise_ of this affair is credible (other sources confirm it), but I am convinced that the book publishers must have enticed Mrs. Mimi Alford to spice it up.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/jfk-intern-mimi-alford-shares-story-of-her-affair-with-kennedy-in-new-book-relevant-historian-robert-dallek-says-yes/2012/02/06/gIQAFgF1uQ_blog.html

      • lysias says:

        Didn’t Phillip Graham reveal to colleagues that JFK and Mary Meyer were having an affair? Don’t we have Timothy Leary’s testimony that Meyer told him about the affair?

        • R. Andrew Kiel says:

          Again – Timothy Leary & Philip Graham were allegedly told by others about JFK & Mary Meyer (maybe Meyer herself) – as I stated before I believe that JFK had affairs but I also believe that some have been blown out of proportion to further sully JFK’s reputation.

          • Ramon F Herrera says:

            “I also believe that some have been blown out of proportion to further sully JFK’s reputation.”

            ===================

            Andrew: A better choice of words would be “character ASSASSINATION”.

            If Mr. Harvey did not use that weapon from his arsenal, he was incompetent.

    • I find it curious that Kennedy, the lover of women is compared unfavorably to Bill Harvey a killer of men.
      \\][//

  13. Nominay says:

    As I suggested in the previous thread on Harvey just yesterday, “There is evidence of Harvey’s involvement in the JFK assassination via Eugene Dinkin, and E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession (no quotations) corroborates this.”

  14. Allen Lowe says:

    Jeff, though I admire your work, you really do have no proof, as I mentioned before, of JFK’s womanizing, especially the tale of two prostitutes, and especially considering the source. As for the JFK murder done as a turn-around of Castro assassination plots: yes, the most likely scenario, but not in the RFK-was-Fooled sense. As the CIA’s own internal audit (and Jim DiEugenio’s fine work), shows. the Kennedys were not aware of the murder plots. The turnaround was more internal – remember Nagell trying to warn LHO that the agents who portrayed themselves as Cuban intelligence were actually anti-Castroites? Their cover was likely aimed at those in the immediate vicinity whom they considered as patsies and whomever they had to fool; certainly no one else (except maybe McAdams) believes that Castro wanted JFK dead.

  15. Eddy says:

    Is it not the case that David Phillips alleged LHO was supposed to kill Castro, and used the same plot to kill Kennedy?

    With regard to the argument that Harvey and Angleton could not be part of the same plot, perhaps they weren’t. If it was Harvey’s plot ,perhaps he left a mess that others in the CIA had to to cover up?

  16. H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

    I think it would be good in your continued piece to include info about CG Harvey’s background; she, apart from her husband, had a fascinating early life that deserves attention.

  17. Allen Lowe says:

    “I don’t have any documents to prove these allegations, yet I still find them to be credible.” Yes, Credible because they match other unproven and dumb allegations. Same with Morrow, who’s speculations here are bizarre; JFK sexually unhinged? National Enquirer-level ideas (actually not even that credible). The only thing missing is…..evidence.

    • JSA says:

      Seriously Allen? You think JFK never had any affairs? I find that one as difficult to believe as the notion that J. Edgar Hoover was NOT gay. I suppose if I don’t have proof that Liberace was gay I have to assume that he was straight too? Let’s talk about dumb allegations, because a person would have to be STUPID to not be able to read between the lines.

      The pattern of JFK’s sexual infidelity is credible. You can split hairs all you like, but I’m going to stick to my hunch on this one. “Sexually unhinged” is a value judgement that I don’t share, but what Morrow says about LBJ is pretty damned spot on. If you think Lyndon was clean, you should go speak with Coke Stevenson’s family down in Texas.

  18. Allen Lowe says:

    1) there is lots of proof that Liberace was gay, including his last partner’s testimony and lawsuits, in great detail (I also knew the guy); 2) I never said LBJ was clean; 3) there IS no pattern of JFK’s sexual infidelity except that all sources lack credibility, are trying to sell books, have NO third party corroboration, or are connected to US Intelligence. I’m glad YOU have a hunch; not good enough for me. As for reading between the lines, all those lines were written by Mafioso and CIA stooges. There is still no proof, only post-mortem speculation.

  19. Phil Gurholt says:

    I find it interesting that Dave Morales had roots in Arizona. Correct me if I am wrong, but a dark complected man was observed on the six floor of the SBD along with a car with Arizona license plates in the railroad yard. These observations by Arnold Roland and Lee Bowers were made minutes before the assassination. Obviously the conclusion I am drawing is speculation but I also think it is curious.

  20. I just finished reading Mr Morley’s “The Good Spy” and found it quite compelling. I was drawn to it initially by the name of this ‘good spy’, and wonder if there are any close family connections.
    By the way, I am a singer too!
    \\][//

  21. Roy W Kornbluth says:

    William K. Harvey is a testament of the psychopathic fruits of long-term alcohol poisoning.

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