1 thought on “A conversation about espionage and counterintelligence ”

  1. Great book. Whilst I think that these reviews and discussions highlight the fact of Angleton’s pre assasination monitoring of Oswald, not enough is made of the second point. This being that Angleton’s team misled the Mexico CIA office when they queried about Oswald a few weeks prior to the Death of the president. Angleton’s office knowingly provided misleading details on Oswald’s activities- to the CIA office in Mexico.
    This document was signed off at the highest levels. The reviewers saying that there was no actionable evidence prior to the assassination need to explain this point.
    When Mr Moreley interviewed Mrs Goodpasture in the 90s she could not explain this.
    It is one thing to miss something..it is quite another to knowingly provide wrong information to your own office that was capable of picking up Oswald. In other words Angleton’s office did not want Oswald to be picked up and stopped.
    This is evidence…along with the odd manipulation of Oswalds CIA records prior and after his defection and also the former head of the Russian division at the CIA confirming to Malcolm Blunt that Oswald was a knowing fake defector.
    The reviewers….e.g. The times (U.K. Version) need to explain these points before coming to a conclusion. Otherwise their conclusion of cockup rather than conspiracy holds little water.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top