VOL. 7, ISSUE 4 WINTER 2001 DEDICATED TO THE STUDY OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.

KENNEDY

IN THIS ISSUE:
• Jamey Hecht
• John Williams
• Larry Hancock
• Rex Bradford
 JFK LANCER
PRODUCTIONS &
Features:
2 Voices
PUBLICATIONS
“Serving the research community — 3 Passages
educating a new generation.” 7 Library Patrons
6 In The News
KENNEDY ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES 48 JFK Lancer Resource Mail Order
Senior Editor: LARRY HAAPANEN
Editor: ALAN ROGERS
Managing Editor: DEBRA CONWAY
Layout: DEBRA CONWAY Articles:
4 Issues annually
http://www.jfklancer.com/Chronicles.html
8 November In Dallas
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION:
US $30
Conference Review
Single/Back Issues $30 per year Debra Conway, Jamey Hecht, Ph.D.
Check your mailing label for the ending issue
of your subscription.
VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER, PAYPAL
accepted.
Check or money order must be drawn on U.S.
17 Reports of the Presidents’
bank.
SUBMIT ARTICLES FOR PUBLICATION TO:
Foreign Intelligence Advisory
editor@jfklancer.com
Board: An Introductory Overview
“NOVEMBER IN DALLAS” RESEARCH John Williams, Ph.D.
CONFERENCE
Held each year in November Dallas, TX
http://www.jfklancer.com/Dallas.html
20 Mysteries of the 112th
LANCER INDEPENDENT NEWS EXCHANGE
Media Alert Service Intelligence Corp
http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE Larry Hancock
JFK ALLIANCE for OPEN ARCHIVES
Declassification/Access Advocacy Group
http://www.jfkalliance.com
28 More Mexico Mysteries
Rex Bradford
RESEARCH & PRODUCTION
Debra Conway

Please don’t forget to

817-424-0292 conwayd@jfklancer.com

Digital Document Imaging re-subscribe to KAC.

Materials on President John F. Kennedy
& related subjects.
Free catalog
Tom Jones And tell your friends if
332 NE 5th Street
Grand Prairie, TX 75050 they are interested in the
972-264-2007 tel/fax
888-259-6317 toll free tel/fax Kennedy Assassination to
http://www.flash.net/~jfklancr give us a look.
VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER accepted.
Check or money order must be drawn on U.S.
bank.

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 1

 VOICES
Jamie Sawa regarding the Miller Center:
Here is an update on the information put out by the Miller Center, in Virginia. They have a quarterly report
that I just received in the mail (I downloaded the prior versions from their website). They have been transcribing
and releasing JFK transcripts and just put out a 3-volume set of JFK transcripts (I ordered a set from bn.com)
along with a CD-ROM included of the actual recordings. Their website, in case you haven't heard of them, is:
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu
They have been releasing things over the last year or so on JFK in their reports. You can either download
the report from their website each quarter, or sign up for the free version by mail.
Jamie Sawa via email

Joe Backes regarding Body of Secrets book Review:

There is no news here. There is no “revelation” here. None at all. This material was an ARRB release
January 29, 1998. Bamford acts like he got this material declassified, he did not. That it's getting media atten-
tion at all is because someone the media will pay attention to put it in a book, only after it was removed from all
context of the JFK assassination, the JFK Act, and Board that got it declassified in the first place. That’s
insulting.
It’s getting “new” media attention to try to tie it into the September 11th attacks, as though the US govern-
ment had similar plans to plow commercial airliners into buildings. The National Security Archive thought this
was news in April -
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
I think we are being used here, by Bamford to promote his book as Project Northwoods is something
getting a lot of attention from that book, and Bamford had nothing to do with getting it out to the public, we did.
If you want to thank someone for them, thank Doug Horne.
I think JFK assassination researchers need to point out who got this material released. Also, it should not be
seen as having any connection to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Here are the RIF numbers.
1.) 198-10004-10204
2.) 198-10004-10038
3.) 198-10004-10147
4.) 198-10004-10150

Joseph Backes via the internet

Look for links to documents or
resource materials from this issue at
JFK Lancer Online:

http:www.jfklancer.com/kac_winter01/

Note: The Northwoods documents are

available at
http://www.jfklancer.com/kac_winter01/

2 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

 PASSAGES
Representative John A. Young
January 22, 2002
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) - Former U.S. Rep.
John A. Young, who was in the motorcade carrying
President Kennedy when he was assassinated, died in
Virginia. He was 85. Young, a Corpus Christi native,
served as representative for 22 years, until he was de-
feated in the 1978 Democratic primary. He later prac-
ticed law in Washington, D.C., and in Corpus Christi,
as well as working as a lobbyist.
During 1978, Young fought to get funding ap-
proved to continue operations at Naval Air Station
Corpus Christi to keep the base along. During the 1960s,
Young pushed for an international airport in the city
and was a strong supporter of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Young also served as a Nueces County judge, Nueces
County attorney and assistant district attorney.
He was a retired U.S. Navy lieutenant commander
and served during World War II.
Oris Burl “O.B.” Johnson: Longtime officer
with Dallas police
January 19, 2002
By JOE SIMNACHER / The Dallas Morning News
Services for retired Dallas police Officer Oris Burl
"O.B." Johnson were on Saturday at Troy Suggs Funeral
Home. Mr. Johnson, 86, died Thursday at Baylor
University Medical Center of complications after
surgery last month for an abdominal aneurysm. He was
buried in Grove Hill Memorial Park in Dallas.
Mr. Johnson had a 31-year career with the Police
Department, including stints as a patrolman, a traffic
officer and a youth detective. He retired in 1973 as a
sergeant in general assignments. Mr. Johnson was born
in Tool, Texas, and grew up in Henderson County. A
high school graduate, he joined the Dallas Police De-
partment in 1942.
He was one of Dallas' first traffic officers, said
his son, Dale Johnson of Mesquite. "He loved the job.
He liked helping people," his son said. "He liked the
camaraderie."
Mr. Johnson was stationed at Dallas Market Hall,
where President John F. Kennedy was to speak on Nov.
22, 1963, when he was assassinated. Mr. Johnson was
a member of Friendship Baptist Church in Mesquite
and a member of James Ladd Burgess Masonic Lodge
No. 1305 for more than 50 years.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
In addition to his son, Mr. Johnson is survived by
his wife, Ima T. Johnson of Balch Springs; a daughter,
Bettie Barnhart of Dallas; five grandchildren; seven
great-grandchildren; and four great-great-grandchil-
dren.
Roy “Kees” Higgins: Former Dallas police
officer on duty when JFK was shot
January 19, 2002
By JOE SIMNACHER / The Dallas Morning News
Services for Roy “Kees” Higgins, a former Dal-
las police officer who was on duty when President John
F. Kennedy was assassinated, will be at 10 a.m. Satur-
day at Tyler Street United Methodist Church, 927 W.
10th St. Mr. Higgins, 79, died Wednesday of cancer at
his DeSoto home. He will be buried in Laurel Land
Memorial Park.
On Nov. 22, 1963, Mr. Higgins was on a traffic
detail at the Dallas Market Center, where he was await-
ing the arrival of the presidential motorcade when all
available officers were summoned to Parkland Memo-
rial Hospital, said his son, Doug Higgins of Arlington.
“He was very close to Parkland and pulled in sec-
onds after the motorcade," his son said. "He assisted in
the removal of the president from his car.” Kennedy
was declared dead shortly after his arrival at Parkland.
The historic day brought a second shock for Mr.
Higgins. Officer J.D. Tippit was killed in the Oak Cliff
neighborhood Mr. Higgins normally patrolled, his son
said. Officer Tippit is thought to have been shot and
killed by Lee Harvey Oswald less than an hour after
the assassination of the president.
Mr. Higgins was born in Maypearl, Texas, where
he graduated from high school. He served in World War
II as a medic in the Army Air Corps. He joined the
Dallas Police Department in 1948 and retired in 1973.
He was a Dallas County constable's officer from 1973
until his retirement in 1987.
In addition to his son, Mr. Higgins is survived by
his wife, Mary Lu Higgins of DeSoto; another son, Tom
Higgins of Carrollton; a sister, LaVerne Lewis of
Waxahachie; four grandchildren; and one great-grand-
child.
Memorials may be made to the Tyler Street United
Methodist Church, 927 W. 10th St., Dallas, TX 75208.
Vol. 7, Issue 4 3

Charles A. Crenshaw
November 19, 2001
By DRAKE WITHAM and LINDA
STEWART BALL / The Dallas
Morning News
Dr. Charles Andrew Crenshaw,
one of several who treated President
John F. Kennedy’s gunshot wounds nearly 38 years ago,
went to his grave insisting Lee Harvey Oswald was not
the lone gunman.
Dr. Crenshaw, chairman emeritus of the Depart-
ment of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital, died of
natural causes at his Fort Worth home Thursday. His
family said Dr. Crenshaw’s health had been deteriorat-
ing in recent years. He was 68 years old.
“He was quite a guy,” said Dr. David McReynolds,
chairman of the surgery department at John Peter Smith.
“He's one of those guys that demanded respect, earned
it, and got it. It wasn’t Chuck. It was Dr. Crenshaw or
The Chief.”
Dr. Crenshaw started the surgery department at
John Peter Smith single-handedly in 1966, Dr.
McReynolds said, and was its backbone in those early
years, on call practically every night.
But some controversy surrounded Dr. Crenshaw's
later years when he recounted his emergency room treat-
ment of Kennedy and Oswald in two books question-
ing the findings of the Warren Commission.
Dr. Crenshaw, an emergency room doctor at
Parkland Memorial Hospital on the days Kennedy and
Oswald died in November 1963, wrote about his expe-
rience in the 1992 book JFK: Conspiracy of Silence.
In it, Dr. Crenshaw detailed his contention that Kennedy
had been shot twice from the front, contradicting the
findings of the Warren Commission that Oswald was
the lone assassin, firing from behind the president.
“It was just supposed to be this little book, a pa-
perback in which he wanted to say what he saw,” said
his wife, Susan Lea Crenshaw. “Then it just exploded,
and he was getting all of this national, and even inter-
national, attention.” “He was disappointed that some
of the other doctors did not come to his defense,” Ms.
Crenshaw said, adding that the few who did remain
good friends.
“I’m very sad that he died,” Dr. Bob McClelland
said. The professor of surgery at University of Texas
Southwestern Medical School at Dallas was in the op-
erating room at Parkland when Dr. Crenshaw, then a
4 JFK Lancer
resident, found him. The pair rushed to the
emergency room to help tend to the president.
“He was a very bright person,” Dr. McClelland
said of Dr. Crenshaw.
“Of course, he got a lot of notoriety with
that book he wrote. He certainly was not writ-
ing on the basis of his imagination. ... Unfor-
tunately, there were some misconceptions
about it on both sides of the fence – on his
side, and on the side of people who criticized
him.”
The published account made him somewhat of a
hero in the eyes of those who have said all along that
there was more than one gunman. “Other doctors spoke
out, but he was the most vocal of them,” said Tom
Bowden, president of the Conspiracy Museum in Dal-
las. “That’s the key.”
Mr. Bowden said Dr. Crenshaw was well known
among those who discount the Warren Commission’s
findings. Many were eagerly awaiting his next book,
released [last November]. “Unfortunately, a lot of the
witnesses of those days are dying off,” Mr. Bowden
said. “That does create a loss for the conspiracy com-
munity, those guys who believed in what we believe
in.”
Dr. Crenshaw’s second book, Trauma Room One,
includes the first book, plus information about lawsuits
that Dr. Crenshaw brought against his detractors and
details that had come out since his first book was pub-
lished, Ms. Crenshaw said.
“He was so happy that the book came out,” Ms.
Crenshaw said. “He just wanted to live long enough
for this book to come out so it would prove that what
he said in the first book was true.” But she said her
husband’s true passion was medicine. “His legacy is
not a book,” she said. "His life was building John Peter
Smith Hospital, and that's his legacy.”
Dr. Crenshaw was born and raised in Paris, Texas,
before graduating from Southern Methodist University
in 1953 with a bachelor’s degree. He earned a master’s
degree in biology from East Texas State Teacher’s Col-
lege, now Texas A&M-Commerce, in 1955 and a doc-
torate from Baylor University in 1957. He earned a
medical degree at the University of Texas Southwest-
ern Medical School in 1960 and interned at the Veter-
ans Administration Hospital in 1961. He completed his
assistant residency in surgery at Parkland in 1965 and
his senior residency in surgery in 1966.
He served as the chairman of the surgery depart-
ment of John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth from
1966 to 1992, and he was a member of several medical
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
associations. Commission.
Services were held at the First Presbyterian I repeatedly asked JAMA for a retraction and cor-
Church, 100 Penn St., in Fort Worth. Cremation pre- rection and received correspondence denying our re-
ceded the services. quest. My coauthor Gary Shaw and I were advised to
Besides his wife, Dr. Crenshaw is survived by his sue JAMA, and on November 22, 1992, exactly 29 years
son, Charles A. Crenshaw II; his daughter, Adelaide since that fateful day in Dallas, we filed suit for “slan-
Andrews; and two grandchildren. der with malice.” In October, 1994, we agreed to court-
ordered mediation and accepted a monetary settlement
offered by JAMA. The litigation details and exposure
Author’s Note: of JAMA ‘s unethical publication are included in this
book in the section written by our attorney, D. Bradley
Why This Book Was Updated Kizzia.
By Charles A. The House Select Committee on Assassinations
(HSCA) concluded in 1979 that President Kennedy’s
Crenshaw death was the result of a probable conspiracy, but their
records were sealed until the year 2029. The 1992 Presi-
The book I origi- dent John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collec-
nally wrote with Jen tion Act (JFK Act) was a unique solution to nearly thirty
Hansen and J. Gary Shaw, years of government secrecy, and the government was
JFK: Conspiracy required to release whatever information it had con-
ofSilence, was published cerning the assassination. The JFK Act created an in-
in April, 1992 and was dependent board that would oversee the government’s
well-received across the implementation of the Act, the Assassination Record
nation by the American Review Board (ARRB).
public. I had broken the Many of the revelations from the ARRB have
substantiated my allegations in the original book. Ac-
cording to Saundra
Spencer, the autopsy
“edict of silence” thrust upon photographs of Presi-
us, those who tried to save dent Kennedy that
“I have no idea who shot President she developed at the
President John F. Kennedy,
Kennedy or why. What I do know is Naval Photography
and, two days later, his ac-
cused assassin, Lee Harvey
that...there was a medical cover-up” Center in 1963 were
Oswald. My observations different from those
contradicted the “official” in the National Ar-
version of the assassination, chives since 1966.
as reported in the Warren Report. I stated that Presi- The ARRB Report also suggests that Dr. Humes, one
dent Kennedy was shot at least once, and I believe twice, of three autopsy physicians, appears to have changed
from the front, and Oswald could not have been a “lone his Warren Commission testimony when his deposi-
gunman.” I had anticipated criticism from some, but I tion was taken under oath by the ARRB. Additional
never expected the vicious attack from my medical col- testimony questioned the autopsy and brain photogra-
leagues. phy that are now in the National Archive and Records
In May 1992, the editor and a writer for the Jour- Administration.
nal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) called I have no idea who shot President Kennedy or
a press conference in New York to promote a JAMA why. What I do know is that somehow and for some
article which attacked me both personally and profes- reason, there was a medical cover-up. The “official”
sionally. They quoted some of my fellow physicians autopsy photos do not depict the same wounds I saw in
who had been in the Parkland Emergency room on that Trauma Room One at Parkland. The wounds I saw were
tragic day, with statements that varied significantly from wounds of entrance, and thus they could have not come
the testimony that they had sworn to before the Warren from the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Copyright 2001 Charles A. Crenshaw

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 5

 IN THE NEWS
CIA Places “Electronic Reading Room”
Online (Freedom of Information Act)
http://www.foia.cia.gov/default.asp
This new Reading Room replaces the clunky Elec-
tronic Document Release Center (FOIA). The site is
fully searchable and has an advanced interface which
allows limiting by date. A browsable list of Frequently
Requested Records is also available. From the site, “The
CIA has established this site to provide the public with
an overview of access to CIA information, including
electronic access to previously released documents.
Because of CIA’s need to comply with the national se-
curity laws of the United States, some documents or
parts of documents cannot be released to the public.”
February 6, 2002
New Tapes: JFK Questioned Value of
Nuclear Build-Up
Boston: The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library to-
day made public 240 minutes of newly declassified tape
recordings of White House meetings and conversations
that took place in the Cabinet Room on November 21,
27 and 29, and December 5, 1962.
Portions of the tapes may be heard by visiting the
John F. Kennedy Library’s web page at
http://www.jfklibrary.org
The conversations between President John F.
Kennedy and his advisors took place shortly after the
Cuban Missile Crisis and centered on U.S. policy to-
ward Cuba, the accuracy of American press reports on
matters of national security, the military budget, and
the value of nuclear weapons, both as a deterrent and
as a practical weapon.
Of particular interest are President Kennedy’s
candid views of nuclear weapons, nuclear war and de-
terrence. At one point during the December 5 meeting
with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other
military advisors, President Kennedy questions the use-
fulness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, stating:
“If the purpose of our strategic buildup is to
deter the Russians, number one; number two,
to attack them if it looks like they are about
to attack us or be able to lessen the impact
they would have on us in an attack…if our
point really then is to deter them…we have
6 JFK Lancer
an awful lot of megatonnage to put on the
Soviets sufficient to deter them from ever
using nuclear weapons. Otherwise what good
are they? You can’t use them as a first weapon
yourself, they are only good for deterring…I
don’t see quite why we’re building as many
as we’re building.”
March 1, 2002
Kennedy Library Opens Personal Papers of
Arthur Schlesinger
Boston: Researchers, libraries, members of the press, and
members of the public are advised that the John F. Kennedy
Presidential Library has processed and made available for
research four additional series of the Personal Papers of
Arthur M. Schlesinger.
Arthur M. Schlesinger served in the Kennedy Admin-
istration as Special Assistant to the President and is the au-
thor of A Thousand Days and Robert Kennedy and His Times.
The Personal Papers of Arthur Schlesinger -- Classi-
fied Subject File is now open for research. The documents
in the Classified Subject File cover the period from 1961 to
1963 and are arranged alphabetically by subject. There are
31 boxes in this open series. Highlights of the collection in-
clude the folders on disarmament, British Guiana, Cuba, and
the United Nations. Researchers will note that classified por-
tions still remain closed. Withdrawal sheets describing the
closed materials will allow the researchers to request addi-
tional review.
Also opened today is the Personal Papers of Arthur
Schlesinger -- Classified Chronological File that consists of
once classified onion skin copies of memoranda and corre-
spondence written by Arthur Schlesinger to President
Kennedy and other members of the staff from 1961 to 1963.
The file is arranged by year in reverse chronological order.
Copies of many of these documents will be located in other
series within the Schlesinger Papers. Researchers should use
this series in conjunction with the regular Chronological File
of the Schlesinger Papers. Researchers will notice that there
is some duplication between these series.
The Personal Papers of Arthur Schlesinger -- Memo-
randa to the President File is also now available for research.
The series consists of memoranda written to President
Kennedy by Arthur Schlesinger on various topics from 1961
to 1963. They are arranged by year in reverse chronological
order. The Personal Papers of Arthur Schlesinger -- Remarks
for the President File is also now open and consists of speech
and statement drafts written for President John F. Kennedy
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
by Mr. Schlesinger. The two boxes are organized by title or
location and date and are listed chronologically. Research-
ers may find these speech files very useful when used in
conjunction with the speech files already available in the
President’s Office Files and the Papers of Theodore Sorensen.
The collections are available for research use in the
Library’s Research Room. The hours of operation are Mon-
day – Friday from 8:30 am - 4:30 pm, and appointments
may be made by calling (617) 929-4534.
Materials housed at the John F. Kennedy Library have
come to the Library through two routes. First, as Federal
records which come from executive departments, commis-
sions and committees of the Federal government. Access to
these materials is controlled by the originating agency. In
addition, many of these materials contain national security
classified information, which under laws and executive or-
ders must be reviewed by the appropriate agency for pos-
sible declassification. Some of the materials, such as civil
rights cases or litigation, also have privacy restrictions.
Second, as personal papers, which come from indi-
viduals under deeds of gift and deposit agreements negoti-
ated between the National Archives and the donor or his/her
heirs. These materials, called “donated historical materials,”
comprise the bulk of the Library’s holdings. Deeds of gift
and deposit agreements cover the administration of the col-
Library Patrons
Our list of those who generously donate a
subscription of KAC to their local library.
Hughson Public Library
– Bill Mills
Mary Parker Memorial Library
– Jerry Ballenger
Brattleboro Union High School
– William Holiday
Tippecanoe County Public Library, Lafayette,
Indiana
– Jerry Robertson
Gallaudet University Library,Washington, D.C.
– JFK Lancer, Ed Hoffman, and Ron Freidrich
Brehm Prepretory School, Carbondale , Illinois
– Self-Sponsored
Goodland High School, Goodland , Kansas
– Brad Parker
Please contact us to donate a Library Subscription of
the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
lections as well as the title, literary rights, and any restric-
tions requested by the donor or necessitated by the nature of
the materials. Many donors retain literary rights and/or re-
strict personal financial or medical information. A review of
personal papers for national security classified information
also sometimes occurs depending upon the nature of the pa-
pers themselves. The Library’s holdings currently include
246 personal papers collections, of which 175 are open fully
or in part for research use.
To document the life and career of President Kennedy
and to provide insight into people, events, and issues of mid-
20th century American history, the John F. Kennedy
Library and Museum collects, preserves and makes
available for research the documents, audiovisual ma-
terial and memorabilia of President Kennedy, his fam-
ily, and his contemporaries. The Library’s Archives
includes 36 million pages of documents from the col-
lections of 340 individuals, organizations, or govern-
ment agencies; oral history interviews with 1,300
people; and over 30,000 books. The Audiovisual Ar-
chives administers collections of over 400,000 still pho-
tographs, 8,550,000 feet of motion picture film, 1,200
hours of video recordings, over 9,000 hours of audio
recordings and 500 original editorial cartoons.
Johnson County Library, Overland Park, Kansas
– Project JFK, Mark Taylor
Grand Prairie City Library, Grand Prairie, Texas
– Hoffman Family/JFK Lancer
Dallas Public Library, Dallas, Texas
– Self-Sponsored
Greensburg Public Library, Greensburg,
Pennsylvania
– Bob Schwartzmiller
Cistercian Preparatory School, Irving, Texas
– Chris Marcellos
The State Historical Society of Wisconsin
– Self-Sponsored
Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa, Oklahoma
– Craig Roberts
Vol. 7, Issue 4 7
 JFK Lancer’s
NOVEMBER IN DALLAS
2001 CONFERENCE
November 16, 17, and 18, 2001

OBSERVING THE 38TH ANNIVERSARY OF

THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

A Message from JFK Lancer and November In Dallas 2001.

I
n the past five years since the initial November In Dallas Conference on
the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, NID has become an
important annual forum for the presentation and exchange of in-
formation on vital research and new developments. Past confer-
ences have consistently brought together witnesses and lead-
ing persons from various backgrounds to address these is-
sues.

T
his year’s conference theme was “You Are the
Jury.” A grand jury, to be exact. Unlike trial
juries, grand juries don't decide if someone is
guilty of criminal charges that have been brought against
them. Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if some-
one SHOULD be charged with a crime. What could a
grand jury evaluate in the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. What is evidence? What is proof? What is
opinion? What are the facts?

T
he 2001 NID Conference presented
information that you should evaluate and hopefully,
find answers to those questions.

Debra Conway and Tom Jones

JFK Lancer
YOU ARE THE JURY
8 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
 Mary Ferrell - JFK Lancer
Awards 2001

New Frontier Award

"In appreciation for your contribution of new
evidence and futhering the study of the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy."
Mark Sobel

Legacy Awards
Presented in appreciation for your permanent
additions to the record of the
Student of the Year
assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Elizabeth Toleno, Honorable
Larry Hancock Mention
Malcolm Blunt Joe Biles, Scholarship Winner
Ed Sherry

Continuing our tradition of documenting the record and

sharing research materials.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 9
 Speakers
REX BRADFORD has devoted himself to scanning documents and digitalizing audio recordings related to
the assassination of JFK, most recently in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged visit to Mexico City. An
author and a designer of games for computers, he resides in Massachusetts.
AL CARRIER has an extensive background as a crime scene investigator and in weapons and ballistics
with military and police units. He has also attended the US Secret Service Dignitary Protection Course. Among
his special interests in the death of JFK are the shot sequence, ballistic evidence, Secret Service failures, and Lee
Oswald's connections to US intelligence agencies.
GEORGE COSTELLO, a graduate of Johns Hopkins with a J.D. from Duke Law School, is an attorney for
the Congressional Research Service of The Library of Congress. He has authored several important book re-
views of Gerald Posner's Case Closed, of Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation, and, most recently, of Murder
In Dealey Plaza, which appeared in The Federal Lawyer (May 2001).
TONY CUMMINGS has applied his unique understanding of computer graphics and digital enhancements
to the photographic record. In collaboration with Bill Miller and through his company, Interactive History, he
will present a presentation of some of the best visible details of the assassination that have ever been made
available to the JFK research community.
JAMES H. FETZER, McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota and Co-Chair of NID 2001, has
organized symposia and conferences on the death of JFK and produced a 4 1/2 hour video, "JFK: The Assassina-
tion, the Cover-Up, and Beyond". He is the editor of two collections of new studies, Assassination Science and
Murder In Dealey Plaza.
STEWART GALANOR is the author of the highly-acclaimed study, Cover-up, which Gaeton Fonzi has
described as the single best book on the assassination of JFK. The author of Calculus: A Visual Approach and of
The Paradox OF Tristam Shandy, he is a multimedia consultant and technical writer for financial institutions and
the television industry.
NICK GERLICH, Ph.D., an associate professor of marketing at West Texas A&M University, serves as the
editor on the subject of conspiracies for Skeptic Magazine and as an e-commerce and internet consultant. Largely
a skeptic of conspiracy theories, he has written about the death of JFK and attended NID 2000, which was the
basis for a new piece for Skeptic that is forthcoming.
JAMES GORDON, a graduate of Edinburgh University, teaches Computing and English at Selkirk High
School in the Scottish Borders. His interest in the death of JFK is of long-standing and, in his courses, he uses the
assassination as a subject for his students' writing assignments as well as conducting mock trials of Lee Oswald
for oral presentations.

Special Thanks to:

Hiawatha Daugherty, Litigation Media
Betty Windsor
Jessie, Office Max
Dee, Ramada Inn
Jim Fetzer
Tony Cummings
Mary Ferrell
Beau Crouch
Tomie Jones
Steve Conway
Beau Crouch and Tomie Jones
Family and Friends

1 0 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

 summer of 1995, an internship oppor-
tunity with the Review Board for these
students. Five groups from Noblesville
High School, totaling 56 students, in-
terned with the Board. Current student's
Michele Aleck and Elizabeth Toleno
will be assisting.
DAVID W. MANTIK, M.D.,
Ph.D., practices radiation medicine at
the Loma Linda University Medical
Center. He has made path breaking
studies of the original autopsy X-rays,
the medical evidence, and the Zapruder
film, which have been published in As-
sassination Science and Murder In
Dealey Plaza.
BILL MILLER is an Illinois resi-
dent who has researched the assassina-

Author Craig Roberts in the “Book Room.”

SHERRY GUTIERREZ, a court-certified senior

crime scene analyst and court certified expert on blood
splatter analysis, formerly headed the Forensic Inves-
tigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana
Sheriff's Department. A consultant to district attorneys
and other law enforcement officials, she is a member
of the International Association for Identification and
has served on its subcommittee for bloodstain pattern
evidence.
LARRY HANCOCK, co-author (with Connie
Kritzberg) of November Patriots, a work of historically-
based fiction concerning the death of JFK, has spent
the last thirty years dealing with computers and com-
munications. Currently Marketing Director for Zoom
Telephonics, Inc, he has expended considerable effort
conducting research on intelligence aspects of the as- Teacher Bill Holiday and his high school group talk
sassination, including the involvement of Richard Case with Adele Edisen.
Nagell.
BILL HOLIDAY, JFK Lancer - Mary Ferrell tion for nearly two decades. His current interest is in
Teacher of the Year, 1997. A 31 year teacher of Social the analysis and the synthesis of the photographic
Science at Noblesville High School, Noblesville, Indi- record, especially in relation to witness testimony. His
ana, where he also serves as Department Chairperson. recent findings have included hidden images on the 6th
Noblesville's Board of School Trustees have recognized floor immediately following the shooting and detect-
Mr. Hitchcock's students by regularly hearing presen- ing features of JFK's rear head wound in several assas-
tations regarding their research and internship. Mr. sination films.
Hitchcock , through his Congressman, Dan Burton, and JIM OLIVIER, a Louisiana-based television jour-
David Marwell, Former Executive Director of the As- nalist, has been researching the assassination for more
sassination Records Review Board, arranged, for the than 30 years. He has produced numerous television

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 11

 Beau Crouch
(head down), Rex
Bradford, and
Stewart Galanor
prepare equipment
for the next
presentation.

segments on various aspects of the assassination, in- groups--including the CIA, the Mafia, and banking in-
cluding several with Jim Garrison, former District At- terests--preferred JFK not remain President.
torney of New Orleans, who tried Clay Shaw for in- KENNETH A. RAHN, is an atmospheric chem-
volvement in a New Orleans-based conspiracy to kill ist and professor at the Graduate School of Oceanogra-
President Kennedy. phy, University of Rhode Island, where he has been
JERRY POLICOFF became absorbed by the study since 1973. He received a B.S. in chemistry from MIT
of the assassination during in 1962, and later a Ph.D. in meteorology from the Uni-
the mid-1960s, when he met versity of Michigan in 1971.
Sylvia Meagher, Harold His specialty is measuring
Weisberg, Mark Lane, and trace elements in aerosols by
other critics of The Warren neutron activation. He pres-
Report. As an advertising ently offers courses in chem-
trainee in New York, he be- istry, atmospheric chemistry,
came interested in media global change, scientific
coverage of the event, which writing, and the JFK assas-
led to a long piece on the role sination at the university. He
of The New York Times in became interested in the JFK
promoting the cover-up. He assassination in 1992, first its
has since published in New general aspects and later its
Times, The Washington Star, scientific aspects. Most re-
Rolling Stone, The Villlage cently, he has been focusing
Voice, and The New York on the neutron activation
Times Op-Ed Page. analysis of the bullet frag-
CRAIG ROBERTS, a ments by the FBI and the
former Marine Corps sniper HSCA, and is continually
in Vietnam with extensive being surprised by how im-
law-enforcement experi- portant these results are turn-
ence, has authored Kill ing out to be.
Zone: A Sniper Looks At MICHAEL SPARKS
Dealey Plaza, widely ac- leads a non-profit think tank,
claimed as an outstanding The 1st Tactical Studies
contribution to studies of the Group (Airborne), originally
death of JFK. He is an ex- based out of Ft. Bragg, NC,
Crime scene expert Sherry Gutierrez which field-tests military
pert on why many powerful

1 2 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

equipment and makes recom-
mendations to the U.S. Army at
no charge. His primary interest
in his spin-off group, The 4th
Tactical Studies Group (Con-
spiracy), is to solve the assassi-
nation of JFK and to restore
confidence in our government.
DONALD THOMAS,
who specializes in entomology
and has been employed by the
US Department of Agriculture
since 1983, has also undertaken The conference audience listens attentively.
research on the death of Presi-
dent Kennedy, including, most recently, a major study
of echo correlation in Dealey Plaza recorded during November In Dallas: A Review
the assassination, which appeared in a British journal by Jamey Hecht, Ph.D.
of forensics. He holds adjunct appointments at Texas
A&M and at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma November in Dallas 2001 was a success. The at-
Mexicana and is also a research associate of The tendance was unusually low, because the 9-11 attacks
Carnegie Museum and The Nebraska State Museum. reduced our mobility. And yet these same attacks added
STU WEXLER, currently a Web Developer, who an urgency to the proceedings. The whole country was
graduated from Tulane University in 1998 with a de- buzzing with the phrase “wake-up call,” and suddenly
gree in history and a minor in philosophy. He has been the things and ideas and institutions to which our orga-
researching the JFK assassination since the 7th grade, nization pays such anxious attention — violence, in-
and has made presentations on the subject at his high ternational traffic in arms and narcotics, government
school. Wexler's main interests in the case are Oswald's malfeasance and deception, equal protection under law
background and the physical evidence. and all that threatens it — began to draw very broad
JOHN WILLIAMS, Ph.D., has developed a keen public acknowledgement. Although it felt a little risky
interest in the history and activities of the Foreign In- to get on a plane and fly to Dallas, it also felt like that
telligence Advisory Board, especially from November city was the right place to be in the new millennium,
1962 to October 1964. A faculty member at the Uni- confronting difficult truths and sharing the burden of
versity of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI, he offers longing for an elusive justice. I couldn’t attend quite
courses in its Department of Human Development, all the sessions (so I can’t comment on them all here),
Family Living, and Community Educational Services. nor meet quite all the attendees. But this was my first
NID conference and it was unforgettable.
Craig Roberts spoke persuasively about a wide
variety of episodes and the linkages among them. He
seemed to me especially well acquainted with the
machinations of the Nixon-Kissinger administration
during the Vietnam War, and the criminal activities of
those officials and their associates throughout the
1970’s. I got the impression that his primary expertise
lay in the heroin and banking adventures of that pe-
riod, on which he was quite an arresting speaker. But
he also made it clear that there was continuity between
the narcotics-banking fiasco of the old Nugan Hand
Bank and BCCI, and more recent stuff in places like
Afghanistan. I got his autograph on a copy of his Kill
Debra, Tom, and Steve after the Awards Banquet
Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza.
Stewart Galanor, the author of the celebrated

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 13

Cover-Up, gave a witty and incisive talk
about the witnesses in Dealey Plaza and the
way the Warren Commission and the HSCA
offered misleading and even mendacious
summaries of their testimony. In this as in
so many other areas, the Commission and
its successors falsified, omitted, and distorted
the sworn testimony of witnesses for whose
integrity they cared not a whit, having sold
their own in exchange for a place in the new
order of things. Galanor’s devastatingly spe-
cific array of examples filled the audience
with the too-familiar mood of frustrated in-
dignation, along with a keen gratitude for
his labor and his integrity.
John Williams described the role of the
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in the
Jim Oliver, Awards Banquet MC, Dennis David,
Kennedy Administration and contrasted it
KeynoteSpeaker, and Joe Biles, Student of the Year
with the use other presidents made of the
Scholarship Winner. (Kelly Creech produced the
same body. This issue is part of a very im-
graphic on the screen and also the banquet film.)
portant area, since JFK’s vexed relationship
with the intelligence community is at the heart of his pects of the President’s murder. It’s painful to see the
murder and bears strongly on his achievement — the movement wracked by factionalism over issues that are
Kennedy vision of international peace, shared prosper- proportionately tiny compared to our shared concern
ity, and popular sovereignty. I found Professor Will- with the big issues. It may be extra work to cope with
iams articulate, scholarly, and human. I hope others a few graying alpha males in the room, but it’s gener-
will emulate his clarity and the compassionate sense of ally worth it: Jim Fetzer’s books are highly visible,
mission that animated his presentation. valuable resources and his colleagueship is a tremen-
I found the presentations by Jim Fetzer and David dous asset to Lancer and its mission (particularly be-
Mantik compelling, detail-oriented, and insightful about cause of his background in the philosophy of science
the medical evidence and the many forensic areas of and methodology). I was honored to meet the guy.
the JFK case in which their expertise have purchase. Rex Bradford’s Mexico City presentation was
On the other hand, I share some reservations about their helpful because it took account of new document re-
style, which sometimes struck me as needlessly defen- leases and audio-tapes. It was a very complimentary
sive. The Zapruder-film alteration presentation to the the
controversy has been surprisingly Mexico City picture already
divisive, since it doesn’t touch on come into sharp focus in
the most politically important as- 1999, when John Newman
brilliantly refined Peter Dale
Scott’s account of the story
— the Oswald imperson-
ation, the elaborate waltz of
photos and tapes and lies that
the Mexican DFS and the
CIA danced around the FBI
and the rest of us.
I was honored to meet
Ed Hoffman, who stood on the triple underpass in
1963. I was honored to meet Debra Conway, whose
energy and intelligence and devotion make the con-
The Award Banquet ference possible every year.

1 4 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

 Perhaps the movement’s most important public- tion, a yearning for possibilities lost and a bitterness
ity achievement since Oliver Stone’s film (and Peter over wasted human potential. If the Indochina War had
Dale Scott’s winning of the University of California never escalated, to choose just one example of CIA-
Press as the publisher for his Deep Politics and the driven aggression, another 58 thousand young Ameri-
Death of JFK) has been the vindication of the HSCA’s cans of all colors and a million Vietnamese might to-
findings on the dictabelt recording and the grassy knoll day be working, loving and laughing. If the idealism
shot. Donald Thomas presented a version of his “Echo of the New Frontier were in the ascendant today —
Correlation Analysis and the Acoustic Evidence,” the with its respect for learning and the arts, its genuine if
same paper that recently won worldwide attention af- politically vexed love of peace, and its confidence in
ter publication in a prominent British journal. Attend- the ability of the human intellect to identify and meet
ees congratulated Dr. Thomas and thanked him for his genuine human needs — we might not be in the envi-
impact on the public. ronmental, economic, and geopolitical peril that domi-
For me, the most moving event of the day was nates our daily attention. November in Dallas is a hard
Larry Teeter’s long and spellbinding speech about the experience. But the act of telling the truth in the pres-
Robert Kennedy murder. Teeter is Sirhan Sirhan’s cur- ence of one’s fellow citizens has a remarkably salutary
rent attorney, and he knows the case as well as anyone effect.
does, perhaps better than anyone now living. He spoke The poet Holderlin wrote, “where grows the dan-
without notes, with the ger, there grows also the
passion and urgency of an saving power.” Though
inspired lawyer. If you the violence and the con-
only know the JFK case, Perhaps the movement’s most impor- tempt for the law con-
as I did, you risk missing tant publicity achievement since tinue, though the intelli-
the horrific reach of the Oliver Stone’s film ... has been the vin- gence budgets are soar-
problem, the way it un- dication of the HSCA’s findings on the ing and the world is mili-
dermines American juris- dictabelt recording and the grassy tarized as never before,
prudence, compromises people now know that
knoll shot.
equal protection, vitiates the government routinely
the public will to elect lies. They know that it
officials of our own does so when big busi-
choosing, and fosters a ness and the military sub-
culture of cynicism and even despair. Larry Teeter vert popular sovereignty. And they are beginning to
spelled out the long-range planning of RFK’s murder realize that the government is a public institution which
and the chilling chicanery of its judicial aftermath, the they can collectively change for the better, so that it
way it all ran on violence, deceit, bribery, and an impe- works for peace and economic justice, educating the
rious contempt for the law on the part of the guilty of- population instead of jailing it. Though the world ails
ficials and their confederates. As Ted Kennedy said at miserably, it is also rife with viable solutions waiting
Bobby’s funeral, “he saw war…and tried to stop it.” for widespread acceptance. The kind of truth-telling
That’s why he’s gone. exemplified by, say, South Africa’s Truth and Recon-
At the Dallas conference, we come together to ciliation Commission may be the lever that eventually
expose ongoing deception, to offer our findings to our overturns American denial, and turns our faces away
colleagues, to articulate hypotheses and to exchange from current obsessions (sports, celebrities, cars, guns,
information, to speculate and to affirm and to mourn. beef, etc) and toward policy once again. JFK Lancer
Most of the people who killed the Kennedys and Dr. and its sister organizations in the political justice move-
King are dead now. The methods of the unpunished ment are a central part of this bright possibility, more
conspirators and opportunistic accessories continue and central than is generally acknowledged. I’m proud that
many of their secrets remain hidden, despite the heroic I was there last November, and until we meet this No-
efforts of the much-maligned Church Committee and vember I wish you all clean reading glasses, loud voices,
its successors like the ARRB. So a conference like this sharp pens, and solidarity.
one brings up a great deal of difficult thought and emo-

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 15

 NID 2001 Videos
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16
• NID01-V01 A MAJOR MOTIVE (1.5 hrs.) $20
Craig Roberts, JFK, THE CIA, AND THE SOUTHEAST ASIA
DRUG CONNECTIONS
• NID01-V02 THE STUDY OF DEALEY PLAZA WITNESSES (1.5 hrs.) $20 Tapes may be
James Gordon, Stewart Galanor
• NID01-V03 PIECES OF THE PUZZLE (2 hrs.) $30 ordered
TEACHING JFK MODELS OF INSTRUCTION
Bill Holiday, Michele Aleck, Elizabeth Toleno individually
HOW TO THINK ABOUT CONSPIRACY
Michael Sparks
or
• NID01-V04 DOCUMENTS UNDER THE JFK ACT (1.5 hrs.) $20 as a complete
John Williams, FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Larry Hancock, ARMY INTELLIGENCE GROUP 112TH set of 12 for
• NID01-V05 MEXICO CITY DOCUMENTS AND AUDIOTAPES (1 hr.) $20
Rex Bradford only $199.00
• NID01-V06 Larry Teeter, Attorney for Sirhan Sirhan (3+ hrs.) $35
Ron Redmon, JFK, RFK, AND MLK Similarities in the Three
Assassinations (that’s $86 off
SATURDAY NOVEMBER 17 the $285 actual
• NID01-V07 PIECES OF THE PUZZLE (1.5 hrs.) $20
Bill Miller and Tony Cummings, PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS price!)
Larry Hancock, THE DAL-TEX PHOTO
* NID01-V08 JFK AND THE MEDIA, Moderator, David Mantik (2 hrs.) $30
Nick Gerlich, George Costello, Jerry Policoff
* NID01-V09 THE FILM, THE PHOTOS, AND THE SHOTS (3 hrs.) $45
Al Carrier
David Mantik, REVIEW OF MOORMAN PHOTO EXPERIMENT
• NID01-V10 CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE (2.5 hrs.) $35
Sherry Gutierrez, BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS
Donald Thomas, ECHO CORRELATION ANALYSIS AND THE
ACOUSTIC EVIDENCE
• NID01-V11 BANQUET and AWARDS CEREMONY (1.5 hrs.)$20
MC: Jim Olivier
Awards Presentation, Tom Jones, and Debra Conway
Film Tribute, Kelly Creech
Banquet Address, Joe G. Biles, 2001 JFK Lancer-# Winter
2001 Vol 7 Issue 4Mary Ferrell
Student Scholarhip Winner
Banquet Address, Dennis David
Concluding Remarks, Jim Olivier

SUNDAY NOVEMBER 18
• NID01-V12 NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS (2 hrs.) $30
Jim Fetzer, Ken Rahn, Stewart Galanor, Stu Wexler You’ll find these tapes
a most valuable re-
search tool!

1 6 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

 Reports of the Presidents’ Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board:
An Introductory Overview
By John M. Williams Ph.D.
This significant series of reports is taken from
meetings of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,
which occurred during the terms of Presidents Kennedy
and Johnson. By no means are all the meetings of the
Board included here. Only those deemed to have ma-
terial pertinent to the Kennedy assassination have been
included in the present release.
The Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB)
was originally appointed under President Eisenhower
as a tactic to forestall the creation of a bi-partisan
“Watch Dog Committee” recommended in 1955 by the
Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive
Branch of the Government. In January 1961, Presi-
dent Kennedy decided that there was a continuing need
for a Presidential Advisory Board on Foreign Intelli-
gence, but he temporarily delayed the appointment of
new members for a later date.
Following the disaster of the Bay of Pigs, how-
ever, the President very quickly acted to establish the
FIAB by Executive Order. The Board was at work by
May, and Board Chairman, James Killian appointed
himself and three other Board members to serve on a
Board panel “. . . to study the extent to which the gov-
ernment should be involved in political, psychologi-
cal, propaganda, and paramilitary activities; and the
policy which should be pursued by the U.S. Govern-
ment in these matters.” (Excerpts from the Minutes of
the President’s FIAB meetings with respect to Covert
Actions Matters: Undated Memorandum).
Under President Kennedy, this Board kept a busy
schedule. In approximately two and a half years, the
Board met for 25 meetings covering a period of 39 days.
Of these, only 10 meetings covering 19 days are in-
cluded here. These reports provide an important, yet
very partial view of the Board’s work during this time.
In accord with the purpose of this release, material from
four Board meetings under President Johnson are also
included. Further details concerning the Board’s his-
tory are provided in a summary given by Clark Clifford
for the first meeting with President Johnson on Janu-
ary 30, 1964.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
The reports given here cover Board meetings
which occurred
from November 9,
1962 to October 2,
1964. Some memo-
randa from these
meetings contain
material, which
dates back as early
as May 15, 1961.
However, historians
and researchers
must be ready to
face a “patchwork”
of releases from the
overall reports,
which might accu- Clark Clifford: Presidential
rately be described advisor and head of PFIAB
as an “Assassination for JFK
Review Board’s
Sampler.” This author cannot help wondering how
many chefs and what kind of chefs it took to cook up
this curious compilation of reports. We need to look
further at this question.
What, first of all, are some highlights of these
important reports?
1. The first highlight comes in the last cited meeting of
the Board for this release on October 1 and 2, 1964.
There we read that the Chairman, Clark Clifford, had
met with President Johnson a number of times for
discussion of various subjects, and on these occasions
had taken the opportunity to progressively acquaint the
President with the work of the Board. “Mr. Clifford
pointed out to the Board that, unlike President Kennedy,
who had reconstituted the Board in 1961, and was
THOROUGHLY acquainted with its functioning,
President Johnson had not been as intimately associated
with the Board, PRIMARILY FOR THE REASON
THAT NO INTELLIGENCE RELATED INCIDENTS
HAVE THUS FAR ARISEN in President Johnson’s
Vol. 7, Issue 4 17

Unfortunately, the report does not in-
dicate which of the recommendations
Kennedy approved and which ones he
deferred or rejected.
term to evidence his special need for the Board’s
assistance.” (Memorandum for the File: October 1-2,
1964: Italics added). Could it be that we are faced with
two Presidents whose very different foreign policies
eventuated in a very different relationship to the
intelligence agencies around foreign intelligence?
Under President Kennedy, the deliberations of this
Board served a vitally necessary role. What exactly
this role was is suggested in this series of meetings.
2. The second highlight of this series of reports is in
their ambivalent, yet increasing, focus upon
understanding and evaluating the covert action
programs being carried out during this period of the
Cold War, especially by the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA). (Cf. PFIAB No 206-10001-10017: undated
report as a starting point). An important turning point
in the Board’s audit and evaluation of these programs
seems to have been reached sometime in early 1963
from this author’s reading of extant sessions. These
reports constitute an important source for helping to
open up this issue.
3. Another highlight of the Reports is an immense
volume of material relating to both intelligence
reconnaissance as well as covert sabotage operations
relating to Cuba. (See especially the FIAB
Memorandum for Jan 11, 1963, and the General
Chronology for the Meeting of January 25-26, 1963,
among others).
4. A fourth highlight is the mixed sequence of reports
the Board received from various sources, especially CIA
Concerning the situation in Vietnam. Among these are
reports by Richard Helms and John McCone to the
Board in 1964 concerning how seriously the political
situation had deteriorated in Vietnam by late 1964.
5. Another point of interest is the summary of the series
of recommendations made by the Board to President
Kennedy from May 1961 to November 1963 as
summarized in the meeting of January 30, 1964.
Unfortunately, the report does not indicate which of
the recommendations Kennedy approved and which
ones he deferred or rejected.
These are some highlights of this series of reports.
However, there are other issues raised in them which
may be of interest to researchers or historians includ-
1 8 JFK Lancer
ing such matters as reports on the Mongoose Pro-
gram, some concerns raised by the President con-
cerning intelligence operations, and Allen Dulles’
view of the importance of covert operations programs
which may have brought him into direct conflict with
President Kennedy.
Readers must be prepared to find themselves
perplexed and frustrated by the number of postpone-
ments or deletions from the material which interrupt
the flow of thought, or suddenly cut off discussion of
issues at hand. In many instances, the blocking out of
information, even on meeting agendas is crudely done.
It suggests a reckless haste on the part of censors. Apart
from blockages filling whole parts of pages, this reader
noted the outright deletion of 328 additional pages
which would have brought the Memoranda cited to
nearly 750 pages rather than the 416 pages of text that
were actually released. In a supposed democracy, this
sort of crudity in censorship is unconscionable! It se-
verely stunts the scope of these reports.
These omissions open up an important question:
What were the criteria for determining the selection of
reports which were, at least in part, released? It may
be that the original order of releases gives some hint
concerning the criteria of selection for this series. The
first four selections in the series came from late 1963
(2) and 1964 (2). This is where the meetings of No-
vember 22, 1963 (last under Kennedy) and January 30,
1964 (first under Johnson appear). This reader’s hy-
pothesis is that the criteria for relating these meetings
to the assassination were not formed apriori, but were
developed in the process of selection with those hav-
ing the most obvious connection selected first.
This makes the question of how this series was
seen as connected to the assassination an ambiguous
one. With the paramount emphasis given to material
on Cuba, and intelligence operations connected to the
Cuba situation, this author wonders whether the select-
ing editor suspected that the material might have some
bearing upon the issue of whether an anti-Castro or pro-
Castro Cuban force was motivated to be involved in
the assassination, or whether these documents might
throw some light upon such a Cuban related motive.
Whatever the criteria may have been, what these
reports actually say or suggest to their readers may be
very different than what the selecting editor intended
or the criteria might have emphasized. To this reader,
the struggle by members of the Board over the ques-
tion who had de facto jurisdiction over covert opera-
tions became an increasingly salient question through
this series of reports. Clearly this issue put the intelli-
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
gence agencies into some conflict with the President
and his Executive Branch; yet how serious this con-
flict may have been remains to be resolved.
The issuance of these reports suggests a glaring
defect in the historical record around the Kennedy Ad-
ministration, one pointed out by John Newman and oth-
ers in their writings. Not enough attention has been
given to the kinds of disagreement between President
Kennedy and various members of his Administration
as well as others outside of it over important issues of
foreign policy, which occurred during his administra-
tion; nor have the degrees of conflict over these issues
been evaluated carefully enough. The patchwork of
these reports does not adequately assist in clarifying
these issues and the extent of conflict around them, but
they do provide some important indications of it. Fur-
ther clarification requires as full a release of the docu-
mentation of all these meetings as possible. Such re-
lease is mandatory if historians, researchers, and con-
cerned citizens are to be entitled to do their work of
furthering an accurate understanding of this important
moment of United States and world history.

Memorandom
for Files:
Meeting
D ecem ber
27-28, 1962,
just after the
C u b a n
M i s s i l e
Crisis.

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 19

 MYSTERIES OF THE 112
INTELLIGENCE CORP GROUP
presented by Larry Hancock

One of the ongoing areas of mystery and speculation in regard to events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963
has been the activities of the 112th Army Intelligence unit. The documents available to us now appear to resolve
many of these mysteries, all except the most fundamental one – the actual role of the 112th in Dallas.

This paper and its related document collection address the following “mysteries”:

1. Organization, mission and personnel of the 112th Intelligence Corps Group (INTC)

2. Organization, mission and personnel of the 316th Intelligence Corps Detachment

3. Activities of 112th Group II (Dallas) personnel on November 22, 1963

4. Performance of “Protective Service” duties by the 112th INTC

5. The role of Specialist James Powell and the history of his TSBD photograph

6. Possible identification of 112th personnel as “mystery” Secret Service agents

7. The role of Warrant Office Edward Coyle; attendance at the Armory robbery meeting on November 22, 1963

8. Errors in the sworn testimony and statements of Col. Jones, 112th INTC G2 officer

9. Errors or “contradictory” intelligence in 112th and 4th Army intelligence reports

10. “Stand-Down” of the 316th Detachment on November 22, 1963

Why there should be any mystery in regard to the
role of the 112th is itself perplexing since we have ac-
cess to extended, sworn interviews with its Operations
Officer, first with the Church Committee and then the
HSCA. In addition, we now have an extensive inves-
tigation by the ARRB and further interviews with ad-
ditional group personnel.
Unfortunately, as we will see, the statements by
these individuals are totally at odds with each other
and with the statements and reports of Secret Service
Dallas trip lead agent Lawson as well as with memo-
randa from the Department of Defense and 112th unit
history. In fact, we now know that the purported Op-
erations Officer giving sworn statements to the Church
and House Select Committees never held the position
he specified and was serving as intelligence officer
(G2), not operations officer (G3). It is also now clear
that we lack any statements from 112th Group Com-
mander, the actual 112th Operations Officer and either
the Dallas Unit commander or his Deputy Commander
-– indeed all of the officers in direct line of command
for any unit field activities in Dallas during the Presi-
dential visit.
However, we do have intelligence “spot” reports
transmitted from the 112th personnel in Dallas to their
headquarters in San Antonio and relayed to other gov-
ernment organizations. They give us a picture of the
type of information that the 112th was collecting in
Dallas, its sources within the DPD and they allow us to
judge the quality and effect of this information. What

2 0 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

we see in the Dallas reports and the information re-
layed by Col. Jones, the unit’s G2 Intelligence of-
ficer, shows the unit to have been involved in intel-
ligence collection -– not in protective service as
maintained by the same Col. Jones in his statements
to the Church and House Select Committees.
The organization and mission of the 112th INTC
and 316th as military units is far from mysterious
and has been further documented in great detail by
the work of the ARRB.1, 2, 3, 4, 7
The United States Army was and is organized into
a serious of Regional Army Commands. Each of these
commands being staffed with integrated resources in-
cluding intelligence/counter intelligence organizations.
The command assigned to the Southern region of the
US in 1963 was the Fourth Army and its intelligence
unit -– the 112th Military Intelligence (INTC) Corps
Group was headquartered, along with Fourth Army it-
self, in San Antonio, Texas at Fort Sam Houston.
The 112th was structured into seven operating
regions encompassing five states -– Texas, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. The regional
units maintained physical offices and limited staffs in
major metropolitan centers. Region II staff were lo-
cated at 902 Rio Grande, in the Rio Grande Building,
Dallas. The Region II unit in Dallas was commanded,
in the Fall of 1963, by Lt. Col. Roy Pate and his Deputy
Commander was Lt. Col. Edgar Boyd.
The unit history also lists a Col. Willard W. Mize
as overall 112th INTC Group Commander -– with his
G3 Operations Officer as Lt. Col. Stanley Greer and
his S2 Intelligence Officer as Lt. Col. Robert Jones.
The Operations/S3 for the 112th had been Col.
Reich, however, in December of 1962 the 316 INTC
detachment had been transferred from Fort Jackson,
South Carolina to Fort Sam Houston and attached to
the 112 th. Actually no people or equipment moved
with the transfer and 316 members were still desig-
nated as 316th -– the Region I (San Antonio) 112th com-
mander was initially designated acting 316th detachment
commander. The 316th would eventually emerge as a
truly separate unit in 1964, once staffing slots were
back filled, but during 1963 it appears that personnel
assigned to the 316th assumed tasks within Region I
and their activities are actually reported under Region
I in the 112 th unit history. Whether or not the 316th
performed any unique activities or whether it operated
outside of San Antonio is unclear. Col. Reich being
moved to become 316 Detachment Commander in July
of 1963 and his S3 Operations officer position was
filled by Lt. Col. Stanley Greer.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
“Spot reports give us a picture of the
type of information the 112th was
collection in Dallas, its DPD
sources...and shows the unit to have
been involved in intelligence collec-
tion -- not protective services.”
The ARRB determined from unit records that Col.
Jones was never assigned to the position of S3/Opera-
tions and served as S2/Intelligence Officer in 1963 and
later was reassigned to 112 th Group Executive Officer
in 1964. This is of considerable importance as the
Group Intelligence officer only reviews reports, col-
lects intelligence and prepares reports for Headquar-
ters; the S2 has no role in field operations or tactical
assignments of unit personnel.
The primary function of the 112th was intelligence
collection and, as noted, the intelligence officer in
November 1963 was Lt. Col. Robert E. Jones. Unit
activities normally included background investigations,
domestic intelligence against suspect subversive or po-
tentially disruptive organizations and counter intelli-
gence against suspected enemy agents, fellow travel-
ers or potential intelligence leaks. Most of the work of
the 112th involved either standard security background
checks, security inspections of 4th Army units, how-
ever it also engaged in limited monitoring and main-
taining files on individuals and groups seen as domes-
tic intelligence targets.
The 112th, as all the Regional Military Intelligence
Groups, provided information to the FBI as well as to
Police Departments and indeed worked at establishing
close connections to major police departments in order
to use their internal resources (including their Special
Services Groups -– actually police counter intelligence,
often known as “Red Squads”). It would not be un-
common to find a MIG performing surveillance on the
same individuals or groups as a police department or
the ATF (Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms) and to also
find them sharing information among themselves and
with the FBI. Indeed in Dallas on November 22, mem-
bers of all 3 groups were meeting in regard to an ongo-
ing inquiry into armory thefts and gun running to Cu-
ban exiles.8 SA Hosty of the FBI and MI SA Coyle of
the 112th independently corroborate this meeting on the
morning of November 22. Coyle’s interview with the
ARRB provides background on that investigation and
the inter-agency miscues which led him to call the meet-
Vol. 7, Issue 4 21
ing.9, 18
Unfortunately, the statements of both Coyle and
Hosty are in direct conflict with that of Col. Jones. Jones
stated in his HSCA testimony that “Captain” Ed Coyle
was on duty on November 22 performing Secret Ser-
vice liaison for the Presidential trip – while Agent Hosty
states in his autobiography that Ed Coyle spent the
morning of November 22 in a multi-agency meeting.
This is only one of many instances where the state-
ments of Col. Jones is counter to that of all the person-
nel stationed in Dallas -– in addition he misstates
Coyle’s actual rank (which was Specialist 5 th, with a
later promotion to Warrant Officer).
An example of the unit’s intelligence work can
be seen in a report from Region I in San Antonio dated
November 1, 1963; this report is on the “Cuban Of-
ficer Training Program” and examines in detail efforts
being made by Manolo Artime to recruit veterans of
the Bay of Pigs who were then in special officer train-
ing courses. Cubans were being aggressively recruited
to join a revolutionary training camp in Nicaragua.
These individuals were being told that the US had aban-
doned them but that Artime was going to be receiving
support from both France and Germany.10
In their counter-intelligence role, agents of the
112/316th had been very much involved in observing
and collecting information on Lee Oswald’s FPCC ac-
tivities in New Orleans. Indeed its agents collected
handbills from his first leafleting beside the carrier
WASP and their files contained the name Hidel from
those handbills as well as the name Oswald. Col. Jones
maintained, and it seems quite reasonable, that the Os-
wald file at the 112th was opened based on Oswald’s
New Orleans activities.7, 11
We know a good deal about the organization,
mission and roles of the 112th. However we have two
completely different versions as to what a dozen of its
personnel were or were not doing in Dallas on Novem-
ber 22 and we have a major conflict over one of the
key photographs taken of the TSBD by 112 th Special
Agent James Powell.
The contradiction arises entirely from the testi-
mony of Col. Jones, given under oath. Jones was ini-
tially interviewed by the Church Committee who
seemed largely concerned with whether his personnel
could have been any of the mystery men seen in Dea-
ley Plaza -– and whether their credentials or self iden-
tification could have been as Secret Service Agents. It
is unclear why the Church and HSCA committees se-
lected Col. Jones given that he was not the Dallas Com-
mander nor in the direct 112th chain of command at all.
2 2 JFK Lancer
However his statements on 112th activities in his HSCA
testimony are very clear and very concrete. 11
As to his duties, Jones states:
“Upon my assignment to the 112th, I was ap-
pointed the Operations Officer for the entire
group...I was directly responsible for all coun-
terintelligence operations, background inves-
tigations, domestic intelligence and any spe-
cials operations in this area.”
The most basic question about November 22, 1963
was whether or not the 112th deployed personnel in
Dallas to perform Protective Services in support of the
Secret Service.
Col. Jones himself gave a firm “Yes” to that
question:
“We provided a small force – I do not recall
how many but I would estimate between 8
and 12 -– during the Presidential trip to San
Antonio Texas and then the following day,
on his visit to Dallas. The Regions also pro-
vided additional people to assist.”
This clearly suggests that local Dallas personnel
were augmented by additional 112th staff and that their
mission was protective service
Jones goes to some length to state that his people
were “under the control and supervision of the Secret
Service” and were to “supplement the manpower of
the Secret Service.”
Col. Jones further states that Ed Coyle and “Cap-
tain” James Powell were among the local Dallas per-
sonnel assigned to these duties:
“James Powell was one of those liaison
personnel…he was a Captain and also wore
civilian clothes and was assigned to Region
2 of the 112th MIG. He was on duty the day
of the assassination.”
Col. Jones goes on to state that he was never in-
formed that Captain Powell had taken a photograph of
the Texas School Book Depository Building and that a
copy of the photograph was never submitted to the 112th;
he describes Captain Powell as being “negligent” in
his actions in regard to the photograph.
Note: Powell’s records and ARRB interview show him
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
to have been a Specialist, probably a Sergeant (E5)
at this time and not an officer; his file also contains
a report prepared for his Region II commander in
which he mentions taking a photograph of the TSBD
with his private camera -– this memo does not state
that he was not on duty at the time but does describe
him going to his office after the incident. His FBI
report of January 3, 1964, states that he turned the
photograph in question over to Lt. Col. E. E. Boyd of
Region II, Army Intelligence in Dallas and also
mentions that he observed a Negro male in one of the
windows at the time of taking the photograph. In his
ARRB interview Powell states that none of his group
were involved with the Presidential trip in any way and
that none of them participated in Protective Service.
He makes it clear that he was not on duty but had taken
leave to observe the motorcade and hopefully take
pictures of the President’s visit.12, 13, 14, 15
Col. Jones also gives an elaborate description of
how his group functioned in conjunction with the Se-
cret Service when called on for such assignments. In-
terestingly enough, although VIP Protection is discussed
in the Standard Operating Procedures for the 316th
(which happens to be in the ARRB records) the type
of protection it addresses is much more comprehen-
sive and seems to be written for situations where the
Army has primary responsibility for security -– such
as the visit of a VIP to a base or Army operations area.
Col. Jones does indeed seem to be comfortable with
Secret Service liaison duties beyond that of his unit’s
normal duties.7
But more importantly, because of the assassina-
tion, we have access to the detailed preparations by
the Secret Service for Dallas, including Dallas Secret
Service lead man SA Lawson’s trip summary and post-
assassination report. In addition the DPD generated
extensive reporting of their preparations including lists
of all planning meetings and the agencies and person-
nel represented.16
SA Lawson himself was especially detailed in list-
ing all meetings and attendees down to the Fire De-
partment, Trade Center employees and Airport person-
nel. All groups involved in security arrangements in-
cluding back up personnel from the Sheriffs Depart-
ment and Texas Department of Public Safety are de-
scribed. Nowhere in any of Lawson’s reports or in the
Dallas Police reports is any mention made of contact
with or support by members of the 112th or 316th, or
any military personnel at all.
Additionally, the Department of Defense advised
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
“ ...Why Col. Jones was selected to ex-
plain their role to two Congressional
committees and lied under oath.”
the HSCA that no record of any request or action for
protective support exists in regard to the Dallas visit of
the President.5
When all the current evidence is considered, it
seems that the fundamental mystery of the 112th is not
whether or not they were deployed for protective ser-
vice in Dallas but rather why Col. Jones was selected
to explain their role to two Congressional committees
and why he appears to have consistently lied under oath.
Interestingly enough, his first testimony to the Church
Committee was largely devoted to presenting infor-
mation which convinced the committee that 112th per-
sonnel could very well have been mistaken for the
“mystery” agents with credentials reported in Dealey
Plaza. We now know this to have not have been the
case for 112th personnel in general and SA Powell spe-
cifically.17
One point of speculation might be that the mys-
tery of these men with credentials may have been a
part of an ongoing assassination cover up, otherwise
we are left with an Army Col. who is either am inveter-
ate liar or totally incompetent and unreliable (the
conclusion apparently reached by the ARRB -– based
on their internal memos).
We do know a good deal about the intelligence
collection activities of the 112th on November 22, pri-
marily based on a series of “Spot” reports as well as
memos from Col. Powell to other agencies and FBI
memos relating his reports. These reports also give us
a good idea of at least some of the 112th’s routine Dal-
las Police contacts.18
One report identifies information as originating
with Captain Dowdy – in actuality this is George M.
Doughty who was in charge of the Identification Bu-
reau within the DPD Services division. For reference
it is important to note that Captain Doughty was the
officer in charge of the Identification group located on
the fourth floor of the DPD offices. This group was
part of the Services division which included the Crime
Scene Unit, the Photo section, Fingerprint section and
records section. Given the background and counterin-
telligence tasks of the 112th is certainly makes sense
for them to have a connections the ID group. With Cap-
tain Doughty as a source, it would appear that they
Vol. 7, Issue 4 23
should have been getting solid and reliable intelligence
about the identity and possessions of individuals taken
into custody on November 22.
This brings us to the other unresolved mystery of
the 112th, nothing more or less than the fact that the
majority of the information given to them and reported
by them to various agencies was either incorrect, inac-
curate or actively suppressed -– since it did not become
a part of the official investigation or record. To appre-
ciate this we have to take a look at it item by item.
Apparently the first formal intelligence passed to
Col. Jones was the identity of the suspected assassin.
According to Jones he was given only the name “Hidel”
with no mention of “Oswald” and no reference to mul-
tiple ID’s or the use of an alias. Indeed Col. Jones is on
record as being able to provide the DPD with the infor-
mation that Hidel was very likely Lee Oswald, based
on the cross index listings in the Oswald file and the
earlier information from New Orleans. Obviously this
is in significant contrast to portions of the official record
including statements by a variety of arresting officers
that both names, multiple identifications documents and
the use of an alias were known from the very begin-
ning and even transmitted by radio from the patrol car
carrying Oswald (said statements however are not con-
firmed by the radio transmission log).
By Friday evening, a lengthy report was provided
to the 112th by the DPD detailing the circumstances of
an incident in Dealey Plaza early that week. This inci-
dent involved men who were observed by civilians and
officers in the area of the “grassy knoll” fence, appar-
ently “sighting in” a rifle. One of the men was de-
scribed as clearly fitting the description of the subject
(Oswald) and the car associated with the incident was
stated to fit the description which the subject (Oswald)
had been seen driving. This would later cause some
confusion since no DPD report of this incident or any
of this information is in evidence and the facts of this
report present a major contradiction to the official his-
torical record.
By late in the evening, the situation had escalated
to the point where Fourth Army Intelligence developed
a urgent cable which contained the information that
Oswald had been proven to be a “card carrying Com-
munist” and that he had “defected to Cuba in 1959.”
This urgent advisory cable was sent to the US Strike
Command at McDill AFB in Florida. Strike Command
was, at the time, the combined services quick reaction
military force which had command and control over
operational Army groups (McDill was also heavily
focused on Cuban intelligence gathering). Col. Jones
2 4 JFK Lancer
was questioned about this cable by the HSCA and de-
nied having had any knowledge of it at the time or of
the 112th having provided any of the information refer-
enced in the cable. He stated that such information
was in contrast to that in his file on Oswald/Hidel.
According to this report, the 112th had obtained
these pieces of information from officer Stringfellow
of the DPD Criminal Intelligence section. Stringfellow
reported to Lt. Jack Revill’s command and this unit was
charged with investigating crimes of an organized na-
ture, subversive activities, racial matters and labor rack-
eteering. The CI unit, along with the Vice Squad and
Narcotics squad reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway
(a reserve Army Intelligence officer). Certainly it
makes good sense that the 112th would be in communi-
cations with Revill’s unit, however, it surely did not
seem to be getting accurate information in terms of the
official story. And if we believe Jones, Fourth Army
gathered the information for its STRIKE command re-
port from the Dallas Police organization though some
other channel than its own intelligence organization.
Note: Lt. Revill also initiated a major controversy by
relating FBI agent Hosty’s remarks that the FBI was
aware of Oswald and the fact that he was capable of
violent actions.
In the end then, while the organization and mis-
sion of the 112th is no mystery, there are two very large
open questions which relate to the unit. The first be-
ing why their commander would aggressively present
what surely appears to be a false story of the 112th per-
forming Protective Service in Dallas and having de-
ployed a considerable number of personnel to do so.
The second open question has to do with the in-
formation being passed to the 112th. Was it simply
incorrect or does it reflect reality? Reality before a
cover-up? In regard to the information from the Iden-
tification Section and Captain Doughty, we really have
to wonder whether or not the first available identity for
the man taken into custody at the Texas Theatre was
A. Hidel and whether that was the only identification
provided to the DPD in the initial billfold turned into
the ID section.
In regard to the information from Lt. Revill’s DPD
intelligence unit, I would suggest that the question
would be why apparent untruths were given to the 112th
-– unless we can find some record that anyone in Dal-
las or even the media thought Oswald to be a Cuban
defector? Or that the DPD has failed to share with us a
CPUSA card with Oswald’s name on it (or would that
be Hidel?). Of course, Oswald he did show a CPUSA
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
card to Sylvia Duran in Mexico City and Hoover was
talking about multiple trips by Oswald to Cuba that
afternoon…perhaps the 112th had the real story on Nov.
22 and it never made it into the official record?
One final area of speculation pertaining to the 112th
is that of the widely circulated “Stand Down” of mili-
tary protection in Dallas. This story originated in a
contact between a former member of the 316th and Col.
Fletcher Prouty.20
The ARRB devoted considerable attention to Col.
Prouty’s information and interviewed Col. Prouty in
depth as well as the former 316th commander, Col.
Rudolph Reich. In his ARRB interview, Fletcher
Prouty makes it clear that an unnamed individual called
him (the call was unsolicited and Prouty did not per-
sonally know the individual) and described that the unit
had at first been ordered to deploy in Dallas and then
called back at the last moment -– creating a major pro-
test by the 316th detachment commander and his deputy.
Col. Prouty did not provide a name for the caller to the
ARRB although he states the caller represented him-
self as an officer of the 316th. However, in one of Col.
Prouty’s earlier papers he does name the caller and he
is listed on the 316th staff roster as a PFC, Private First
Class. 21
The ARRB interviewed Col. Prouty at length and
was also able to locate and interview the 316th com-
mander, Col. Reich. Col. Reich directly denied the
stand-down story and elaborated on the fact that his
unit never did protective service, had no special train-
ing and that he had personally written a letter to the
Army requesting advice as to possible legal responses
to the story of the stand down. It is unclear what if any
advice he was given but he did provide a copy of the
letter to the ARRB.22
CONCLUSION and SUMMARY
References and Sources obtained through the
work, files and gracious support of Malcolm Blunt,
Debra Conway and Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko ) with
advice and counseling on military history files of the
112th from Larry Haapanen.
Note: The majority of the documents containing
statements by individual members of the 112th and 316th,
the organizational and personnel documents pertaining
to the 112 th and the various 112th “Spot” reports and
other related reports as well as a variety of internal
ARRB memos and investigation assessments are
contained in the booklet and CD-Rom “Mysteries of
the 112 th” published by and available though JFK
Lancer. All documents were provided though the
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
courtesy of Malcolm Blunt, Debra Conway and Anna
Marie Kuhns-Walko.
The ARRB background memo on Army Intelligence
in Dallas, the Personnel Roster of the 112th INTC, the
personnel list for the Region II group in Dallas, a variety
of related Fact Sheets and a copy of the 316 th
Intelligence Corps Detachment’s Standing Operating
Procedures are provided in a reference booklet and
CDROM available through JFK Lancer Resource Mail
Order. Interviews with group personnel and other
related documents are also included.
(1) ARRB Memorandum, Wray to Gunn; Subject: Army
Intelligence in Dallas
(2) Department of the Army Unit Lineage and Honors, 112th
Military Intelligence Brigade
(3) 112th INTC Group Personnel Roster as of 31 January 1963
– Headquarters and Region II/Dallas
(4) Fact Sheet on 112th Intelligence Corps
(5) Fact Sheet on Protective Services - DOD memo to Com-
mittee
(6) Fact Sheet on Destruction of Oswald IRR Dossier – DOD
memo to Committee
(7) 316 th Intelligence Corps Detachment; Tactical Standard
Operating Procedures
(8) Hosty, Assignment Oswald; Hosty identifies the 112th
member as Edward Coyle
(9) Coyle, interview with ARRB, Tim Wray and staff, July
29, 1996
(10) Memo to Joseph Califano, General Counsel from Of-
fice of Secretary of the Army, December 11, 1963; Califano
Box 6, Folder 10 “Cuban Officer Training Program” memo-
randa
(11) Jones Executive Session testimony to HSCA; April 20,
1978 / RIF 180-10116- 10200
(12) Powell FBI Report; January 3, 1964
(13) Powell Memorandum for the Record, November 22,
1963
(14) Powell Select Committee on Assassinations interview,
Basteri/Maxwell, January 1, 1978
(15) ARRB Powell Interview transcript, Wray; April 12,
1996
(16) Report of the United States Secret Service on the As-
sassination of President Kennedy; statements by agents
Lawson and Sorrels; JFK Assassination File, Dallas Police
Chief Jesse Currey; DOD statement described on page 184
of HSCA report.
Note: Chief Currey makes special note that at Love
Field, SA Lawson met him immediately before the
motorcade and introduced Jack Puterbaugh of the
White House staff as well as Army Col. Whitmeyer (no
statements are available for Whitmeyer and he was not
interviewed by the WC). Both individuals were clearly
in the pilot car for the motorcade but SA Lawson makes
Vol. 7, Issue 4 25
no mention of his assigning them to the vehicle in spite
of very detailed remarks about his activities at Love
Field (SA Lawson was a former Army Reserve
intelligence officer – personal correspondence, Vince
Palamara). However, further research suggests that
this minor mystery is due to the fact that Col. Whitmeyer
was present due to his personal friendship with Chief
Lumpkin, that he had ridden down in the pilot car from
DPD headquarters and that he was later given an
“official” role in the lead car by the DPD in order to
explain his presence – after the fact. (Personal
correspondence with Dallas researcher Michael Parks).
(17) “The Secret Service Agent on the Knoll,” Debra
Conway, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 6, Issue 4,
also online at
http://www.jfklancer.com/knollagent/
(18) Spot Report 2200 hours Nov 22 from Lt. Green (Dal-
las) to Major Dippo (San Antonio); Nov 26 memo to SAC

Edward Coyle ARRB Interview July 29, 1996. The Army Intelligence Agent that met with FBI’s Hosty the
morning of November 2, 1963
2 6 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
FBI San Antonio from ASAC Brooking based on call from
Lt. Col. Jones; Nov 27 memo from San Antonio FBI to Dallas
SAC and Director based on call from Lt. Col. Jones; Fourth
Army cable to U.S. Strike Command, McDill Florida based
on intelligence from 112th obtained from Stringfellow of
DPD Intelligence unit. (See Scott, Deep Politics p 275 for
analysis; Strike Command.
(19) Report of Investigation (Military Police), Fort Hood,
Donald Whittier, January 9, 1964.
(20) “The Guns of Dallas,” Fletcher L. Prouty; also Prouty
in Gallery Magazine.
(21) Transcript of ARRB interview with L. Fletcher Prouty
and various internal ARRB memoranda and summary re-
ports.
(22) Transcript of ARRB interview with Col. Rudolph M.
Reich (Ret).

document showing Col. Jones’ report to Captain “Dowdy” of the DPD (sic) on the silhouette target sighting.

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 27

 More Mexico Mysteries
Adapted from a talk given at the
November In Dallas 2001 conference
Rex Bradford
Overview
The truth of what happened in Mexico City sev-
eral weeks prior to the assassination of President
Kennedy remains elusive. New revelations “from the
files” deepen the mystery rather than clarify it in many
cases. Once-secret HSCA depositions and documents
in the HSCA’s “Segregated Collection,” particularly the
so-called Russ Holmes Work File, contain an abundance
of fascinating and disturbing details. This essay will
not try to paint the larger picture or present some
overarching new thesis. Rather, it is an interim vehicle
for discussing some important new findings and rev-
elations; adding bricks to the edifice whose ultimate
form remains obscure.
Introduction – Mexico City: The
Rosetta Stone
It is difficult to overstate the importance of what
is usually called the “Oswald in Mexico City” affair.
Certainly the topic was an important one to the CIA—
probably a third of the 40,000 pages in the Russ Holmes
Work File collection of CIA documents are devoted to
it. The Mexico City story is important because it shows
that there was a sophisticated operation which served
to set up Oswald prior to the assassination, something
beyond the wherewithal of Mob figures or anti-Castro
Cubans acting alone. It is also important because it
finally provides an explanation for why men like Earl
Warren, who certainly weren’t part of any conspiracy
and normally wouldn’t engage in such a stark cover-
up, were put in the position where they did so. Mexico
City is indeed the Rosetta Stone of the JFK assassina-
tion.
The most easily understood aspect of the Mexico
City affair remains the tapes of an Oswald, who appar-
ently was not Oswald, calling the Soviet Embassy in
late September and early October of 1963. John
2 8 JFK Lancer
Newman spoke in some detail about these at the 1999
November in Dallas conference, and discussed some
of the evidence which shows that the FBI did indeed
listen to these tapes in the early morning of November
23, 1963. They determined that it wasn’t Oswald’s
voice on the tapes, an inconvenient fact that began to
be covered up that evening, even before Oswald was
killed by Jack Ruby.
The Non-Oswald Tape
The conversation in which FBI Director Hoover
informed the new President, Lyndon Johnson, about
this, has itself been erased, as I discovered a few months
after Newman’s talk.1 In this conversation, a transcript
of which survives, Hoover told LBJ:
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 ap-
pears that there is a second person who was
at the Soviet Embassy down there.2
This phone call, now reduced to 14 minutes of
hiss, was followed up that same day by a five-page FBI
Report sent to both the White House and the Secret
Service. This report repeated the message in no uncer-
tain terms:
The Central Intelligence Agency advised that
on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive
source had reported that an individual identi-
fied himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted
the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquir-
ing as to any messages. Special Agents of
this Bureau, who have conversed with Os-
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
 wald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photo-
graphs of the individual referred to above and
have listened to a recording of his voice.
These Special Agents are of the opinion that
the above-referred-to individual was not Lee
Harvey Oswald.3
Now I’m not going to go through the rest of the
materials which corroborate this account, and show that
the subsequent denials from both the CIA and FBI are
without merit. Suffice to say that Jeremy Gunn of the
Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) got it
straight from the horse’s mouth, from two Warren Com-
mission staffers who listened to the tapes in April of
1964. Although it’s disturbing and symptomatic of the
delicacy of this matter that the ARRB didn’t see fit to
get this acknowledgement in sworn testimony. Instead,
we get the account in a bit of a roundabout fashion, in
the form of a question asked of CIA Mexico City ex-
employee Anne Goodpasture:
Gunn. I have spoken with two Warren Com-
mission staff members who went to Mexico
City and who both told me that they heard
the tape after the assassination obviously. Do
you have any knowledge of information re-
garding tapes that may have been played to
those Warren Commission staff members?
Goodpasture. No. It may have been a tape
that Win Scott had squirreled away in his
safe.4
Ultra-Sensitive Sources
The fact that the CIA was taping the Soviet Em-
bassy in Mexico City was of course an ultra-secret se-
cret, a perfect place to hang a plot into and be sure that
there would never be a full public airing. The Warren
Commission got a lot of vague runaround regarding
how the CIA knew what it was telling them during the
early months of 1964, until finally in April three staff-
ers were sent by the Commission to Mexico City to try
and get some harder information. But even the sev-
enty-page internal report of this trip, written by David
Slawson in April 1964 but not released until 1996, never
directly says that the tapes were been listened to, in-
stead referring to transcripts:
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
Mr. Scott’s narrative of course took a rather
long time to complete, and we interrupted him
at many points with specific questions. Dur-
ing the course of the narrative we were shown
the actual transcripts, plus the translations,
of all the telephone intercepts involved, and
we were also shown the reels of photographs
for all the days in question that had been taken
secretly outside the Cuban and Soviet Em-
bassy entrances.5
Documents like this will be used by some to con-
tinue to assert that the tapes never really existed at the
time of the assassination. I think what’s really going
on here is that Slawson and Coleman got “the treat-
ment” from the CIA. The ultra-sensitivity of the tapes
was impressed upon them in the most forceful terms.
This conclusion is not just conjecture.
For instance, William Coleman, David Slawson’s
partner, told the HSCA just how sensitive he believed
the telephone tapping operation to be. In a recorded
interview of August 2, 1978, he discussed just how
much this had been impressed upon him, and even said
he thought it was a “great disservice to the United
States” that some of these secret operations were be-
coming public in the 1970s. He also told the HSCA
that if this information had not been public knowledge
already, “I would be fudging like hell with you fellows.”
He apparently went on to do just that, when Ed Lopez
asked him directly about the question of the Oswald
tapes surviving the assassination:
Lopez. Did the agency ever…..explain why
it did not have an actual tape recording of
Oswald’s voice?
Coleman (soft): “I haven’t the faintest idea
whether they did or did not. I mean, I don’t
know, I’m pretty sure this question was prob-
ably asked of them and they probably gave
us…if they had—I don’t know whether they
had or they didn’t have, I mean, I really don’t
know but I do know that there was…but I’m
pretty sure that if we asked them “where is
it?”….. (trails off)6
Coleman went on to explain why even detailed
internal Warren Commission memos might not contain
the most sensitive information in them. He also ex-
Vol. 7, Issue 4 29
plained that this material was so secret that not even
members of the Warren Commission could be let in on
it:
Coleman. By that time…..we were
sophisticated with the CIA, and there-
fore we wrote memoranda…..we tried
to use the jargon of the CIA, because
we felt it was important not to even
indicate to everybody on the Commis-
sion some of these sources,
because…..Dave Slawson had a spe-
cial clearance with the CIA and there
were some people that didn’t.7
In fact, as late as May 5, 1964, nearly a month
after their Mexico City trip, these Warren Commission
staffers had apparently kept every single Commissioner
in the dark about sources and methods. Besides the
three staffers (Slawson, Coleman, and Willens), appar-
ently only Commission Counsel J. Lee Rankin had been
told. A Memo For the Record written by CIA’s Tho-
mas Hall of a May 5, 1964 meeting with Slawson notes
that:
According to Mr. Slawson, only Messrs.
Rankin, Willens, Coleman (?) and he pres-
ently know of the telephone taps in Mexico
City. Slawson, Willens and Coleman were
briefed on the taps during their visit to Mexico
City.
……….
According to Mr. Slawson, no member of the
Commission now knows of the telephone taps
in Mexico City (he did not mention Mr.
Dulles).
Mr. [ ******** ] carefully briefed Mr.
Slawson (probably rebriefed him) on the im-
portance of these telephone taps to U.S. se-
curity and the grave damage that would be
done to U.S. – Mexican relations if knowl-
edge of their existence became public.
Mr. Slawson quite clearly was a bit unhappy
that certain information could not be used,
since the taps were the only source. Oswald’s
very bad Russian was the example he used. I
asked what opinion Mrs. Oswald had of her
husband’s Russian. She thought that he spoke
it very well.8
It’s unclear whether any Commission members
were ever told of the telephone taps.
3 0
“Who’s Kostikov?...[He’s] believed to
work for Department 13 of the KGB --
the department responsible for assas-
sination.”
40 Million Americans
Now, those who have seen the transcripts of the
“Oswald” calls know they’re pretty innocuous if a bit
confused, and are plausibly interpreted to be about
Oswald’s visa request. The September 28 call has a
disturbing comment that “I went to the Cuban Embassy
to ask them for my address because they have it,” which
would be the cause of much concern at the CIA post-
assassination, as it appeared to imply an Oswald rela-
tionship with the Cuban Embassy. The October 1 call
had something even nastier in it, a reference by “Os-
wald” to a previous meeting with a man whose name
the Soviet guard on the phone supplies: Kostikov.9
Who’s Kostikov? Warren Commission Document
347, one of those withheld until the 1990s, is a CIA
report on Oswald’s Mexico City trip, written on Janu-
ary 31, 1964. It contains the following:
Kostikov is believed to work for Department
Thirteen of the First Chief Directorate of the
KGB. It is the Department responsible for
executive action, including sabotage and as-
sassination. These functions of the KGB are
known within the Service itself as “Wet Af-
fairs” (mokryye dela). The Thirteenth De-
partment headquarters, according to very re-
liable information, conducts interviews or, as
appropriate, file reviews on every foreign
military defector to the USSR to study and to
determine the possibility of utilizing the de-
fector in his country of origin.10 [emphasis
added]
This information is apparently what prompted
Lyndon Johnson to tell Senator Richard Russell:
…..we’ve got to be taking this out of the arena
where they’re testifying that Khrushchev and
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
 Castro did this and did that, and kicking us
into a war that can kill 40 million Americans
in an hour.11
Johnson, of course, had learned almost immedi-
ately that it wasn’t really Oswald on the phone, and so
this Department Thirteen connection was a phony one.
But he presumably didn’t tell that to Chief Justice Earl
Warren when he arm-wrestled Warren onto his
President’s Commission, with “what Hoover told me
about a little incident in Mexico City.”12
The Third Tape
Now again, the phone calls themselves are not
really very sinister, though some dire implications could
and were drawn from them in some quarters. But the
assumption here is that the record is complete and un-
altered. However, we have many reasons to suspect
that this is not the case. In particular there are indica-
tions, as John Newman wrote about in Oswald and the
CIA, that there was another phone call which is not in
the current record. 13 Newman made use of the Lopez
Report’s discussion of the testimony of David Phillips
and that of Anna Tarasoff, half of the husband-wife CIA
transcription team. But as we’ll see, even the Lopez
Report is incomplete in regard to the relevant testimony
here.
David Phillips 1976 Allegation
First, David Phillips’ allegation. On November
26, 1976, the day before he was to testify before the
House Select Committee on Assassinations, CIA Chief
of Cuban Operations David Phillips dropped a bomb-
shell into the media. The AP reported, in a story head-
lined “Oswald Offered Soviets Data for Trip,” that
Phillips remembered another phone call, one not in the
record.14 In that call, Phillips recalled, Oswald offered
the Soviets information that “might be useful to them.”
Ronald Kessler of the Washington Post wrote a lengthier
story the same day (of which the Russ Holmes Work
File contains many copies, an indication of the interest
elicited at CIA) entitled “Hill Panel Probing Oswald
Call.”15 Kessler reported that Oswald was trying to
wrangle a free trip to the Soviet Union in exchange for
information.
Now, as recorded in these articles Phillips’ story
was still not of a “Hey, I’m going to kill the President
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
like you told me” phone call. Nonetheless, it’s more
sinister than the calls we have transcripts for, and might
very well include statements that would imply a work-
ing relationship between Oswald and the Soviets. And
if this story is true, it indicates that the record on Mexico
City has been fudged a bit, which is disturbing also.
The HSCA testimony of David Phillips is now
public, held among the so-called Security Classified
testimony in 9 boxes at the National Archives. Phillips
was questioned by Richard Sprague, the HSCA’s head
at that point and for a few months more, until strange
circumstances led to his ouster and replacement by
Robert Blakey. In his deposition, David Phillips started
out answering directly and then slowly started to dance
sideways under questioning, trying to maintain his al-
legation without being pinned down too hard on spe-
cifics:
Mr. Sprague. The United Press has a spe-
cific quotation of a statement which they say
you made to a United Press International re-
porter named Daniel F. Gillmore, quoting in
part as follows: “I have the recollection hazy
after fourteen years that Oswald intimated
that he had information that might be useful
to the Soviets and Cuba, and that he hoped to
be provided with free transportation to Rus-
sia via Cuba.”
Did you make that statement to Mr. Daniel F.
Gillmore of United Press International?
Mr. Phillips. I did, sir.
Mr. Sprague. Is that statement accurate?
Mr. Phillips. I think it is, sir, yes, it is.
Mr. Sprague. There is, in the Washington
Post of yesterday’s date, a story by Ronald
Kessler in which he quotes you in part stat-
ing that you recall from a transcript Oswald
telling the Soviet embassy, “I have informa-
tion you would be interested in, and I know
you can pay my way” into Russia, but that is
not part of the quote.
Is that what you said in part to Mr. Kessler?
Mr. Phillips. I feel I cannot answer that yes
or no without explaining that I met with Mr.
Kessler on two occasions, once for a long
lunch, once in a coffee shop, and he called
me two or three times on the phone.
In these discussions with Mr. Kessler, I did—
he raised the subject of whether or not Os-
wald was offering information, was being
paid, wanted to be paid to go to the Soviet
Vol. 7, Issue 4 31
 Union, and wanted to know whether or not I The Tarasoffs and the Lopez Report
could confirm that. I did confirm in the
sense— Now, if this story were solely told by David
Mr. Sprague. My question is, I have read a Phillips, researchers might very well write it off as some
specific quotation, Mr. Phillips. You are un- form of disinformation. But, as the Lopez Report re-
der oath at this time. lates, the story received corroboration. Anna Tarasoff,
Mr. Phillips. I understand. wife of Boris Tarasoff and part of the team which tran-
Mr. Sprague. And I will reread the quota- scribed the Oswald calls, remembered such a conver-
tion, because I do want to know, did you make sation. The Lopez Report relates that on April 12, 1978,
this statement in part. I understand that there Anna Tarasoff was shown the extant transcripts of con-
were other parts to the conversation, but did versations, but that:
you make this statement to Mr. Kessler—I’m
not talking about you, I am talking about what In addition to these transcripts, Ms. Tarasoff
Oswald allegedly said: “I have information testified that she remembered one more con-
you would be interested in, and I know you versation that involved Lee Oswald.18
can pay my way.”
Mr. Phillips. I think I may have said that or In her own words:
something near to it, but what I intended to
convey was that Mr. Kessler was saying, well, According to my recollection, I myself, have
is that the idea, and I said yes, that was the made a transcript, an English transcript, of
idea that we gathered.16 Lee Oswald talking to the Russian Consu-
late or whoever he was at that time, asking
By 11 pages later in the interview transcript, for financial aid.
though, Phillips had backed pretty far off the original
story, and was talking about a conversation which was
Now, that particular transcript does not ap-
mainly about a visa:
pear here and whatever happened to it, I do
not know, but it was a lengthy transcript and
Mr. Sprague. I do not want you to give an
I personally did that transcript. It was a
answer based upon what anyone else says. I
lengthy conversation between him and some-
do not want you to give an answer trying to
one at the Russian Embassy.19
square your answer with what you believe is
on somebody else’s transcript or anything
Ms. Tarasoff remembered specifically another call
else. I want this to be your own answer as
with content similar to that described by Phillips. Fur-
best you can recall, of what was the purport
thermore, she remembered that the conversation was
of that first intercept.
lengthy, unlike the short transcripts which exist now,
Mr. Phillips. Okay. All right. Obviously
and in English, not broken Russian or Spanish.
after so long I can’t remember it word for
But the Lopez Report also notes:
word, but I remember that the thrust of the
conversation was Oswald saying to the So-
Mr. Tarasoff did not confirm his wife’s rec-
viet he talked to in the Soviet Embassy, “What
ollection of another conversation including
have you heard about my visa, what news do
Oswald. He said that he did not remember
you have?” “What have you heard about my
any other calls involving Lee Oswald or any
visa, what news do you have,” something like
details of Oswald’s conversations that were
that. I also recall that Oswald was saying
not reflected in the transcripts.20
“What’s wrong, why don’t you do this?” And
I recall something in that conversation that I
And that’s an accurate account of the Tarasoff’s
can only call an intimation that he said “Well,
April 1978 testimony, which is now public, part of nine
you really should talk to me,” or something
boxes of Security Classified testimony.
like that. Now, it seems that I recall that, and
that is all that I recall with absolute clarity.17

3 2 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

The Tarasoffs’ Earlier Testimony
But completely ignored in the Lopez Report is
earlier testimony of both Mr. and Mrs. Tarasoff, testi-
mony given nearly a year-and-a-half earlier. In fact,
Richard Sprague’s team had barely finished interview-
ing David Phillips when they flew down to Guadalajaro
Mexico to interview the Tarasoff couple, on Novem-
ber 30, 1976. And in this interview, Boris Tarasoff
didn’t have the memory lapse he was to exhibit later,
during the Blakey era.
The summary of this earlier interview, included
along with the transcript in the file, contains the fol-
lowing:
The Tarasoffs claim to remember translating
and transcribing at least two conversations
involving Oswald. They remember that the
first one was fairly short and routine. Os-
wald did not identify himself in this first con-
versation. The second one was much longer
and Oswald did identify himself in this con-
versation. The Tarasoffs remember Oswald
discussing his financial situation in this call.
They deny making any editorial or marginal
comments in the transcription of this call.
The Tarasoffs remember nothing unusual
about the first call or the circumstances sur-
rounding its delivery or transcription. The
second call was delivered to them and they
were asked to transcribe the Oswald call as
quickly as possible. Their contact expressed
a strong interest in the identity of the caller
and the substance of the call. The Tarasoffs
translated and transcribed the call and re-
turned the transcript on the same day, using
an emergency contact as opposed to waiting
until the next morning and using their stan-
dard contact.21
In this interview, both Tarasoffs clearly remem-
bered an English conversation, which Anna transcribed
as she typically handled English calls whereas her hus-
band typically did the Russian ones. This may be re-
sponsible for her memory being better regarding the
content of the call. But that there was such a call, in
English, lengthy, and with a great deal of excitement
surrounding it, both Tarasoffs were explicit, as this ex-
cerpt reveals:
Mr. Brooten. There was a second long con-
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
versation. Between the first conversation and
the second conversation, were you asked to
attempt to determine the identity of this per-
son?
Mr. Tarasoff. Oh yes.
Mr. Brooten. All right, would you describe
that.
Mr. Tarasoff. Well, to the best of my knowl-
edge, we either got the note or was it passed
verbally, I think we got a note, no?
Mrs. Tarasoff. Well, if I’m not mistaken,
the party that brought the reels, there was a
notation made to listen to number so-and-so
on tape so-and-so dated whatever date it was,
because each reel had a date and a number
and according to the numbers, then there
were, the transcripts of each conversation
within that had a number, so you ran the tape
until you came to a certain number and then
you listened.
Mr. Brooten. Now, did they want you to or
did they give you any instructions about at-
tempting to determine who the caller was in
that case?
Mr. Tarasoff. Yes, they certainly did. They
wanted to know the name of the person. Then
if we learned the name to get in touch with
them immediately and turn in the transcript,
to make the transcript, turn it in forget about
Spanish, Russian or whatever was on the
reel—
Mrs. Tarasoff. In other words, this was top
priority if we got the name, to work on it.
Mr. Tarasoff. It was very important to them.
Mr. Brooten. All right sir. Now did you
receive a second tape with this same indi-
vidual speaking to anyone at the Soviet Em-
bassy?
Mr. Tarasoff. Well that’s, you mean the third
conversation?
Mr. Brooten. All right, no but there was a
second one.
Mr. Tarasoff. The long one, yes.22
In this lengthy interview, the following points
were made quite clearly:
• Both Tarasoffs remembered. Both
Tarasoffs remembered another call.
• Lengthy. It was a lengthy call.
• English. It was in English, and Mrs.
Vol. 7, Issue 4 33
 Tarasoff transcribed it.
• Financial Discussion. Oswald discussed
his financial situation.
• Keen Interest. The CIA was very keen
on this call, both the identity of the caller and
the substance.
An Incomplete Record
There are many other clues that something is
missing from the CIA’s story about what happened
in Mexico City in late September and early October of
1963, and that the record we have today has been ef-
faced. Another of the Security Classified depositions
is that of Ray Rocca, who was Chief of the Research &
Analysis division of Counter Intelligence at CIA. Rocca
was shown the October cable traffic which reported on
the Oswald calls. He exhibited a fair amount of confu-
sion, referring repeatedly to cables which had been sent
earlier than the “first” cable of October 8. Rocca fi-
nally threw up his hands and said of the “first” cable:
“Well, it seems to me too late, that communication be-
gan earlier from Mexico City.”23
Win Scott, the CIA Mexico City station chief, was
another whose account does not square with “the
record” as it exists in CIA documents. In a manuscript
entitled Foul Foe, Scott complained about the Warren
Commission’s account of the Oswald visits. Writing
about the lack of a photograph of Oswald, for instance,
he wrote: “persons watching these embassies photo-
graphed Oswald as he entered and left each one, and
clocked the time he spent on each visit.”24 The HSCA
uncovered this manuscript, whose contents were dis-
puted by the CIA, but HSCA investigators were less
sure that Scott was in error. Writing to DCI Stansfield
Turner on October 13, 1978, HSCA Chairman Louis
Stokes wrote a letter which began “I am writing you
with regard to a matter of grave concern to the House
Select Committee on Assassinations,” and went on to
describe problems with the CIA’s story regarding photo
surveillance. Regarding the Scott manuscript, Stokes
wrote “Scott’s comments are a source of deep concern
to this Committee, for they suggest your Agency’s pos-
sible withholding of photographic materials highly rel-
evant to this investigation.”25
The Tarasoffs’ 1976 testimony is clear and be-
lievable, despite the memory lapse exhibited by Boris
Tarasoff more than a year later. This “missing call”
might have occurred on Monday, September 30, a day
suspiciously lacking in activity in the official record.26
3 4 JFK Lancer
“On the lack of a photograph of Oswald,
Scott wrote, ‘persons watching these
embassies photographed Oswald as he
entered and left each one, and clocked
the time spent on each visit.’”
No one’s memory of such a call includes any ultra-sin-
ister discussion such as a plot to kill Kennedy. But
what is remembered of the call gives it a more sinister
import than those now in the record. Besides Oswald’s
offer of information and assertions that “I know you
can pay my way,” the lengthy call might have contained
indications that the Russian’s knew Oswald and had
dealt with him before. This would probably only be
the case if the call was a complete fabrication, with
neither Oswald nor the real Soviet Embassy officials
on the other end, but there are many indications that
the September 28 “Saturday” call is such a fabrication
(among other things, both supposed parties to the call
deny that such a call could have taken place on that
day, when the embassies were closed).27
Perhaps it is this “third call” which prompted
Lyndon Johnson to bandy about the figure of “40 mil-
lion Americans involved” in a nuclear exchange, and
prompted a cover-up of more than just visa talk.
Telephone Taps and Human Infor-
mants
The new documents reveal more about how the
telephone tapping operation worked, and what other
sources of information the CIA had at its disposal in
Mexico City.
Mr. Hoover’s Informant
A reasonable working assumption has been that
the tapes were flown up on the night of the 22nd on the
same Naval Attache plane that carried the “Mystery
Man” photographs. I think that’s still the most likely
scenario, even though there’s not a single released docu-
ment that says so. But there’s another possibility.
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
On November 26, just after the dust had settled and the
CIA and FBI had agreed that there were no tapes after
all, only transcripts, CIA Director McCone and FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover had a little phone
conversation. Here is an excerpt, taken from a transcript
preserved in CIA files:28
Hoover. But there is no question that he [Os-
wald] is the right man. There are a lot of
aspects that we have dug up, for instance, with
regards to the matter in Mexico City. We have
now found that the photograph that was taken
was not that of Oswald. We do find from
our informant down there that Oswald did
call at the Embassy that day and the infor-
mant has given us the conversation that he
had….. [emphasis added]
Is Hoover being chummy here, referring to a CIA
teltap operation as “our informant?” Or does he mean
something else here?
The HSCA put this transcript in front of Ray
Rocca, Chief of Research & Analysis in the CIA’s
Counter Intelligence division. Rocca was a key player
in 1963 and had been hired back during the Rockefeller
Commission’s tenure to pull together materials on
Mexico City. When shown this transcript, Rocca im-
mediately recognized the “informant” as LIENVOY,
the cryptonym for the taping operation. Here is an ex-
cerpt from his deposition:
Mr. Goldsmith. I would like to show you a
transcript of a telephone conversation be-
tween Mr. McCone and Mr. Hoover dated 26
November, 1963. It is CIA document num-
ber 2134.
Does that appear to the [sic] a transcript of a
telephone conversation?
Mr. Rocca. Yes, it does.
Mr. Goldsmith. Would you read the middle
paragraph, which makes reference to an FBI
informant.
(pause)
Mr. Rocca. That’s LIENVOY. That’s their
material [**************************
**********************].
Mr. Goldsmith. So, how would—
Mr. Rocca. I would interpret it that way. I
have never read this piece of paper that I re-
call. That would be my reaction.
Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, let’s get this
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
clear.
The Director of the FBI, Mr. Hoover, is mak-
ing reference to an informant that the FBI had
in Mexico City, and he is indicating that the
informant has informed the Bureau as to the
contents of Oswald’s conversations in Mexico
City.
From your answer, I take it that you assume
that Mr. Hoover is referring to the LIENVOY
operation.
Mr. Rocca. And he is subtly letting Mr.
McCone know that Mr. McCone’s resources
down there were not unique, that they, too,
had access to [ ****************** ].
Mr. Goldsmith.
[***************************************
******************************** ].
Mr. Rocca.
[*************************************
*************************], yes.
Mr. Goldsmith.
[**********************************
************************************].
Mr. Rocca. Yes.29
The following day, CIA HQ sent a cable down to
the Mexico City station, alerting them to Hoover’s rev-
elation. DIR 85245 of November 27 suggests that
Sylvia Duran’s statements be used instead of the
LIENVOY take, to avoid compromising the operation,
and then goes on to discuss the problem of where the
FBI is getting its information. In the following cable
standard CIA-speak applies, so “KUBARK” refers to
the CIA and “ODENVY” is the FBI.
2. PLS NOTE THAT DIRECTOR ODENVY
IS GETTING FROM ODENVY MEXI
MUCH INFO WHICH OBVIOUSLY
ORIGINATES WITH THE LIENVOY OP-
ERATION. ODENVY HERE APPAR-
ENTLY DOES NOT REALIZE THAT THIS
INFO WAS PRODUCED BY A KUBARK
OPERATION, AND INDEED, ODENVY
MAY BE GETTING THIS LIENVOY INFO
THRU ITS OWN CLANDESTINE
SOURCES [ **************** ] OR
EVEN IN THE [ ************ ]. PLS TRY
TO CLARIFY WITH ODENVY REP
THERE THE EXACT MANNER IN
WHICH HE HAS OBTAINED SUCH INFO
AND THE FORM IN WHICH HE HAS
Vol. 7, Issue 4 35
 SENT IT TO ODENVY HQ. WE MUST
AVOID THE INADVERTENT COMPRO-
MISE OF LIENVOY.
It’s apparent that, one way or another, FBI Direc-
tor Hoover had his own access to the telephone tap
material, and even CIA did not appear to have known
how. Does this mean the FBI had its own tapping op-
eration? Probably not. While it remains unclear
whether the FBI had access to raw tapes, or transcripts,
or simply information, the most plausible explanation
is that Hoover had people “in on” the CIA teltap opera-
tion, LIENVOY.
Naming it a “CIA” operation may be what is con-
fusing things here, because it’s likely that LIENVOY
was not fully a CIA operation at all. There remain many
redactions in these transcripts and documents in this
area, but what is being kept secret does not seem to be
so much the methods as the sources, specifically just
who it was that ran LIENVOY.
One redaction in Richard Helms’ HSCA testimony
holds the key, and its contents can be guessed fairly
easily:
Mr. Helms. I do not know whether it has
been made, the Committee has been made of
the fact that the reason for the sensitivity of
these telephone taps and the surveillance was
not only because it was sensitive from the
Agency’s standpoint, but the telephone taps
were running in conjunction with the [
**************** ] and therefore, if this
had become public knowledge, it would have
caused very bad feelings between Mexico and
the United States, and that was the reason.30
Substitute “Mexican DFS” for the redacted text,
and things fall into place nicely. The Mexican security
service no doubt managed the physical placement of
telephone taps within their own country, and probably
supplied the people who manned the listening post as
well. Hoover, with his extensive contacts in Latin
America, no doubt had his own backchannel into what
was ostensibly a CIA operation but which was not re-
ally fully their show.
It’s interesting to speculate as to exactly when the
FBI got access to the “Oswald” tapes or transcripts,
whether right away on November 22, or a few days
later before the November 26 phone call, or even prior
to the assassination.
3 6 JFK Lancer
As an aside, the Rocca HSCA deposition has an-
other very interesting moment, prior to the discussion
of the Hoover-McCone call. Michael Goldsmith, the
HSCA interviewer, was trying to find out why the CIA’s
Counter Intelligence staff, the CI/SIG group in particu-
lar, was the one that opened the 201 file on Oswald a
year after he defected to the Soviet Union. Goldsmith
was curious, because CI/SIG was concerned primarily
with penetrations of the DD/P, the operations group
inside the CIA.
Mr. Goldsmith. …..My question is more
narrowly focused in why would CI/SIG in
particular have been opening the file.
Mr. Rocca. Because of their concern, basi-
cally, with the problem of Americans and they
were the recipient of the materials, probably
from the Office of Security, if not the actual
copy of that material, certainly the chit chat.
Bruce Solie was – B-R-U-C-E S-O-L-I-E –
constantly in touch with Mr. O’Neill and with
Mrs. Edgerter, I am sure.
Mr. Goldsmith. But from the face of it, it
does not appear that Oswald posed any sort
of a counter intelligence threat in terms of
the penetration of DDP personnel.
Mr. Rocca. Of the U.S. security interest. At
a very high level, though, he did, involving
other departments and agencies of the gov-
ernment.
Mr. Goldsmith. I understand, and I am not
suggesting that a file should not have been
opened by the CI staff. I am just trying to
determine why CI/SIG in particular, which
was concerned about DDP penetrations,
would have been opening the file.
………….
Mr. Goldsmith. How would the function of
CI/SIG in that case be different from in the
Office of Security, in general?
Mr. Rocca. It would be with respect to where
and what had happened to DDP materials
with respect to a defection in any of these
places.
Mr. Goldsmith. Again, though, Oswald had
nothing to do with DDP at this time, at least
apparently.
Mr. Rocca. I’m not saying that. You said it.
[ emphasis added ]31
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
Human Informants: Two, to be Exact,
One Male, One Female
Telephone taps and photo surveillance were only
two of the tools employed in the spy-vs-spy game
played in Mexico City. Many of these operations are
touched upon in a three-volume history of the Mexico
City CIA station, sanitized excerpts of which were
shown to three HSCA investigators. 32 While still
heavily redacted, this lengthy set of excerpts describes
a variety of operations conducted against the Cuban
Embassy (and other embassies). Microphones were
planted in various offices. Wastebasket trash was re-
covered and analyzed. Passenger manifests from flights
to and from Cuba were passed along. A photo-surveil-
lance van followed “targets” around the city. While
the first microphone transmitter was installed in the
Cuban Embassy in February 1961, so many redactions
are present that it is impossible to be certain that the
planted microphones were in operation during the time
of the Oswald visit in the fall of 1963.33
But another operation ensured that more listen-
ing ears than microphones would be present in the Cu-
ban Embassy. Have a look at this cable, sent from the
Mexico City CIA station to headquarters on November
28, 1963.
[**********] REPORTED 27 NOV AFTER
SYLVIA DURAN FIRST ARREST WAS
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE
GREAT DEAL DISCUSSION OF THIS IN
EMBASSY. SHE BACK IN OFFICE 25
NOV AND SEEMED QUITE PLEASED
WITH HER PERFORMANCE. HER AC-
COUNT INTERROGATION CONTAINED
LITTLE NEW EXCEPT POLICE HAD
THREATENED HER WITH EXTRADI-
TION TO U.S. TO FACE OSWALD. SHE
HAD NO FEAR OF CONFRONTATION.
[********] DESCRIBES HER AS VERY
INTELLIGENT AND QUICK-WITTED.
OF ASSASSINATION ITSELF [*********]
SAID THERE ALMOST NO DISCUSSION
IN EMBASSY. STAFF MEETING 23 NOV
VERY SHORT AND SOMBER WITH GEN-
ERAL IMPRESSION BEING ONE OF
SHOCK AND DISBELIEF. HEARD NO
EXPRESSIONS OF PLEASURE.
[***********] SEEN NIGHT 27 NOV HAD
NOTHING TO ADD TO ABOVE. INDEED
HER VERSION MUCH LESS DETAILED.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
NEITHER [ ****** ] NOR [ ******** ]
HAD ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
OSWALD PRESENCE CUBAN EMBASSY
AT ANY TIME.34
The report above clearly comes from human in-
formants inside the Cuban Embassy. This cable and
others35 show that there were two informants, one male
and one female, who worked there. Their identities
are not revealed, at least in these cables of the days
following the assassination, where their identities are
redacted.36
What did these human informants know of the
events of September/October 1963? The last line of
the above cable says that they had no personal knowl-
edge of Oswald’s presence, and this claim was reiter-
ated in a cable sent the following day from CIA HQ to
the White House, FBI, and State Department:
NONE OF THESE SOURCES HAD ANY
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANY VIS-
ITS THAT LEE OSWALD MAY HAVE
MADE TO THE CUBAN EMBASSY IN
MEXICO CITY OR OF ANY BUSINESS
HE MAY HAVE TRANSACTED.37
The key phrase here may be “personal” knowl-
edge, as opposed to what these informants learned from
other employees. HSCA investigators Ed Lopez and
Harold Leap found and interviewed these two infor-
mants, without permission from the CIA. According
to another HSCA investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, the infor-
mants told Lopez and Leap that “the consensus among
the employees within the Cuban Consulate after the
Kennedy assassination was that it wasn’t Oswald who
had been there.”38 The informants also said that they
had reported this fact to the Agency.
Luisa Calderon’s Foreknowledge
The “Oswald” tapes weren’t the only taped con-
versations of concern to the CIA and the assassination
investigators. A November 26 call between Cuban
Ambassador to Mexico Hernandez Armas and Cuban
President Dorticos was a cause of some concern.
Hernandez told Dorticos that the DFS had asked Sylvia
Duran about intimate relations with Oswald, and
Dorticos for his part repeatedly asked whether she had
been asked about monetary payments to Oswald.39
Another taped call, one which caused the HSCA much
Vol. 7, Issue 4 37
consternation, involved Cuban Embassy employee
Luisa Calderon. Volume XI of the HSCA’s Report,
careful to avoid disclosing sources and methods, laid
out the issue:
A reliable source reported that on 22 Novem-
ber 1963, several hours after the assassina-
tion of President John F. Kennedy, Luisa
Calderon Carralero, a Cuban employee of the
Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, and believed
to be a member of the Cuban Directorate
General of Intelligence (DGI), discussed
news of the assassination with an acquain-
tance. Initially, when asked if she had heard
the latest news, Calderon replied, in what ap-
peared to be a joking manner, “Yes, of course,
I knew almost before Kennedy.”40
The “reliable source” is again a telephone tap,
which captured a conversation at 5:30 PM local time,
several hours after the assassination. A loose “tran-
script” of the conversation starts this way:
HF asks LUISA if she has heard the latest
news and LUISA, in a joking tone says, “Yes,
of course, I knew almost before Kennedy.”
HF smiles and comments that it is very bad;
….
There are a few oddities here. How one ascer-
tains that a person is “smiling” in a telephone conver-
sation is one. Also, this conversation was accompa-
nied by a handwritten note which includes: “22 Nov
Lienvoy Luisa Calderon and man outside.” “Man out-
side” is typical CIA-speak for a man on an outside tele-
phone line (and LIENVOY is the teltap operation). But
the “transcript” notes that the other person is HF, pre-
sumably Hispanic Female. The handwritten note also
says that “cc original and transcript sent to Galbond
via Kingman. Nothing to Buro yet,” interestingly keep-
ing the FBI in the dark for the moment.41
In any case, the HSCA became greatly concerned
about the possibility that Luisa Calderon had exhibited
foreknowledge of the assassination with her joking
statement “Yes, of course, I knew almost before
Kennedy.” If a “conspiracy buff” took some similar
statement on the part of an American official and bal-
looned it into a conspiracy mountain, they would of
course be subjected to deserved ridicule. But the
double-standard applied to Cubans, particularly one
thought to be in the employ of the Cuban intelligence
3 8 JFK Lancer
service, made this case different. In his interview with
William Coleman, Ed Lopez devoted 15 minutes to the
topic of Luisa Calderon, even though Coleman couldn’t
even remember who such a person was. The HSCA
wrote several pages in Volume XI about their concerns,
and the page devoted to her in the Final Report was
more space than they devoted to many more important
matters.
An obvious question here is whether Luisa
Calderon made any statements between the time of the
assassination and this 5:30 PM call, statements which
might clarify whether she really had any foreknowl-
edge or was merely joking. For instance, is there a
document with transcripts of all taped calls for Novem-
ber 22, and does Luisa appear in other, earlier calls?
There is no evidence that I’ve found to indicate
that the HSCA asked this question, or received such a
transcript log. But one does exist. RIF #104-10404-
10426 contains 49 pages of Spanish transcripts and
English translations for November 22, 1963. And
indeed there is not just one but two prior calls involving
Luisa Calderon, one at 1:30 PM and one at 2:00 PM.
Here is the beginning of the English translation
of the first call:
1330 hours. Unidentified woman calls
LUISA (in Cuban Embassy). Caller asks
LUISA if she knows the news about
KENNEDY’S death.
LUISA: is surprised….says it is a lie and
asks who?
CALLER: in an attempt in Texas.
LUISA: further surprise and again asks if
news is official and when did it occur.
CALLER: yes, it happened at 1300 hours.
LUISA: laughs and says how great.42
……….
The second call came a half-hour later. If Luisa
Calderon exhibits foreknowledge in this call, it is re-
lated to Oswald’s death and not Kennedy’s:
about 1400 hours. YOYA calls to Cuban
Embassy and asks LUISA if she heard the
news and she says yes.
YOYA: what do you think of it?
LUISA: Well I don’t know. I still don’t know
what opinion to have about it.
YOYA: What bruts. A good shot. Direct.
Listen. Now they are going to say that it was
from here. That it was some Cuban.
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
 LUISA: That is possible. Then if they don’t
say it; they will die.43
……….
It is very hard to believe that the HSCA would
have written what it did about Luisa Calderon if HSCA
staffers had seen these transcripts, which seem to ex-
onerate Calderon of what was always a pretty weak
charge. Was this just a case of bureaucratic snafu, with
these earlier transcripts getting lost in the shuffle and
overlooked? That too is hard to believe. The CIA Of-
fice of Legislative Counsel took the trouble to write
Robert Blakey a ten-page letter in 1979, much of it taken
up with bickering over the HSCA’s writeup on the
Calderon affair.44 Now that the damage was done, and
the HSCA led on a wild goose chase into Cuban-con-
spiracy-land, the CIA was concerned that the HSCA
would blow its sources and methods in their writeup.
So the letter goes into great detail bickering over the
exact wording of the Spanish words which were trans-
lated into “I knew almost before Kennedy,” never paus-
ing to mention “Oh, by the way, here are some earlier
transcripts that will put the whole business to rest.” It’s
of course possible to argue that people at the Office of
Legislative Counsel were unaware of the earlier calls,
but the idea that the CIA would not know how to look
for “the day’s take” of transcripts for November 22 is
ludicrous. This episode is very damning of the Agency,
adding fuel to the thesis that the Agency was more than
happy in the 1970s to do what it had done with Warren
Commission 15 years earlier, which is to push Com-
munist conspiracy theories vigorously and divert the
investigations from more fruitful avenues of research.
A final point about the Calderon affair has to do
with the importance of original research using the docu-
ments, and being careful of writers with an agenda. I
am referring to Gus Russo’s Live by the Sword, a book
which generally asserts that Oswald killed Kennedy by
himself but a lot of secret sources and interviews con-
ducted by Russo in the 1990s suggest that Oswald may
have been dealing with Cuban agents and possibly
egged on by them, and then bad Bobby Kennedy had
to order a coverup because he and Jack had been going
after Castro due to an ego-driven personal vendetta.
Russo discusses Luisa Calderon, and even in-
cludes some new information from the new documents.
Russo repeats the famous “I knew almost before
Kennedy” quote, but then adds this:
CIA transcripts of the conversation support
the source. But they reveal even more detail.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
The conversation is punctuated by so much
laughter, and such joyous disbelief, that the
two parties appear giddy. Calderon, through
her laughter, said that she couldn’t believe
the news of Kennedy’s death, and continu-
ally remarked on how great it was. When
the caller said that Kennedy was “shot three
times in the face,” Calderon exclaimed “Per-
fect!”45
Russo exaggerates the amount of “laughter” and
“joyous disbelief” in the conversation, unless he has
been somehow privy to an actual recording and not the
transcript in the record that the rest of us can read. But
far more interesting is how he conflates multiple con-
versations into one. Calderon did indeed reply “Per-
fect” when told Kennedy was shot three times in the
face. But she did this during the recently-released 1:30
PM call, the one in which Calderon repeatedly expresses
surprise at the news of the assassination, not the 5:30
PM “foreknowledge” call. Russo has conveniently left
out the exonerating aspects of this earlier call, and used
only the portion that makes Calderon look bad. Read-
ers beware.
The Enigma of Pedro Gutierrez
Valencia
If the Luisa Calderon story has been cleared up at
all, there’s another story that’s about to get more com-
plicated. This one has to do with a man named Pedro
Gutierrez Valencia. Mr. Gutierrez was one of the people
who saw Oswald take money in or near the Cuban
Embassy. His story was quite a bit different from that
of Gilberto Alvarado Ugarte, the Nicaraguan under-
cover agent whose story appears in the Warren Report
under the moniker “D,” but Gutierrez’ story was also
of great concern to the Commission. Alvarado was
ultimately discredited by a lie-detector test and retracted
his story. But Gutierrez’ story was never really dis-
credited. In the Coleman-Slawson “foreign conspiracy
report” that came to light in the 1990s, Gutierrez was
of more concern than Alvarado.46
The gist of the Gutierrez story, as told to the FBI
and the Warren Commission is as follows. Gutierrez
wrote a letter on December 2, 1963, to President
Johnson, which caused him to then be interviewed
multiple times by FBI agents during early 1964. In the
letter and interviews, he stated that in the course of his
duties as a credit examiner he was in the Cuban Em-
Vol. 7, Issue 4 39
bassy in Mexico City on September 30 or October
1, 1963. While leaving the Embassy, he bumped
into a Cuban who was accompanied by an Ameri-
can—the two were having a heated exchange in
which he heard the words “Castro,” “Cuba,” and
“Kennedy.” The Cuban was counting out money
which he passed to the American, and the two then
got into a car and drove away. After the assassina-
tion of President Kennedy, Gutierrez viewed pictures
of Lee Harvey Oswald and realized that the Ameri-
can accompanying the Cuban had been Oswald.47
Gutierrez was interviewed four times by the FBI
in early 1964; reports of these interviews are located in
Commission Exhibit 2121 in WH24. Gutierrez’ neigh-
bors reported that he was a serious and trustworthy in-
dividual, and his story was taken seriously. Ultimately,
it was ignored based on the fact that he didn’t recog-
nized a photo of Oswald when shown one by the FBI,
and that he had only gotten a glimpse of Oswald, who
was with the Cuban Gutierrez had bumped into. But
these were light grounds on which to dismiss a detailed
story by a seemingly credible person.
Gutierrez and the HSCA Interview
When the HSCA went to Mexico in 1978,
Gutierrez was among those interviewed. The Lopez
Report notes that he was interviewed on June 5, 1978,
after an earlier conversation.48 But of what Gutierrez
had to say, the Lopez Report has only this footnote:
1192/ Pedro Gutierrez Valencia claimed that
he bumped into Lee Harvey Oswald at the
Consulate on September 27, 1963. Valencia
was at the Consulate doing a credit check on
one of the Cuban employees.
There are two curious aspects of this footnote,
apart from its brevity. One is the date of the alleged
encounter, which is September 27 here, the day Os-
wald arrived in Mexico City. The other is the claim
that Gutierrez bumped into Lee Harvey Oswald, not
the Cuban accompanying him.
Are these minor inaccuracies, or typos, or changes
in the story? As it turns out, they are the tip of a very
strange iceberg.
I have not yet run across any transcript of the
Gutierrez interview, but there is an audiotape on the
shelves of the National Archives. It is not a tape of the
4 0 JFK Lancer
“”While leaving the Embassy, Gutierrez
bumped into a Cuban accompanied by
an American...he heard the words
‘Castro,’ ‘Cuba,’ and ‘Kennedy.’ After
the assassination he realized that Os-
wald had been the American.”
interview itself, though it displays the correct date (June
5, 1978). Instead, it is a tape of a person apparently
reading, or re-enacting, the interview, using English
instead of the Spanish language that the original inter-
view must have used. Given the dramatic tone of voice
employed at various points in the tape, it appears to be
an English-language reading conducted by someone
listening to the original interview with headphones or
perhaps even in person, as there appear to be faint voices
in the background. The tape itself does not have any
revealing information as to the method by which it was
created.49
Same Gutierrez, Different Story
In the tape, “Gutierrez” told the HSCA that he
indeed wrote a letter to President Johnson, and then
went on to dispute just about every aspect of the story
told in that letter and subsequent interviews.50 After
beginning to agree with the story as retold by Ed Lopez,
the interviewer, Gutierrez began to express confusion
and bewilderment at some of the statements attributed
to him. For one thing, in the taped interview he claimed
to have bumped into Oswald, but remembered nothing
about a Cuban, finally saying:
Gutierrez: I just don’t remember him [Os-
wald] being accompanied by another person.
After more confusion by Gutierrez as to the con-
tents of the letter, Lopez then read from the FBI re-
ports, including facts about Oswald taking money from
the Cuban and putting it in his left pocket, following
both men to their car and watching them get in, and so
on. Since Gutierrez said he remembered nothing about
a Cuban, he also didn’t remember these aspects of his
story either.
At one point, Lopez tried to enlist Gutierrez’ help
in figuring out how the FBI attributed statements to
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4
him which he now was denying:
Lopez: I’m sorry if I appear to be pressing
you, Mr. Valencia…….and also……ensure
that the statements that the FBI credits you
with were in fact accurate
statements………you do not speak any En-
glish. I’m wondering now, is it possible that
they had a translator present when they inter-
viewed you?
Gutierrez: No, they did not have a transla-
tor. They spoke broken Spanish and I spoke
broken English.
The interview kept returning to the Cuban or Cu-
ban-American who was allegedly counting out money
and with whom Gutierrez is supposed to have bumped.
Gutierrez repeatedly expressed bewilderment:
Lopez: Mr. Valencia, let us now go over the
description of the Cuban-
American………First of all, you described
him of course as Cuban-American, is that
correct?
Gutierrez: That is an enigma to me. I do
not remember him being accompanied by a
Cuban-American.
In this segment, the translator’s voice displays
great incredulity and bewilderment when delivering
Gutierrez’ words:
Lopez: In Exhibit number 2121, they stated
that you described the other man as white,
male, Cuban, 33 to 35 years old.
Gutierrez: I do not ever remember describ-
ing him as such. I don’t remember anything
about this Cuban-American. I mean, it could
be that I said it and that I’m senile now and I
don’t remember, but I do not ever remember
mentioning anything about a Cuban. [em-
phasis in voice on tape]
Gutierrez also disputed less important facts, such
as who the credit check was for and its ultimate dispo-
sition. But the interview kept coming back to whether
Gutierrez had bumped into a lone Oswald or into a
Cuban who was counting out money for Oswald. I
don’t know how a Cuban who didn’t exist could hand
money to Oswald, but Ed Lopez kept at it:
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
Lopez: …..it states that you reported that
the Cuban-American handed some money
over to the American. Is that true, Mr.
Valencia……Do you remember declaring it?
Gutierrez: I do not ever remember that oc-
curring; I do not remember ever stating that
whatsoever. Never.
What to make of this? These possibilities present
themselves:
1. Gutierrez’ story was fabricated by the FBI
in Mexico, and Gutierrez was telling the
truth in 1978 . The letter, which had a
thumbprint matched to Gutierrez, would be a
key piece of evidence in evaluating this
possibility. Even apart from the letter, though,
the idea is a little far-out. Hoover’s FBI was
pushing the lone-nut thesis, not Cuban
conspiracies, although the FBI in Mexico might
have marched to a different drummer. But this
would have had to have been a fairly large
conspiracy to sell such a story, which could
easily have fallen apart if Gutierrez really
wasn’t a part of it.
2. It’s all just a snafu; the story got mixed up
and exaggerated innocently, maybe due to
language problems. Hard to believe, given
four detailed interviews with the FBI. Again,
the letter would be important here.
3. Gutierrez was telling the truth in 1963 and
1964, but retracted his story in 1978,
probably under pressure to do so. This seems
at least as likely as the alternatives. Without a
tape recording of the actual Gutierrez interview,
though, it’s impossible to even begin to
evaluate his demeanor with an eye toward
gauging his truthfulness in 1978.
Gutierrez is an enigma. His original story of the
Cuban counting out money to Oswald seems all too
convenient, a tall tale or a truthful story of a staged
incident. With the 1978 retraction of most of the story
and Gutierrez’ seeming shock at being told his own
story, things have only gotten weirder.
Publishing the Mystery Man Photo-
graph
The last Mexico City story in this essay concerns
the photographs taken of an unidentified person who
Vol. 7, Issue 4 41
has often been called the “Mystery Man.” New re-
leases contain some items of interest. The man’s iden-
tity remains unestablished, though CIA files contain a
fair amount of conjecture that he is Yuriy Moskalev, a
Soviet scientist whose photograph shows a passing re-
semblance to the unidentified Mexico City man.51
The Commission’s Desire
But of greater interest than this unlikely identification
is the cable traffic surrounding the Warren
Commission’s decision to publish a photograph of the
Mystery Man in its Exhibit volumes (the photo was
published in WH16 as Commission Exhibit 237, titled
“Photograph of unidentified man.”).
For reasons explained but still not entirely clear,
FBI agent Bardwell Odum showed one or more of these
photos to Oswald’s mother Marguerite on the evening
of November 23, 1963. The man in the photos has a
superficial resemblance to Jack Ruby, and Marguerite
subsequently asserted before the Warren Commission
4 2 JFK Lancer
that she had been shown a photo of Ruby before Ruby
killed her son.
The Warren Commission understandably wanted
to rebut Marguerite’s assertion. In order to do so, the
Commission intended to publish one of the “Mystery
Man” photos, proving that it wasn’t Jack Ruby. On
July 20, 1964, Warren Commission staffer Wesley
Liebeler met with Arthur Dooley at CIA. Liebeler had
already received affidavits from FBI’s James Malley
and Bardwell Odum regarding the photograph, but
Liebeler also wanted an affidavit from the CIA regard-
ing the date the photo was taken, and indicated that the
Commission would publish the photo.52
Richard Helms supplied an affidavit to Chief
Counsel Rankin 3 days later, along with a request that
the Warren Commission not publish the photograph,
giving as reasons that “…it would jeopardize a most
confidential and productive operation” and “It could
be embarrassing to the individual involved who as far
as this Agency is aware, had no connection with Lee
Harvey Oswald or the assassination of President
Kennedy.”53
The CIA’s concern for this individual’s privacy is
touching, but the Commission did not back down. Two
months later, on September 22, Arthur Dooley and
Louis Pucket of CIA visited the Commission, where
they met with staffers Goldberg and Liebeler, who in-
sisted that the photo must be published, but deferred
the final decision as to cropping and other matters to
Chief Counsel Rankin.54
CIA Headquarters promptly alerted the Mexico
City Station the next day regarding publication of the
photo. The possibility that publication would “blow”
the photo-surveillance operation was on Headquarter’s
mind, and the cable noted:
“OUSLER BEING CALLED TO WASH TO
GIVE INFORMED OPINION OF POS-
SIBLE DAMAGE TO LILYRIC OR LIM-
ITED” [the photo surveillance operations].55
In a follow-up memo the next day, Headquarters
invited the station’s comment on possible exposure of
the photo surveillance operations, but added “IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE HAVE PHOTOS EXCLUDED FROM RE-
PORT.”56
September 25, A Busy Day
The Mexico City Station was not happy. Reply-
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

WC TESTIMONY OF MARGUERITE
OSWALD
Book I page 152-153
Mrs. Oswald: .... Now, Mr. Hart Odum, the same
FBI agent, that insisted upon my daughter-in-law
going with him from the Adolphus Hotel, knocked
on the door at the Executive Inn. I had had my
robe and slippers on, and I pushed the curtain
aside when he knocked. He said, “This is Mr.
Odum.”
So, I opened the door. This is very impor-
tant. I would like to not talk about it. I would like
to show you what I did. This is so important.
I opened the door just a little, because I had
the robe off and I didn’t want anybody to come in.
The door is just ajar. I am going to take my shoes
off gentlemen, because I have this worked out. This
is my height. He said, “Mrs. Oswald, we would
like to see Marina.”
I said, “Mr. Odum, I stated yesterday you
are not going to see Marina. We are awful tired.”
“Well, we just want to ask her one question.”
“Mr. Odum, I am not calling my daughter.
As a matter of fact, she is taking a bath.”
She wasn’t.
He said, “Mrs. Oswald, I would like to ask
you a question.”
I said, “Yes, sir.” The door is ajar. This is
my height. I wear bifocals, which enlarges things.
And in his hand — his hand is bigger than mine
— in the cup of his hand, like this, is a picture.
And the two corners are torn off the picture. This
is a very glossy black and white picture of a man’s
face and shoulder.
Now, Mr. Odum wasn’t too tall. I need some-
body else. Mr. Odum’s hand with the picture —
what I am trying to say — he is facing this way —
showing me. So my eyes are looking straight at
the picture. And I have nothing else to see but this
hand and the picture, because the door is afar.
And there is nothing on the picture but a face and
shoulders. There is no background or anything.
So I can identify this picture amongst millions of
pictures, I am so sure of it. It was a glossy black
and white picture. So I said, “No, sir, believe me.
I have never seen this picture in my life.”
With that, he went off.
There was another man with him.
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
ing on September 25, the Station responded that “STA-
TION UNCLEAR AS TO PURPOSE SERVED BY
PUBLICATION PHOTO OF PERSON NOT EVEN
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.” After complaining that
Marguerite Oswald could simply be ignored in this
matter, the cable went on to add a very curious para-
graph: “IF AS MEXI PREFERS TO BELIEVE OF
ODENVY SHE SHOWN SPREAD OF CROPPED
PHOTOS ALL OF WHICH TO APPEAR, NO OBJEC-
TION HERE TO PUBLICATION OF REF PHOTO.
IF THIS INCORRECT AND THIS SOLE PHOTO
SHOWN HER AND TO BE PUBLISHED AGAINST
MEXI WISHES, REQUEST EXACT ACCOUNT OF
WHAT ODENVY TOLD HER.”57
This cable is strange in several regards. For one
thing, the testimony of Marguerite Oswald is explicit
that she was shown a single photograph by FBI Agent
Bardwell Odum, “in the cup of his hand.” And an
affidavit signed by Odum on July 10, 1964, refers to
his cropping and display of a single photo. So why
does the Mexico City station “prefer to believe” that
she was shown a spread of cropped photos. And if this
is really true, was it a spread consisting of all of the
Mystery Man photos flown up from Mexico City (sev-
eral were indeed supplied), or was it a spread of other
photos which included a single Mystery Man photo?
If the latter, why would they all have been cropped?
Probably the strangest aspect of the cable is that
the Mexico City station did not object to an entire spread
of photos being published; the objection was if publi-
cation was to be of a single photo. This makes no sense
if the real objection had to do with blowing the photo-
surveillance operation (i.e., showing backgrounds
which would reveal camera placements to the Cubans
and Soviets, etc). The more photographs published,
the more likely someone would identify the source.
What is going on here? The cable ends with the plea:
“STATION WOULD APPRECIATE EFFORT TO
DELETE PHOTO FROM PUBLICATION.”
Headquarters replied the same day, confirming
that the FBI had indeed shown Marguerite Oswald an
entire spread of photos, “BUT SUBJECT PHOTO
ONLY ONE WHICH ATTRACTED ATTENTION.”58
And again on the same day, Mexico City Station re-
sponded, announcing its plans to evacuate the photo-
surveillance stations in anticipation of publication of
the offending photograph. But the detailed plans for
such evacuation were preceded by the most curious
statements in all of these cables, reproduced below:
Vol. 7, Issue 4 43
 From the Warren Commission’s 26 volumes of Evidence, book 11, page 468

AFFIDAVIT OF BARDWELL D. ODUM

The following affidavit was executed by Bardwell D. Odum on July 10, 1964.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Dallas, ss :

I, Bardwell D. Odum, having first been duly sworn, depose as follows:

I am presently a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.
Department of Justice, and have been employed in such a capacity since June 15, 1942.
On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a Special Agent
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a photograph of an unknown
individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, and proceeded to the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where
Marina Oswald was staying.
In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all background
data which might possibly have disclosed the location where the picture was taken, I
trimmed off the background. The straight cuts made were more quickly done than a
complete trimming of the silhouette and I considered them as effective for the
desired purpose.
I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to identify
the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if he was an associate of
Lee Harvey Oswald.
It was raining and almost dark. I went to the door of Marina Oswald’s room and
knocked, identifying myself. Marguerite Oswald opened the door slightly and, upon
being informed that I wished to speak to Marina Oswald, told me that Marina Oswald was
completely exhausted and could not be interviewed. Marguerite Oswald did not admit me
to the motel room. I told her I desired to show a photograph to Marina Oswald, and
Marguerite Oswald again said that Marina was completely exhausted and could not be
interviewed due to that fact. I then showed Marguerite Oswald the photograph in
question. She looked at it briefly and stated that she had never seen this indi-
vidual. I then departed the Executive Inn. The conversation with Marguerite Oswald
and the exhibition of the photograph took place while I was standing outside the door
to the room and Marguerite Oswald was standing inside with the door slightly ajar.
Attached hereto are two photographic copies of the front and back of a
photograph.* I have examined these copies and they are exact copies of the photograph
of the unknown individual which I showed to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald on November 23,
1963.
Signed this 10th day of July 1964.
(S) Bardwell D. Odum,
BARDWELL D. ODUM.

2. ONLY REMAINING HOPE WOULD

1. REFS OBVIOUSLY CROSSED. IN STA-
TION VIEW DANGERS PARA 3,
LARGELY RECOGNIZED IN REF A,
STILL APPLY.
APPEAR BE TO GET ASCHAM PREVAIL
ON COMMISSION NOT ONLY RETOUCH
BACKGROUND IN PHOTOS BUT ALSO
RETOUCH FACE TO DEGREE OBVI-
OUSLY NOT IDENTIFIABLE WITH

4 4 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

 RUBY BUT ALSO NOT WITH ACTUAL
SUBJECT OF PHOTO.59
This cable is remarkable. The “dangers para
3” refer to the earlier Mexi cable’s assertion that
“CANNOT PREDICT SECURITY EFFECT OF
PUBLICATION WITHOUT ANSWER PARA 2,”
where paragraph 2 is the strange assertion previously
shown, i.e., that the Mexi station was fine with pub-
lication of an entire spread of photos, but not of the
single Mystery Man shot.
What is yet more remarkable here is the Mexico
City Station’s request to retouch not only the back-
ground but also the face of the unidentified man.
The Warren Commission had agreed to strip out ev-
ery stitch of background at CIA’s request—now the
CIA, or at least the Mexico City Station, abruptly
urged a photo alteration to avoid revealing (to
whom?) the identity of the supposedly unknown
Mystery Man. It strains credulity that such a re-
quest was made by people who did not know the
identity of the man in the photograph. There is at
least one albeit cryptic indication in the record that
they did.
After arrangements were made on November
22 to send the photos to Dallas, Mexico City CIA
Station Chief Win Scott wrote a letter to J. C. King,
Chief of the Western Hemisphere division of CIA.
The letter begins:
Dear J.C.:
Reference is made to our conversation of
November 22 in which I requested permis-
sion to give the Legal Attaché copies of
photographs of a certain person who is
known to you.60
ASCHAM
And who is ASCHAM, who might prevail upon
the Commission to perform this retouching of the
face in the photo? The requesting cable does not
reveal the identity of this obviously important per-
son. But another document in released DDP (Deputy
Director for Plans) files is a seven-page writeup of a
meeting between ASCHAM and an unidentified
high-level Mexican official, brokered by CURTIS
(CIA Station Chief Win Scott). The memo of this
meeting, which took place on January 14, 1961, uses
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
pseudonyms throughout, but there are enough clues to
provide a reasonable guess as to ASCHAM’s identity.
ASCHAM was a high-level U.S. official. ASCHAM
had a brother who was also a high-ranking U.S. offi-
cial and who was “very sick” in 1958. In the memo of
the meeting, ASCHAM seems closely allied with both
the CIA and with U.S. business interests. ASCHAM is
almost certainly Allen Dulles, whose brother John Fos-
ter was Secretary of State under Eisenhower until his
death by cancer in May 1959.61
Whether Dulles was contacted or not, the Warren
Commission did go on to publish the Mystery Man
photograph, and CIA photo-surveillance operations
were momentarily disrupted. The face in the photo was
not retouched. Why did it need to be? Who was this
man? Who in CIA knew who he was? Was his photo
really sent to Dallas as a mistaken picture of Oswald,
or was he thought to be an accomplice, or was some-
thing else entirely at work here?
Conclusion
Mexico City remains an enigma wrapped in a
mystery inside a riddle, or however it goes. The 1976
Tarasoff interview is one of the keys to a deeper mys-
tery not revealed for the most part in “the record,” which
increasingly smacks of coverup. But a coverup of what?
Not a Cuban or Soviet conspiracy, in my view, but rather
of a false Communist conspiracy, one which had more
seemingly legitimate evidence supporting it than there
now appears to be. And one which was somehow
wrapped in a “legitimate” CIA operation, perhaps a
staged provocation involving Oswald or “Oswald” at
the Cuban Embassy, that was hijacked into an assassi-
nation plot. In such a scenario, the CIA’s ability to
untangle itself from the Kennedy assassination per se
may have been an impossible task, necessitating an
Agency coverup. Problematic for the CIA also is that
some Agency insiders may very well have been in on
the assassination plot.
Anne Goodpasture, author of the 133-page
Mexico City Chronology62 and right-hand aide to CIA
Mexico City Station Chief Win Scott, knew more about
the real goings on during the “Oswald” visit than most.
What does it mean, then, that she put the following in
the lengthy Mexico City Station History, which was
apparently written in 1969 and 1970?
In 1963 the routine reporting of an operational
Vol. 7, Issue 4 45
 lead by LIENVOY developed into a long in-
vestigation. A man with a US accent, speak-
ing broken Russian, telephoned both the So-
viet and Cuban Embassies on 26 September
and 6 October 1963. He identified himself
as Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald.63
If the record is to be fully believed, then the para-
graph shown above is replete with errors. Both dates
are wrong, and no call to the Cuban Embassy was made.
And the caller never referred to himself as “Harvey
Oswald,” a name that keeps showing up in the record
like an unwanted relative.64
Not surprising then, when in 1978 Anne
Goodpasture interrupted her HSCA interviewers before
they had barely asked a question, to let them know that
she might say things that conflicted with the record:
Miss Goodpasture: I am just concerned that
some of my testimony may be in conflict with
records.
Mr. Goldsmith: I understand.
Miss Goodpasture : Through faulty
memory.65
Faulty memories, perhaps. Faulty records, more
than likely. Faulty history, for certain.

Sources and Notes:

1 See the article The Fourteen Minute Gap, available online at
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap/FourteenMinuteGap.htm.
2 The phone call transcript is available from the LBJ Library and at
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0029a.htm.
3 FBI Report of November 23, 1963. Available in Church Committee records, RIF #157-10014-10168.
4 Anne Goodpasture ARRB testimony of December 15, 1995, pg. 27.
See http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/Goodpasture/html/Goodpasture_0148a.htm.
5 David Slawson Warren Commission report entitled “Trip to Mexico City”, April 22, 1964, 104-10011-10097, at
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcmemos/Trip_To_Mexico_City/html/104-10011-
10097_0001a.htm.
6 Taped HSCA interview of William Coleman, August 2, 1978. Audio available at
http:// www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/unpub_testimony/audio/HSCA_Coleman.htm.
7 Ibid.
8 MFR of Thomas Hall of meeting with David Slawson, May 5, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10404-10115.
9 Transcripts of both conversations are in MEXI 7025, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10413-10159.
10 Warren Commission Document 347, p. 10.
11 Phone call between Lyndon Johnson and Richard Russell, November 29, 1963, 8:55 PM. Available from the LBJ Library and at
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Russell_11-29-63_2nd.htm.
12 Ibid.
13 Oswald and the CIA, John Newman, 1995, Carroll & Graf, pp. 369-377.
14 Oswald Offered Soviets Data for Trip, AP story of November 27, 1976. In Russ Holmes Work File among set of newspaper clippings
at 104-10400-10010.
15 Hill Panel Probing Oswald Call, Washington Post story of November 27, 1976, by Ronald Kessler. Also in 104-10400-10010.
16 HSCA testimony of David Phillips, November 28, 1976, pp. 39-40. This and other CIA Security Classified deposition transcripts
(Tarasoffs, Rocca, Helms, and others) are all available online at
http:// www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/contents.htm.
17 Ibid, p. 51.
18 Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City (aka Lopez Report), p. 82.
19 Ibid, p. 83.
20 Ibid, p. 86.
21 HSCA Tarasoff testimony, November 30, 1976, summary material.
22 Ibid, pp. 22-23.
23 HSCA testimony of Ray Rocca, July 17, 1978, p. 84.
24 Quoted in Deep Politics II, Peter Dale Scott, p. 9.
25 Letter from HSCA Chairman Louis Stokes to DCI Stansfield Turner, October 13, 1978, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10406-
10425.
26 Though it should be noted that the earliest post-assassination records, including the November 23 FBI memo to the White House and

4 6 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

Secret Service, refer to an October 1 call.
27 See Deep Politics II, Peter Dale Scott, p. 15.
28 There are many indications that FBI Director Hoover and more than one CIA Director taped their own phone calls, though such tapes
have not been released and may well be destroyed.
29 HSCA testimony of Ray Rocca, July 17, 1978, pp. 277-278. There are 53 redactions in this transcript, which was last reviewed in
1997.
30 HSCA testimony of Richard Helms, pp. 51-52.
31 Rocca HSCA testimony, pp. 217-218.
32 Mexico City Station History Excerpts, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10414-10124. The three HSCA investigators who were
allowed to look at even the sanitized excerpts were Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey, Deputy Counsel Gary Cornwell, and Michael
Goldsmith, who conducted most of the Mexico City-related depositions.
33 Ibid. Operations against the Cuban Embassy are covered in pages 226 through 298.
34 MEXI 7115 of Nov 28, 1963. In Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10404-10159.
35 See also MEXI 7615 of Jan 2, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10404-10130.
36 John Newman has identified one of the informants as Luis Alberu. See Oswald and the CIA, chapter 18. According to Newman,
Alberu is also the informant to whom, in 1967, Sylvia Duran admitted a sexual relationship with Oswald.
37 DIR 85670 of Nov 29, 1963. In Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10404-10144.
38 Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation, Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1993, p. 294.
39 The conversation, sinister as it could appear to some, had its comic aspects as well. The phone connection was terrible, and most of
the conversation is spent with the two parties trying desperately to make themselves understood. The vigorous promotion of the idea that
a conspiracy to kill the U.S. President had been conducted by parties who couldn’t even make a phone call to each other has its amusing
side. Perhaps the connection was so bad because of too many taps on the line. An excerpted transcript was sent from Mexico City to CIA
HQ on November 26, 1963, document is MEXI 7068, in the Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10404-10175. A complete version, which
includes the comical inability of the parties to communicate, was sent to the Warren Commission on May 22, see RIF #1964 104-10009-
10183 in the 1996 ARRB releases.
40 HSCA Report, Appendix XI, p. 494.
41 Handwritten note and transcript in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10162.
42 104-10400-10162, p. 22.
43 104-10400-10162, p. 23.
44 Letter of February 15, 1979, from OLC to Robert Blakey, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10157.
45 Gus Russo, Live by the Sword, Bancroft Press, 1998, p. 226.
46 HSCA document #180-10096-10364. Pages 98 through 102 discuss the Gutierrez allegation. This report is available online at
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcmemos/Oswald_Foreign_Activities/contents.htm.
47 The story is told in slightly greater detail in the Oswald Foreign Activities report cited previously. The yet more detailed FBI reports
are in CE 2121.
48 Lopez Report, p. 271.
49 The tape is HSCA record number 180-10131-10396, also labeled tape Z-25. It is available online at
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/unpub_testimony/audio/HSCA_Gutierrez.htm.
50 I have not been able to locate a copy of the letter itself.
51 Documents theorizing that Moskalev is the mystery man include 104-10413-10055 and 104-10413-10077, among others.
52 Memorandum of Arthur Dooley of July 20, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10293.
53 Memo from Helms to Rankin, July 23, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10292.
54 Dooley memorandum of September 25, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10279.
55 DIR 51937 of September 23, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10291.
56 DIR 52398 of September 24, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10290.
57 MEXI 1011 of September 25, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10286.
58 DIR 52774 of September 25, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10287.
59 MEXI 1018 of September 25, 1964, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10288.
60 Letter from Win Scott to J.C. King of November 22, 1963, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10400-10302.
61 Memo of meeting between ASCHAM, CURTIS, and WITHHELD, in DDP files at 104-10310-10001.
62 Several copies exist, one is RIF #104-10086-10001, available online at
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/80T01357A/104-10086-10001/html/104-10086-10001_0001a.htm.
63 Mexico City Station History Excerpts, in Russ Holmes Work File at 104-10414-10124, p. 43-44.
64 See Appendix II: The Documentary Life of Harvey Lee Oswald, in Peter Dale Scott’s Deep Politics II.
65 HSCA testimony of Anne Goodpasture, November 20, 1978, p. 6.

Editor’s Note: The deposition of Anne Goodpasture is available through both JFK Lancer Online Resources
http://www.flash.net/~jfklancr/Transcripts_Depos.html and History-Matters.com
Read the transcript of John Newman’s November In Dallas presentation on “Mexico City and the “Oswald” Tape” at
http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman_1.html

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 47

Support JFK Research Order from JFK Lancer Mail Order

COMPELLING
EVIDENCE
by Michael T. Griffith
285. COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A
New Look At The Assassination of
President Kennedy by Michael
Griffith, (2001, JFK Lancer, Inc.)

Eleven chapters from one of the most

respected researchers on the case.

SC $16.00Ê Êplus $5 S/H

THIRD EDITION
AVAILABLE NOW!

Files of Evidence
In the Investigation of the Assassination
of President John F. Kennedy
Volumes 1 - 21 CDRom
Files connected with the investigation of the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy
from the Dallas Police Archives.

CD ROM #154 Approx. 2500 pages. $50.00

*WINDOWS 98
All Rights Reserved Copyright Digital-Doc-Imaging 2001

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 49

 New CD Roms from JFK Lancer
• The Warren Commission
Executive Sessions
#CD160 for $25.00

• Witnesses: A study of the JFK

assassination witnesses in Dealey Plaza
donated by Stewart Galanor.
See the documents studied by the HSCA on what witnessess heard and
the locations. Surprising!
#CD 161 for $15.00

• Research of Larry Hancock,

includes 3 years of documents presented at NID conferences on Richard
Case Nagell, John Martino, and 112th Intelligence Corp., and the
Richard Case Nagell NID presentation in Quicktime MPEG.
#CD 163 for $30.00

• Presidents’ Foreign Intelligence

Advisory Board Documents,
including a forward by John Williams, Ph.D. #CD165 for $15.00

• Gerry Patrick Hemming: Documents

and Interviews,
Hundreds of documents, including the 1996 NID Panel Discussion in
Quicktime MPEG.
#162 for $30.00

Each CD-Rom is compatible with Windows, MAC, Unix operating systems.

In Adobe PDF and Quicktime formats.

5 0 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

 Trauma Room One:
The JFK Medical Coverup
Exposed
Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D.
with J. Gary Shaw, D. Bradley
Kizzia, J.D., Gary Aguilar, M.D.,
and Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D.
Foreword by Oliver Stone

Paraview Press, 2001

Conspiracy, 287 pages
Trade Paperback, $16.99

CHARLES A. CRENSHAW,
M.D.

ABOUT THE
BOOK
The doctors who tried to save
President John F. Kennedy at
Parkland Hospital in November of
1963 agreed--either out of respect
or fear--not to publish what they
had seen, heard, and felt. Then in
1990, one of the Dallas surgeons
who worked on JFK in Trauma
Room One, Dr. Charles Crenshaw,
decided after much deliberation
that the American people ought to know the truth.

“The wounds to Kennedy’s head and throat that I examined were caused by bullets that struck him from the
front, not the back, as the public has been led to believe,” says Crenshaw. When the first edition of this book was
published in 1992, under the title JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw revealed what he never had to opportu-
nity to tell the Warren Commission. In the aftermath, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
called Crenshaw’s book “a fabrication.” But JAMA’s claim did not hold up in court and Crenshaw subsequently
prevailed in a defamation suit against JAMA. In the process, a number of new medical disclosures and discov-
eries have emerged on the startling medical cover-up of the JFK assassination.

Charles Crenshaw: Trauma Room One Excerpt: Forward by Oliver Stone

http://www.paraview.com/crenshaw/crenshaw_excerpt.htm
JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 51
DOUG HORNE MEMOS TO THE ARRB
AND STAFF

D130. approx. 65 pages $7.00

* A. Regarding supplementary brain examination(s)
following autopsy on JFK.
* B. Wrapping up ARRB efforts to "clarify the
record" Re the medical evidence

D131. approx. 246 pages $25.00

D 135. approx. 35 pages $4.00
Questions raised by John Armstrong and Carol Hewett
* Chronology Re: The formulation of US foreign
about LHO tax and earnings records.
policy on Cuba (as of 10/27/97)
* Chronology Re: The formulation of US foreign
D 132. approx. 80 pages $8.00
policy on Vietnam (as of 10/27/97)
Oswald's DD 1173 ID Card (Uniformed Services
Identification and Privilege Card)
D 136. approx. 38 pages $4.00
* Air Force One audiotapes from Nov. 22, 1963.
D133. approx. 93 pages $10.00
* Texas trip (and Dallas Motorcade) planning
* Examination of Z film original and selected
milestones.
copies, LMH company Z films in the office of
Jamie Silverberg on 4/10/97,
* Interviews with former NPIC employees about
their involvement with the Z film In Nov. 1963,
* Independent third party examines Z film,
* Kodak pro bono work with autopsy photos.

D 134. approx. 190 pages $20.00

* Chain of custody discrepancy re: original copy
autopsy protocol,
* More of chain of custody, Questions posed by
apparent anomalies in the digitized autopsy photo
#43,
* Requested list Re: ARRB medical witnesses not
previously in JFK collection.
* Questions RE: the camera used at JFK autopsy,
Chain of custody study of autopsy photos and x-
rays.

POSTERS:

719. SET OF THREE COLORED POSTERS $10.00

1: 12" X 18", "WELCOME PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"
2: 16" X 25", "JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR CONGRESS 11TH DISTRICT"
3: 13" X 18", "KENNEDY FOR PRESIDENT- LEADERSHIP FOR THE 60'S"

725. JFK: 1960 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, "Time For Greatness” IN COLOR! Norman
Rockwell poster 15 X 24" $25.00

726. JOHN F. KENNEDY PRESS CONFERENCE, 27.5" X 19.5" black & white poster.$25.00

5 2 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

D121. FBI WITNESS STATEMENTS, 71 pages $7
37 FBI statements not published in the Warren Commission volumes: Howard Brennan, Mrs. R.A Reid, Emmet
Hudson, Elise T. Dorman, Victoria Adams, Jane Berry, Jack Frazen, Otis Neville Williams, Mrs. Donald Sam
Baker (V.Rackley), Seymore Weitzman, Bonnie Ray Williams, James Jarman, Mrs. Eric Walther, James Richard
Worrell, Robert Edwards, Ronald Fisher, Royce Skelton, Frank E. Reilly, John F. Dolan, Jack E. Dougherty,
James W. Powell, Ruth Smith, Lillian Mooneyham, James N. Crawford, Mary Ann Mitchell, Steven F. Wilson,
Richard Randolf Carr, E.R. Caddy, Peggy Joyce Hawkins, J.W. Foster,James Eliot Romack, John Martin Jr.,
James Altgens, Mr. and Mrs. Philip Willis
Bonus: the handwritten statement of William Randolf Carr, 2-3-64

D119. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF DOCUMENTS ON VIETNAM, 220 pages.

The long sought after records of the 8th Sec Def Conference of May 6, 1963 held in Hawaii. These documents
show JFK had ordered McNamara to pull out of Viet Nam and McNamara was complying with that order. This
consists of a detailed record of the "discussions and decisions reached" at the conference and the documents
include budgets, projections, schedules, etc.$25

D123. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF South Vietnam, US Military Assistance Personnel planning for
South Vietnam central files apprx. 675 pages $70.00

D118. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF DOCUMENTS ON US-CUBAN WAR PLANS AND

COVERT OPS, 2310 pages.
The National Archives released pages of previously classified files from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These documents
(formally called Records Group 218 and records Group 335) have also been called the Califano Collection, and
include materials originally classified "Top Secret/Sensitive" and in sections labeled "JCS Central Files," Lemnitzer
Papers," "Taylor Papers;""Wheeler Papers;" and "Califano Papers."

The documents deal with contingency plans to topple the Castro regime (and to invade Cuba) in the period 1961
- 64. Included are documents pre-Bay of Pigs (i.e., the JCS approval of the original invasion plan), then post Bay
of Pigs material as to what went wrong; then plans to oust Castro in 1962; and finally plans to oust him in 1963
and 1964, under the guise of a U.S.-inspired coup. The news stories released in mid November -which focused
primarily on some rather hare-brained "James Bond" type schemes really do not capture the full extent of what
is in this collection.

D 127 A-E DEPOSITIONS AND MEDICAL EXHIBITS.

Complete set $150.00 or individually priced:

* D 127A Boswell Deposition pages 223 $18.00

* D 127B Groden Deposition pages 167 $15.00
* D 127C Humes Deposition pages 242 $18.00
* D 127D Master Set of Medical Exhibits index. includes 24 pages of exhibits 1907 pages $100.00
* D 127E Set of Manuscript Depositions Includes: Jerrol F. Custer, Dr. Pierre A. Finck, Frances X. O'Neill,
Edward F. Reed Jr., Floyd A. Reiebe, James W. Sibert, Saundra K. Spencer, and John T. Stringer. 317
pages $25.00

ALSO ON CD-ROM

JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4 53

 November In Dallas Conference
Video Specials
for KAC Subscribers
Only!
We are very pleased and proud to offer video tapes of the presenta-
tions given at the November In Dallas Conferences. These presenta-
tions are from the foremost JFK assassination researchers with
amazing new evidence and research that you won't want to be with-
out.

NID-96 Set of 12 Videos for $199.00 NID-98 Set of 13 Videos for $199.00
SAVE $100 off the individual prices! That's $100.00 off the individual prices!
Over 25 hours of JFK evidence presentations. Over 32 hours of JFK materials presented.

NID-97 Set of 16 Videos for $199.00 NID-99 Set of 15 Videos for $199.00
That’s $180.00 off the individual prices! That’s $100.00 off the individual prices!
Over 27 hours of JFK research presentations. Total of 20 hours of JFK evidence presentations

NID 2000$199.00
Total of 20 1/2 Hours

Allow 2 weeks for video orders • Add $5.00 S/H

Check the web site for individual video information.

5 4 JFK Lancer Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 4

 The purpose of JFK Lancer is to distribute
information and research on the events of the
Kennedy presidency and assassination. We are an
all volunteer group.
We support research in many ways, making
materials available to everyone, whatever
your interest level.

Visit us on the web!!

http://www.jfklancer.com

Kennedy Assassination
Chronicles Magazine $30 for 4 Issues

Articles Forums
Documents Chat Room
Reports Magazine
Photos Mail Order
JFK Lancer, Inc.