Are there CIA connections to Lee Oswald? – Part 1
JEFF MEEK
Voice correspondent
Rolf Mowatt–Larssen spent 25 years working for the
CIA as an intelligence officer, going undercover and serving in various
domestic and international posts, like chief of station in Moscow. His awards
include the CIA’s Director’s Award and Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal,
to name a few.
He hunted moles and hired spies during his career
and spoke about his thoughts on the JFK assassination at a Citizens Against
Political Assassinations (CAPA) meeting in Dallas. Drawing on years of
experience and access to files, he laid out a possible explanation of how Lee
Harvey Oswald could have been set up as the assassin of President Kennedy.
Mowatt-Larssen began his presentation, titled
“Marked for Assassination: Who Killed JFK?” by asking a question. How could the
CIA keep a secret for 56 years? Answering that question he said it’s because as
an organization the CIA was not the killer of Kennedy.
However, he said a small group of rogue CIA
personnel could have done it and there would be no records of their actions,
adding that was the case with several operations he was involved with, no
records, not a hint of his actions.
In his scenario, only top CIA people could have been
involved due to their experience and competency. A rogue operation would be
indistinguishable from a lone gunman to the extent the operation was planned
and carried out flawlessly by experts (operations officers) in the craft of
intelligence.
Mowatt-Larssen said it all starts with James
Angleton, chief of counterintelligence at the time, and the man who would have
had the reports coming in on Oswald starting back in 1959 when Oswald defected
to Russia.
Solving the mystery involves 4 considerations:
motive, access to recruiting Oswald, opportunity to misappropriate CIA sources
and the ability to sell the lone gunman cover story. And there is a wild card
to consider, as well, he said, that being coincidence.
The motive: the huge failure at the Bay of Pigs in
April 1961, when Kennedy refused air cover to support the U.S. - driven
invading anti-Castro Cubans who were quickly defeated, killed and imprisoned.
And the Oct. 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when hawks would again have seen
Kennedy as a weak sister, not standing up to the global Communist threat.
Access: the recruiting of Oswald in Dallas (without
CIA knowledge). Someone would have had to make a “pitch” to Oswald.
Mowatt-Larssen said Oswald was on CIA radar for years because of his 1959 defection
to Russia, but it wasn’t until the April 10, 1963, attempt on the life of
General Edwin Walker that would have spurred CIA planners into action, because
it could have been the beginning of actions used to demonstrate Oswald as a
killer.
Oswald’s ctions included coming up with a detailed
plan to kill Walker, such things as taking photos of the area and looking into
escape routes and a hiding place for his rifle.
Who would have made that pitch, that access agent?
There are a couple of possibilities: George DeMohrenschildt who knew Oswald had
a rifle, who asked Oswald if he shot at Walker, which shocked Oswald, and who
had contacts with CIA for many years. Or DeMohrenschild’s handler, J.
Walton Moore, the CIA chief in Dallas for domestic contacts. (Note: On March
29, 1977, hours after the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
highly regarded investigator Gaeton Fonzi tried to contact DeMohrenschildt, he
committed suicide. Local P.D. called DeMohrenschildt’s death very
strange.
Earlier that day author/researcher, Edward J.
Epstein interviewed DeMohrenschildt and has said DeMohrenschildt told him CIA
had asked him to keep tabs on Oswald. And in Fonzi’s book, “The Last
Investigation,” Fonzi says the HSCA never truly delved into most of the
evidence dealing with CIA-Oswald connections).
Oswald, Mowatt-Larssen said, had an ego, was
vulnerable and could be blackmailed to the extent that a CIA asset could have
told him they knew he shot at Walker, but would keep quiet about it if Oswald
would work with him. Mowatt-Larssen noted that like many of his own operations,
there would be no record of any of this in CIA documentation.
Shortly after the Walker shooting they would have
wanted Oswald out of town, so they sent him to New Orleans. Interestingly, at
about this time, DeMohrenschild and Moore also left Dallas. Oswald went to New
Orleans with orders to establish anti-Castro connections, which he did with
people like Carlos Bringuier, Guy Banister, and David Ferrie who were also CIA
connected.
Mowatt-Larssen says at this point, Oswald is not
sure of what’s going on, what he’s actually involved with and who’s behind
these associations he’s making. He’s distressed and begins to look for a way
out. He begins using an alias (A.J. Hidell) and, like DeMohrenschild and Moore,
wants out of the country. So he goes to Mexico City to get a visa to travel to
Russia via Cuba, but his efforts are thwarted. He’s turned down at both the
Russian and Cuban embassies, which are under heavy CIA surveillance with
cameras and bugging devices.
So Oswald returns to Dallas, again meets with the
CIA access agent (perhaps Maurice Bishop who many, including Fonzi, think is
CIA officer David Atlee Phillips) and is re-recruited. It’s explained to him
that an escape route is in place for him, a car perhaps just a few blocks away,
then a flight out of the country, piloted by Ferrie, a former commercial
airline pilot and associate of New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello. Trust us,
he’s told. We’ll get you out of Dallas. You’re the gunman at the rear.
As soon as you shoot, leave the rifle and leave the
depository with nothing incriminating.
Mowatt-Larssen said there could be a need to
eliminate Oswald and here again is where the Mafia comes in. CIA had been
working with the Mob for years trying to assassinate Castro and the Mafia would
also have knowledge and access to a local nightclub owner, Jack Ruby, to do
their bidding.
Killing Kennedy would benefit both the CIA and the
Mafia.
The former CIA officer said when Oswald blurted out
at Dallas Police Headquarters that ‘I’m just a patsy,” it shows that he knew
he’d been set up and abandoned. Evidence of this is Oswald’s actions after
leaving the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), where just by coincidence,
Mowatt-Larssen said, he happened to get a job.
Oswald, who had meticulously planned the Walker
shooting, had no exfiltration plan, because he had been told by his handler
that a plan was in place for him, but there was no plan in place as Oswald
found out after leaving the TSBD.
Mowatt-Larssen sees Oswald as panic-stricken at this
point. Here’s a guy who had a meticulous plan to escape the shooting of General
Walker, but obviously has no plan after shooting the President. The getaway car
is nowhere to be found, so he’s on his own. He first gets on a bus that begins
to take him right back to the scene of the crime. So he gets off the bus, gets
a taxi and has the driver drop him off blocks from where he lives at 1026 N.
Beckley. Arriving a little before 1 p.m., he grabs a jacket and his revolver.
Minutes later he is stopped by DPD officer J.D.
Tippit, who he shoots and then runs away, discarding his jacket to again change
his appearance. He hides in a darkened theater, wondering what to do next. But
his suspicious actions on Jefferson St. were noticed by shoe store worker
Johnny Brewer who saw Oswald duck into the alcove of the store when police cars
came by and then sees Oswald go into the Texas Theater without buying a ticket,
thus police are called to the scene. He’s arrested, pulls a gun on Officer M.N.
McDonald and slugs him, in a useless attempt to free himself.
Mowatt-Larssen ends with this note: even if the CIA,
as an organization, got wind of all this there is no way they would come
forward because it would mean the end of the CIA.
As for clues to learn more, Rolf suggested looking
at 3 CIA employees – Jake Esterline - Station Chief of the JMWAVE station in
Miami that headed up anti-Castro operations, Charles D. Ford - also involved
with anti-Castro Cuban operations) and J. Walton Moore - CIA head in Dallas.
“Start with motive, combined with the ability to pull it off,” he said.
“I still believe in the agency and I still believe
in our government,” the long time agent said.
Readers may wonder, as I have many times, why would
an organization use someone like Oswald for an assassination plot? Oswald, we
are told, was a malcontent, a loser, a loner, angry at the U.S. and later the
Soviet system of government. Why would a person like that be recruited?
According to author James H. Johnston, in his
excellent book, “Murder Inc.; The CIA Under John F. Kennedy,” he was told,
while serving as a lawyer for the 1975 Senate Intelligence Committee, by a
briefer, that this is “precisely” the kind of person the Soviets used during
World War II.
Noting John Barron’s 1974 book, “KGB: The Secret
Work of Soviet Secret Agents,” the Soviets searched for people who “were hurt
by fate….those suffering from an inferiority complex, craving power and
influence….defeated by unfavorable circumstances…..the sense of belonging to an
influential powerful organization will give them a feeling of superiority…..for
the first time in their lives they will experience a sense of importance.”
As Johnston points out, the Warren Commission noted
that Oswald “was moved by an overriding hostility to his environment. He does
not appear to have been able to establish meaningful relationships with other
people. He was perpetually discontented with the world around him. He sought
for himself a place in history – a role as a ‘great man’.” To me that
sounds like a close match for whom intelligence agencies look for in terms of
recruits.
I was impressed with Mowatt-Larssen’s presentation.
I disagree on some of his points, but wanted an expert opinion, so I contacted
Jefferson Morley, author of 2 highly regarded books that relate to the JFK
assassination: “Our Man in Mexico,” and “The Ghost: The Secret Life of
Spymaster James Jesus Angleton.” Morley, along with John Newman, author of
“Oswald and the CIA,” have worked tirelessly for years to pry information from
the CIA by taking the agency to court as well as finding related documents. I
attempted to contact Newman without success.
So what about the presentation Mr. Morley? Morley’s
thoughts, first noted in “Counterpunch,” January 2020 issue and the Mary
Ferrell Foundation website, are that the presentation was compelling. “What he
brings to the historical record of JFK’s murder is not new facts, but an
original frame of analysis. He sees Dealey Plaza through the eyes of a covert
operator.”
Morley spent time with Mowatt-Laurssen after the
presentation and has more thoughts to share. “I learned Mowatt-Laurssen
embraces the theory that the JFK assassination was the work of rogue CIA
officers. Is he advancing some hidden institutional agenda to shape perception
of the JFK assassination story? Maybe, but after spending time with him I
have no reason not to take at face value his sincere interest in the JFK story.
Certainly no retired CIA officer has ever publically offered an interpretation
of Nov. 22, 1963 that is so grounded in tradecraft and the documentary record,
and so incriminating of agency personnel.”
Others are not so sure saying Mowatt-Larssen is just
the latest CIA attempt at covering up what really took place.
Part 2 .
https://www.swtimes.com/story/news/crime/2020/06/03/are-there-cia-connections-to-lee-oswald-part-2/113354066/
Within the CIA was James Angleton’s Special
Investigations Group (SIG), part of CIA’s Counterintelligence (CI) department.
SIG/CI had what’s called a “201” file on Lee Oswald as of Dec. 9, 1960, 3 years
before the assassination. That 201 file was opened by Angleton staffer Ann
Egerter.
On May 17, 1978, she was questioned by the House
Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). During the questioning she
explained what a 201 file was, and why such a file would be opened. A 201 was
opened on those people who SIG/CI saw as being of an intelligence interest or
for some reason under suspicion of being a security risk. And it’s clear in the
testimony that SIG/CI gets involved with matters relating to “agency
personnel.” Does that include Oswald? Egerter had previously said in a March
31, 1978, interview with the HSCA that the SIG office “spied on spies.”
Was Oswald 1 of those spies?
Why the date of Dec. 9, 1960, for opening a 201 on
Oswald? As far as we know, nothing of significance occurred on that date
(he was in Russia at the time). Why wouldn’t a 201 file have been opened on
Oswald when he told the American Embassy in Moscow, on Oct. 31, 1959, that he
was defecting and was a U.S. Marine with radar secrets he could share? Could it
be that CIA knew about Oswald in 1959, but didn’t want other agencies aware of
him until Dec. 1960?
The CIA has said the 201 file opening date is as a
result of Oswald’s name appearing on a list of defectors that was sent to them
by the State Department. But other records show that list was sent to CIA on
Oct. 25, 1960.
Therefore it seems possible that SIG, run by
Angleton, probably was aware of Oswald before opening the 201 file. CIA saw him
as being of intelligence interest. This is confirmed by CIA document
104-10067-10212, dated Nov. 25, 1963, which concludes by saying “…..that we
showed operational intelligence interest in the Harvey story.”
On Nov. 3, 1994, authors/researchers Jefferson
Morley and John Newman interviewed CIA employee Jane Roman, who worked in the
liaison staff of Angleton’s CI staff as a releasing officer. She handled many
Oswald-related documents. She told them that she had signed off on a document -
an FBI report on Oswald’s Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) activities in New
Orleans - which she knew to be untrue. She also distanced herself from the
matter saying she was not in on any “hanky-panky as far as the Cuban situation.”
And she made an incredible statement when asked about the issue of an untrue
report saying, “Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held
very closely on a need-to-know basis.”
And there is this: a May 23, 1963, report made by
Angleton to CIA Deputy Director of Plans (DDP), Richard Helms, and disseminated
throughout the intelligence community, the Dept. of State, FBI, U.S. Coast
Guard, USIA, Department of Defense and elsewhere (but not the White House). It
was about Cuban control and action capabilities covering training of
subversive, sabotage and espionage agents in Cuba and the development of Cuban
Communism. It describes the types and extent of Cuban government controls of
the population in Cuba and summarizes the means by which the Cubans can place
its personnel and use those of other countries for pro-Cuban activities. Under
a section called “Suppression of travel information,” Angleton talks about
travelers who wish to conceal the fact that they have visited Cuba.
The document states, “For such persons the Cuban
government issues visas to Cuba on separate paper, so that no mark of entry to
Cuba appears in the regular passport. An American citizen, for example, can
enter Mexico with a tourist card, not even a passport, and obtain a separate
visa to Cuba from the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. He can go to Cuba and
return, supplied with a new tourist card obtained in Cuba, without any
indication that he has ever been there.” Sound familiar?
Four months later, this is exactly what Lee Harvey
Oswald was up to. How would he know how to go about this? When Oswald showed up
in Mexico City, stopping at Cuban and Soviet embassies, Mexico City CIA Deputy
Chief of Station Allan White told the HSCA that Oswald “became someone of
considerable operational interest.”
And the CIA tried to hide things by not allowing the
HSCA the opportunity to interview other relevant Mexico City CIA staffers,
adding that no such interview is to be arranged and HSCA “should not speak to
them even if they were locatable by other means.”
Even before the HSCA’s existence, Angleton testified
on Sept. 24, 1975, before the Church Committee on intelligence agencies,
saying, “It is inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government
has to comply with all overt orders of the government,” thus basically saying
CIA withholds information.
Additionally, back in March 1964, DDP Helms told
Angleton subordinate Ray Rocca, that Angleton “would prefer to wait out the
(Warren) Commission” in terms of supplying documents and interviews. The same
was true during the HSCA investigation, as noted in Gaeton Fonzi’s “The Last
Investigation,” which gives an example of a staffer’s attempt to get files from
the CIA and the run around that followed.
In 1993, Soviet Col. Oleg Nechiporenko, stationed in
Mexico City at the time of Oswald’s visit, published a book, “Passport to
Assassination.” In that book he talks about Oswald in Mexico City and that
Oswald hinted that he was on a secret mission while in Russia back in 1959 to
1962. And, as Oswald left the Russian Embassy, he “raised the collar of his
jacket to conceal his face and thus attempt to avoid being clearly
photographed.” This strongly suggests Oswald knew of the CIA’s surveillance of
the Embassy.
CIA, in 1967, likely because of the Garrison
investigation of Clay Shaw in New Orleans, also made plans to counter criticism
of the Warren Report, noting that public opinion and critics are increasingly
showing a belief that Oswald did not act alone. “This trend of opinion is a
matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization,” says an
April, 1967 CIA document which has a note in the lower right corner saying,
“Destroy when no longer needed.”
And there is a document that shows that Warren
Commissioner Allen Dulles, former director of CIA and fired by JFK after the
failed Bay of Pigs invasion, advised the agency on how to respond to Warren
Commission requests.
Dulles also, during a Jan. 27, 1964, Commission
executive session discussion about agents and handlers, said that records
“might not be on paper,” and added that whoever recruited an agent wouldn’t
tell, not even under oath.
And there is a letter from HSCA chairman Louis
Stokes to the CIA dated Oct. 13, 1978, that complains about CIA not handing
over requested documents.
One reason the committee did not receive documents
is because the CIA’s liaison to HSCA was the same man, George Joannides, that
handled aspects of anti-Castro Cuban operations back in 1963. Thus a conflict
of interest, for sure.
This is significant for several reasons. First,
because of Joannides firsthand knowledge of 1963 events he would know what not
to send the committee. Secondly, he had a strong reason not to assist the
committee because it would have opened up a huge can of worms regarding Oswald
and those Cuban ops. Thirdly it would show continued CIA deception because
Joannides name could have been on the related documents.
Taking all this into account I think it’s clear that
a CIA – Oswald connection, at some level, existed from 1959 until Nov. 22,
1963. If that’s not the case then why are there many documents on Oswald
at several government agencies? Why are some documents still being withheld?
Why have agency personnel admitted an operational or intelligence interest in
Oswald if there was no interest? And why all the obfuscation by the CIA during
governmental investigations of Oswald?
A few other tantalizing tidbits: Dallas Mayor Earle
Cabell was a CIA contact since 1956. His brother, Gen. Charles Cabell was a CIA
deputy director. Among Oswald’s possessions was a small Minox spy camera.
Dallas police detective Gus Rose has stated that it was found in Oswald’s sea
bag in Ruth Paine’s garage and that the FBI tried to get him to change the
record to say it was a Minox light meter.
Right after the shooting in Dallas, Robert Kennedy
called CIA and asked if they were involved in his brother’s murder. He also
asked CIA Director John McCone and McCone denied it, which one would expect.
Robert Kennedy also checked into anti-Castro involvement.
The point being that on Nov. 22, 1963, JFK’s
brother/U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy suspected others were involved.
Why? In my opinion because RFK was well aware of CIA/Mafia/anti-Castro Cuban
operations, he knew their capabilities and their hatred of his brother.
Space does not allow for even more documentation of
CIA hindrance of investigations and interest in Oswald, so I end with this: an
example of interest in Oswald can be seen in CIA document 104-10051-10167. It’s
a 16-page document listing various reports, files and documents about Oswald.
In other words, it took 16 pages just to list them all.
If readers have questions or want the documentation
for this story contact me at jmlunker@suddenlink.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment