CAPA Disinformation Conference?

CAPA DISINFORMATION CONFERENCE ?

JOHN ORR AND ROLF MOWATT-LARSSEN RECONSIDERED

By Bill Kelly

Jim DiEugenio was the first to wonder why Rolf Mowatt-Larssen was asked to make a major presentation at CAPA, and I promised to explain it to him, as I will do now.

In addition, in response to a CAPA questionaire to all conference registrants, David Nesbitt expressed his displeasure with RM Larssen and John Orr in more detail.

David P. Nesbitt wrote:
https://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2019/12/capa-2019-dallas-conference-critique.html

“...... I appreciate the dialogue and hope my opinions will be helpful and an encouragement to the organization........ In my opinion, three disinformation agents spoke in Dallas this year:  Judyth Baker, John Orr, and Rolf Mowatt-Larssen.”

“Rolf Mowatt-Larssen's presentation was disgusting.  Why was he invited to the conference?  Is CAPA really against political assassinations?  It doesn't seem like it, if you are inviting the perpetrators of political assassinations to come and condescendingly tells us how a rogue agent might have used LHO to assassinate JFK.  What a joke.  I am tempted to ask for my money back and resign my membership from CAPA.  I also question the wisdom and integrity of Larry Schnapf in inviting John Orr to spend so much time to present the same lies and propaganda that have surrounded this case for 56 years.  What is happening to CAPA?......."

Bill Kelly:

In response to Mr. Nesbett's disinformation allegation I would like to point out that the word disinformation stems from the Russian word diz-information - and is a very specific description of intentionally false information being distributed by an intelligence agency in support of a government’s policy, and if it isn’t that it isn’t disinformation but something else – possibly misinformation.

Judy Vary Baker is not connected to an intelligence agency, as far as I know, and is a major distraction but she is not sprouting dis-information.

Both Rolf Mowatt-Larssen and John Orr are former U.S. government employees of the CIA and Justice Department, so they are certainly connected to their agency and department and could be dis-informationists, but they don’t sprout disinformation.

I once wrote an article in response to everyone who disagrees with someone calling them “disinformation agents” and focused on “The Real Disinformation Agents of Dealey Plaza” – Hugh Aynesworth, Priscilla Johnson McMillan and Gordon McLendon - the radio station owner who knew Jack Ruby. To them I would add Joseph Goulden, one of David Atlee Phillips' media assets who tried to get Oswald officially charged with "furthering a communist conspiracy." 

Besides those guys, there is an on-going psychological warfare campaign – what they call an “active measure,” that was the original cover-story for the Dealey Plaza Operation – and that is Cuban Castro Communists (CCC) were behind the conspiracy, something that was originally promoted by dozens of CIA connected agents, operatives and assets in the immediate aftermath of the murder.

House Select Committee on Assassinations(HSCA) investigator Dan Hardway asked David Atlee Phillips, one of the promotors of the CCC cover-story, why so many of his agents, operators and assets were promoting the idea Castro was behind the conspiracy to kill JFK and he said he didn’t know.

Whenever the Oswald as a Lone Wolf assassin is seriously questioned, the fall back position is always the CCC conspiracy, and even today, despite the fact that this theory has been totally discredited and debunked, there are serious attempts to revive it in books, films and TV shows, as former CIA agents Brian Latell and Bob Bair (JFK Declassiefied) have tried to do, along with CIA media assets Gus Russo (Brothers in Arms) and Phil Sheon (A Cruel and Sensless Act). 

Now that’s certified disinformaton, that is not being promoted by Rolf M.-Larssen, who does not parrot the official cover-story. Apparently he didn't get the memo. 

Larssen was a high level CIA intelligence officer who served at eight over seas posts, two as Chief of Station in Moscow – Larssen has taken a unique approach to the assassination, one that I appreciate and adopt.

John Judge once said that he worked from the streets up and Colonel Fletcher Prouty worked for the top down, and they met at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Instead of working from the streets of Dallas and ground up – Larssen flips the conspiracy coin and says, hey – if what we are saying is true – that Oswald was set up as the Patsy, that JFK was killed by a first class sniper who wasn’t in the Sixth Floor window, and it was a successful covert intelligence operation and coup d’etat, then the suspects are limited.

If it was a coup, it is limited to those who took over the government, and if it was a covert intelligence operation – there were only a dozen individuals with the knowledge, power and capability to pull off such an operation and get away with it.

Larssen names the usual suspects – James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, Allen Dulles, Ed Lansdale, and he adds a new name – Jacob Easterline. “Hiphinated Jake” – as David A. Phillips calls him, was responsible for Operation Success – the 1954 Guatemalan Coup and the Bay of Pigs, and the dissolution of the JMWAVE base.

While I disagree with Larssen in that the CIA officers involved were “renegades,” I believe they had the approval of the highest authorities in the various agencies and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And as John Newman distinctly pointed out in his presentation after Larssen, the CIA isn’t the only covert operator in the game, and Army Intelligence can legally operate domestically, does so, and was all over the Dealey Plaza operation.

I will be devoting a specific blog post to Larssen soon, as there is much more there to digest. 

THE JUSTICE DEPT. AND JOHN ORR 

As Nesbett said:  “We should focus on getting the Justice Department to reopen the case as per the HSCA and abandon these flawed and useless exercises that further muddy the waters with lies and propaganda.”

Flawed and useless exercises, muddy waters with lies and propaganda? Wait a minute there Nelly. 

If getting the Justice Department to reopen the case is the goal, then you can’t have a more important ally than John Orr.

As a Federal Attorney in the Justice Department for many years in Atlanta, when John Orr was called to Washington D.C. to receive a special award from Attorney General Janet Reno, he used the opportunity to give the AG a special report he wrote on the ballistics of Dealey Plaza that clearly demonstrates that the head shot that killed the President was not taken from the Sixth Floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

Orr convinced the Justice Department, the FBI and the National Archives to conduct DNA tests on the flesh matter embedded in the bullet fragments found on the floor of the limo, the only such tests ever conducted.

Both John Orr and Rolf M. Larsson are key players in this drama now, and CAPA will be working with them, and together we hope to resolve this case to a legal and moral certainty, soon.

Larry Schnapf responds to Nesbett:

Our agreement was to focus on Oswald and not address the question of the grassy knoll. John did exactly what the DA would have done-use what the WC and HSCA concluded was the evidence in the public record tying Oswald to the assassination.

This was a dry run of what would happen in a real proceeding. The petitioners had the burden of poking holes in the DA’s case.

The comments (by Nesbett) is why we did not want the mock of inquiry to be part of the program. The commentator simply fails to comprehend what the exercise was about.

I think the real value of the exercise to CAPA was the 45 minutes of questions afterwards and not one misguided person.

John stuck to the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting. He had as much time as the petitioners. There was an extensive 45 minute q/a where a full range of questions was asked. I don't remember all the questions that were asked. It is possible someone asked us about evidence that was not introduced in the proceeding. It is also possible the writer has read john's materials on the internet.

Again, John's role was to robustly push back against our presentation as the Dallas district attorney would do in any actual proceeding.  This was a practice run where we wanted to see how a judge would respond to the various arguments. John stuck to the evidence in the historical record. 

On the walker shooting, John did what the district attorney would have done. The fact is the both the WC and HSCA found this evidence credible. We of course disagree and the value of the exercise was to have a judge evaluate the opposing arguments.

I explained the purpose of the mock proceeding and offered the previously agreed disclaimer. The writer was apparently not paying attention or arrived late. In either event, he fundamentally misapprehended the purpose of the exercise.

 As far as Larsen, I have come to know him very well and like those who speculate on his motives. I believe he will prove to be the Fletcher Prouty of the CIA. His insight into the agency's inner workings are invaluable. And he admitted his is relatively new to the assassination and is willing to reconsider his views. But he was not invited to speak about whether Oswald killed the president but how a plot could have been conceived and carried out by members of the CIA.

John Orr:

Mr. Nesbitt should be careful about slinging around phrases like "Orr's lies," unless he has some proof.  I said in my presentation that everything I stated was evidence contained in the records of the official government investigations.  That was a true statement, and I challenge Mr. Nesbitt to prove otherwise. Apparently, I told Mr. Nesbitt after the program that I do not believe Oswald tried to kill Gen.
Walker.  That is also true, and I did not state otherwise in my presentation.  I said the evidence was that Oswald told Marina that he shot at Walker and that there were several pictures of Walker's house in Oswald's possession, at least one of which was taken with Oswald's camera. That too is a correct statement of the Warren Commission record. 

Bill Simpich, representing Oswald, was the movant and the State of Texas was the respondent in the Court of Inquiry.  In most courts, the movant has the burden and argues first, the respondent goes next, and the movant can choose to reserve time for a rebuttal.  Bill and I discussed this order when preparing.  We each had a total of one hour to argue.  I told Bill I assumed he would reserve time for a rebuttal.  The decision whether to give a rebuttal and, if so, how much time to reserve for it was solely Bill Simpich's. 

I believe the Court of Inquiry served a valuable purpose as a realistic dry run to see what it would be like to try to exonerate Oswald.  The intense interest shown by the attendees, with a line out the door to ask questions, bears that out.  A distinction must be made between the formal program and the Q and A afterwards.  During the Q and A, attendees asking questions and panel members alike stated their personal opinions, clearly represented as such.  When asked a question, I answered truthfully based on my beliefs, as did the other presenters.  The were many different opinions expressed by many people, and the discourse was civil and respectful, as it should be. That is what a healthy search for the truth looks like.

I did not seek out CAPA and force my way in to make speeches. CAPA sought me out and invited me to speak.  I reluctantly agreed, since I hate public speaking.  All of the CAPA leadership knew well from the beginning what my beliefs are about the assassination.  Dr. Wecht became very familiar with them in 2013 when we worked together on the Fox News 50^th anniversary show.  Knowing that, CAPA has invited me three years in a row to speak at their conferences.  

I am in fact a citizen against political assassinations, in that I believe JFK was murdered because of his political office and certain official acts he and his administration had taken and were planning to take.

So, my beliefs are completely in sync with the title of the organization. Larry, I know you had a policy of welcoming speakers of differing views as long as they were serious researchers.  I think you and I agree that is the best way to move forward in a search for the greater truth.  Now that CAPA has taken over the JFK Lancer programs, presenting diverse opinions of serious researchers and scholars has become even more important. 

If CAPA is going to become an organization that allows only people who believe exactly the same thing to participate, it will become a self-affirming closed circle without push back or meaningful forward movement.