09-05-2017, 01:08 AM
and committee counsel Michael Goldsmith (Classified Testimony of John Scelso May 16 1978)
After Scelso (real name John Whitten) had called William K. Harvey at "thug", excoriated him for having criminals on retainer for assassinations and speculating that he had been involved in the murder of "Giancomo" (Giancana?) he is asked the following question:
Scelso answers:
Goldsmith's next question:
Nice segue. Steer way clear of the implication that Harvey's personal papers might contain evidence linking him to the JFK case. They probably didn't (Harvey wasn't that dumb) but wouldn't you want to follow up on why Scelso said that? After all this was no Langley go-fer. And earlier in Scelso's testimony Goldsmith made it clear that Harvey was
To be fair, when Scelso was asked directly if he had any reason to believe that Harvey was personally involved in the JFK assassination, Scelso answered:
But I interpret this as Scelso cleverly saying that he had no proof of Harvey's involvement while in his later comment about the possible content of Harvey's personal papers he lets slip his feeling that he wouldn't be surprised to find some.
Anyway, I'm sure there are more and probably better examples of how the Committee made sure they didn't get too close to the truth but this one has always stood out to me.
After Scelso (real name John Whitten) had called William K. Harvey at "thug", excoriated him for having criminals on retainer for assassinations and speculating that he had been involved in the murder of "Giancomo" (Giancana?) he is asked the following question:
Quote:Mr. Goldsmith. Harvey instructed his wife that after his own death his wife should burn all of his papers. Do you have any idea what would be in those papers that Mr. Harvey would be so interested to conceal?
Scelso answers:
Quote:Mr. Scelso. He was too young to have assassinated McKinley and Lincoln. It could have been anything. His wife, by the way, I always though was a very fine person. She was a remarkable woman. I am probably doing Harvey an injustice, but I think Harvey was a man who did great damage to the Agency. I told them of the case where we refused to carry out such an order, in the case of the Dominican crisis. You might have read that in my testimony.
Goldsmith's next question:
Quote:Mr. Goldsmith. I believe you indicated to the senate that there was a feeling in the CIA that the FBI may have been derelict in its handling of the Oswald case prior to the assassination.
Nice segue. Steer way clear of the implication that Harvey's personal papers might contain evidence linking him to the JFK case. They probably didn't (Harvey wasn't that dumb) but wouldn't you want to follow up on why Scelso said that? After all this was no Langley go-fer. And earlier in Scelso's testimony Goldsmith made it clear that Harvey was
Quote:the central figure in the Committee's concern here
To be fair, when Scelso was asked directly if he had any reason to believe that Harvey was personally involved in the JFK assassination, Scelso answered:
Quote:I do not have any reason to believe it.
But I interpret this as Scelso cleverly saying that he had no proof of Harvey's involvement while in his later comment about the possible content of Harvey's personal papers he lets slip his feeling that he wouldn't be surprised to find some.
Anyway, I'm sure there are more and probably better examples of how the Committee made sure they didn't get too close to the truth but this one has always stood out to me.