Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
First a rhetorical question and then an observation.
#9
Jim

HSCA was run by CIA lapdog Blakey with CIA gatekeeper George Joannides sanitizing for our protection--Jeff Morley is still stonewalled in his FOIA suit for the Joannides files from CIA on the basis of national security--when the deed was the act of one man sans conspirators.

The following is the dog-and-pony show put on for HSCA in re Oswald and CIA or other intelligence agencies featuring Robert E. Jones as Mickey the Dope:

BEGIN EXCERPT

(17) Oswald's military intelligence file.--On November 22, 1963, soon after the assassination, Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Jones, operations officer of the U.S. Army's 112th Military Intelligence Group Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Tex. contacted the FBI offices in San Antonio and Dallas and gave those offices detailed information concerning Oswald and A. J. Hidell, Oswald's alleged alias. (208) This information suggested the existence of a military intelli-


Page 222
gence file on Oswald and raised the possibility that he had intelligence associations of some kind. (209)
The committee's investigation revealed that military. intelligence officials had opened a file on Oswald because he was perceived as a possible counterintelligence threat. Robert E. Jones testified before the committee that in June 1963 he had been serving as operations officer of the 112th Military Intelligence Group at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. 33 Under the group's control were seven regions encompassing five States: Texas, Louisiana. Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Jones was directly responsible for counterintelligence operations, background investigations, domestic intelligence and any special operations in this five-State area. (210) He believed that Oswald first came to his attention in mid-1963 through information provided to the 112th MIG by the New Orleans Police Department to the effect that Oswald had been arrested there in connection with Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities. (211) As a result of this information, the 112th Military Intelligence Group took an interest in Oswald as a possible counterintelligence threat.(212) It collected information from local agencies and the military central records facility, and opened a file under the names Lee Harvey Oswald and A.J. Hidell.(213) Placed in this file were documents and newspaper articles on such topics as Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union, his travels there, his marriage to a Russian national, his return to the United States, and his pro-Cuba activities in New Orleans.
Jones related that on November 22, 1963. while in his quarters at Fort Sam Houston, he heard about the assassination of President Kennedy. (215) Returning immediately to his office, he contacted MIG personnel in Dallas and instructed them to intensify their liaisons with Federal, State and local agencies and to report back any information obtained. Early that afternoon, he received a telephone call from Dallas advising that an A.J. Hidell had been arrested or had come to the attention of law enforcement authorities. Jones checked the MIG indexes, which indicated that there was a file on Lee Harvey Oswald, also known by the name A. J. Hidell.(216) Pulling the file, he telephoned the local FBI office in San Antonio to notify the FBI that he had some information. (217) He soon was in telephone contact with the Dallas FBI office, to which he summarized the documents in the file. He believed that one person with whom he spoke was FBI Special-Agent-in-Charge J. Gordon Shanklin. He may have talked with the Dallas FBI office more than one time that day. (218)
Jones testified that his last activity with regard to the Kennedy assassination was to write an "after action" report that summarized the actions he had taken, the people he had notified and the times of notification. (219) In addition, Jones believed that this "after action" report included information obtained from reports filed by the military intelligence agents who performed liaison functions with the Secret Service in Dallas on the day of the assassination. (220) This "after action" report was then maintained in the Oswald file.(221) Jones did not contact, nor was he contacted by, any other law enforce-


Page 223
ment or intelligence agencies concerning information that he could provide on Oswald. (222) To Jones' knowledge, neither the FBI nor any law enforcement agency ever requested a copy of the military intelligence file on Oswald. (223) To his surprise, neither the FBI, Secret Service, CIA nor Warren Commission ever interviewed him. (224) No one ever directed him to withhold any information; on the other hand, he never came forward and offered anyone further information relevant to the assassination investigation because he "felt that the information that [he] had provided was sufficient and ...a matter of record. ..."(225)
The committee found Jones' testimony to be credible. His statements concerning the contents of the Oswald file were consistent with FBI communications that were generated as a result of the information that he initially provided. Access to Oswald's military intelligence file, which the Department of Defense never gave to the Warren Commission, was not possible because the Department of Defense had destroyed the file as part of a general program aimed at eliminating all of its files pertaining to nonmilitary personnel. In response to a committee inquiry, the Department of Defense gave the following explanation for the file's destruction:
1. Dossier AB 652876, Oswald, Lee Harvey, was identified for deletion from IRR (Intelligence Records and Reports) holdings on Julian date 73060 (1 March 1973) as stamped on the microfilmed dossier cover. It is not possible to determine the actual date when physical destruction was accomplished, but is credibly surmised that the destruction was accomplished within a period not greater than 60 days following the identification for deletion. Evidence such as the type of deletion record available, the individual clerk involved in the identification, and the projects in progress at the time of deletion, all indicate the dossier deletion resulted from the implementation of a Department of the Army, Adjutant General letter dated 1 June 1971, subject: Acquisition of Information Concerning Persons and Organizations not Affiliated with the Department of Defense (DOD) (Incl 1). Basically, the letter called for the elimination of files on non-DOD affiliated persons and organizations.
2. It is not possible to determine who accomplished the actual physical destruction of the dossier. The individual identifying the dossier for deletion can be determined from the clerk number appearing on the available deletion record. The number indicates that Lyndall E. Harp was the identifying clerk. Harp was an employee of the IRR from 1969 until late 1973, at which time she transferred to the Defense Investigative Service, Fort Holdbird, Md., where she is still a civil service employee. The individual ordering the destruction or deletion cannot be determined. However, available evidence indicates that the dossier was identified for deletion under a set of criteria applied by IRR clerks to all files. The basis for these criteria were [sic] established in the 1 June 1971 letter. There is no indication that the dossier was specifically identified for review or deletion. All evidence shows that the file was


Page 224
224
reviewed as part of a generally applied program to eliminate any dossier concerning persons not affiliated with DOD.
3. The exact material contained in the dossier cannot be determined at this time. However, discussions with all available persons who recall seeing the dossier reveal that it most probably included: newspaper clippings relating to pro-Cuban activities of Oswald, several Federal Bureau of Investigation reports, and possibly some Army counterintelligence reports. None of the persons indicated that they remember any significant information in the dossier. It should be noted here that the Army was not asked to investigate the assassination. Consequently, any Army-derived information was turned over to the appropriate civil authority.
4. At the time of the destruction of the Oswald dossier, IRR was operating under the records disposal authority contained in the DOD Memorandum to Secretaries of the Military Departments, OASD(A), 9 February 1972, subject: Records Disposal Authority (Incl 2). The memorandum forwards National Archivist disposal criteria which is similar in nature to the requirements outlined in the 1 June 1971 instructions. It was not until 1975 that the Archivist changed the criteria to ensure non-destruction of investigative records that may be of historical value. (226)
Upon receipt of this information, the committee orally requested the destruction order relating to the file on Oswald. In a letter dated September 13, 1978, the General Counsel of the Department of the Army replied that no such order existed:
Army regulations do not require any type of specific order before intelligence files can be destroyed, and none was prepared in connection with the destruction of the Oswald file. As a rule, investigative information on persons not directly affiliated with the Defense Department can be retained in Army files only for short periods of time and in carefully regulated circumstances. The Oswald file was destroyed routinely in accordance with normal files management procedures, as are thousands of intelligence files annually.(227)
The committee found this "routine" destruction of the Oswald file extremely troublesome, especially when viewed in light of the Department of Defense's failure to make this file available to the Warren Commission. Despite the credibility of Jones' testimony, without access to this file, the question of Oswald's possible affiliation with military intelligence could not be fully resolved.
(18) The Oswald photograph in Office of Naval Intelligence files.--The Office of Naval Intelligence's (ONI) Oswald file cantamed a photograph of Oswald, taken at the approximate time of his Marine Corps reduction. It was contained in an envelope that had on it the language "REC'D 14 November 1963" and "CIA 77978." (228) These markings raised the possibility that Oswald had been in some way associated with the CIA.
In response to it committee inquiry, the Department of Defense stated that the photograph had been obtained by ONI as a result of


Page 225
an October 4, 1963 CIA request for two copies of the most recent photographs of Oswald so that an attempt could be made to verify his reported presence in Mexico City. The requested copies, however, were Pot made available to the CIA until after the President's assassination. 34 Because of the absence of documentation, no explanation could be given for how or when the Office of Naval Intelligence received this particular photograph of Oswald. (229)
The committee's review of CIA cable traffic confirmed that cable No. 77978, dated October 24, 1963, was in fact a request for two copies of the Department of the Navy's most recent photograph of Lee Henry [sic] Oswald. Moreover, review of other cable traffic corroborated the Agency's desire to determine whether Lee Harvey Oswald had, in fact, been in Mexico City. (230)
The committee concluded, therefore, that the ONI photograph of Oswald bearing a reference to the CIA, was not evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent. Again, however, the destruction of the military file on Oswald prevented the committee from resolving the question of Oswald's possible affiliation with military intelligence.
(19) Oswald in Mexico City.--The committee also considered whether Oswald's activities in Mexico City in the fall of 1963 were indicative of a relationship between him and the CIA. This aspect of the committee's investigation involved a complete review both of alleged Oswald associates and of various CIA operations outside of the United States. (231)
The committee found no evidence of any relationship between Oswald and the CIA. Moreover, the Agency's investigative efforts prior to the assassination regarding Oswald's presence in Mexico City served to confirm the absence of any relationship with him. Specifically, when apprised of his possible presence in Mexico City, the Agency both initiated internal inquiries concerning his background and, once informed of his Soviet experience, notified other potentially interested Federal agencies of his possible contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. (232)
Conclusion
Based on the committee's entire investigation, it concluded that the Secret Service, FBI and CIA were not involved in the assassination. The committee concluded that it is probable that the President was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Nothing in the committee's investigation pointed to official involvement in that conspiracy. While the committee frankly acknowledged that its investigation was not able to identify the members of the conspiracy besides Oswald, or the extent of the conspiracy, the committee believed that it did not include the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or Central Intelligence Agency.



END EXCERPT

There is also James Powell who was present with camera but not officially doing anything. The records routinely and conveniently destroyed--as with Secret Service records. No milint records, no Secret Service records, no CIA records--and 26 volumes of FBI records, none relevant, all frame-friendly.

Horne's Clifton AF 1 tape version contains LeMay's aide trying to contact the general--who would effectively rule the Bethesda autopsy.

Our friend from Army intelligence spoke darkly of Kennedy as "very dangerous"--consider the military bookends of the Kennedy presidency:

At the outset the Berlin Wall is a testament to his powerlessness, while the Bay of Pigs invasion was a CIA device to demonize him in the eyes of the militarized Cubans and their milint handlers: a ready-made army of willing assassins sitting on go.

The missile crisis leaving the military leadership and its deep intelligence policy agents (Rusk, McNamara, Bundy) deeply dissatisfied.

The finality of NSAM 263 nullified by NSAM 273 signed after the president was entombed, a curious paragraph 4 counseling against "retribution"--for what.

Who had the power to place the Dulles Commission at the vanguard of the coverup--not Johnson or Hoover. Acheson.

The Unspeakable absorbed the president's constitutional authority and rendered it impotent.

That little Kennedy. . .he thought he was a god.

Oswald, run by Phillips, Banister; files by Angleton; to Russia for ONI; passed to DeMohrenschildt and Paine by CIA Domestic Contacts J. Walton Moore.

Identified by DRE under Joannides and 112 MIG.

Joannides is still sealed a half century after the murder by lone nut.

McCord and Phillips. "Tell them it would expose all that Bay of Pigs business"

Effective noon tomorrow you'll have Ford in this office making GHW Bush DCI to sanitize the witness list.

You won't have Nixon to kick around--he's joining LBJ and Hoover in the excavated ranks of the terra cotta warriors.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
First a rhetorical question and then an observation. - by Phil Dragoo - 30-04-2013, 11:40 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  James DiEugenio, I have a single question, would you answer? Scott Kaiser 12 11,387 11-06-2019, 04:32 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Question to David Josephs re: WCD 298 Bob Prudhomme 4 4,235 01-03-2015, 07:37 PM
Last Post: Chris Davidson
  Question Scott Kaiser 0 2,593 31-10-2014, 04:51 PM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Question Scott Kaiser 6 5,440 06-07-2014, 05:01 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  LHO: 48 hours to live question Drew Phipps 4 4,640 16-06-2014, 03:01 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Earl Warren question Richard Coleman 24 15,590 03-05-2014, 01:59 PM
Last Post: Drew Phipps
  Legal Question for Dawn Meredith Bob Prudhomme 14 9,479 17-04-2014, 06:53 AM
Last Post: Marc Ellis
  Palmprint question Richard Coleman 3 4,093 30-11-2013, 08:33 PM
Last Post: LR Trotter
  Ferrie and Oswald question Richard Coleman 6 5,842 06-10-2013, 04:39 PM
Last Post: Tracy Riddle
  Altgens may have been a few frames earlier... an observation David Josephs 0 2,689 26-08-2013, 12:32 AM
Last Post: David Josephs

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)