Proof that the FBI and some researchers play fast and loose with the Truth

[Tosh Plumlee]

Linda I was in the United States Army at 15 and before that in the Texas National Guard at Dallas Love Field., age 14. I was into the Guard and into specialized training at Ft Bliss Texas with other young boys about my age on a test type program for young men bound for trouble with the law.

It was felt we could be trained in the ways of the military in place of ending up in some prison somewhere. LHO was in one of these secret CIA/ Us Military outfits. In 1952 I was asked if I wanted to go into the army on go to jail? I took the army. I think the record you have pulled together indicates this as well as my DD-214 discharge papers from the military. Its a hell of a story, if I do say so myself. Not bad for a boy with an IQ of 86. Right?

Keep on keeping girl... your on to something... after all these years.

[Linda Minor]

Linda I was in the United States Army at 15 and before that in the Texas National Guard at Dallas Love Field., age 14. I was into the Guard and into specialized training at Ft Bliss Texas with other young boys about my age on a test type program for young men bound for trouble with the law.

It was felt we could be trained in the ways of the military in place of ending up in some prison somewhere. LHO was in one of these secret CIA/ Us Military outfits. In 1952 I was asked if I wanted to go into the army on go to jail? I took the army. I think the record you have pulled together indicates this as well as my DD-214 discharge papers from the military. Its a hell of a story, if I do say so myself. Not bad for a boy with an IQ of 86. Right?

Keep on keeping girl... your on to something... after all these years.

http://vlex.com/vid/carlucci-giordano-me...r-36682837
United States of America, Appellee, v. Victor Carlucci, Joseph Giordano, Daniel Hanna, Joseph Merola, Norman Rothman, Stuart Sutor, Appellants., 288 F.2d 691 (3rd Cir. 1961)

Federal Circuits, 3rd Cir. (March 02, 1961)
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.

These appeals have been taken by six defendants who were tried and convicted together in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for substantive crimes and a conspiracy involving the alleged receiving, possession, transportation and exportation of a quantity of firearms stolen from the Government of the United States. All of the appellants urge that the evidence presented by the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the conspiracy or of the substantive crimes. Our review of the evidence as to the appellants Carlucci, Merola, Rothman and Sutor convinces us that there was at the very least, substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. Regarding appellants Giordano and Hanna, a detailed account of their connection with the conspiracy is necessary. We note at the outset, the fundamental proposition that in so doing, "The verdict of the jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government, to support it." United States v. Giuliano, 3 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 582, 584.

When the illegal shipment of the guns was seized by the federal agents, the guns were wrapped in used burlap bags that were turned inside out. To connect these burlap bags with Giordano and thereby tie him into the conspiracy, the government offered the following affirmative proof: that sometime prior to the seizure of the guns, Palumbo, an employee of another of the defendants, Carlucci, had purchased 100 used bags turned inside out for the appellant Giordano from the Arnold Cash Feed Store; that the Arnold Cash Feed Store only sold used bags in this form; that this was an unusually large purchase; that the bags which were wrapped around the guns were used burlap bags turned inside out; that upon F.B.I. laboratory analysis, the residual content of the bags wrapped around the guns was found to be a scratch feed composed of wheat, oats and cracked corn; that this was the same type of grain found at the Arnold Cash Feed Store, under the seat of the plane, and in the bed of the panel truck used to transport the guns to the plane.

Giordano was the only defendant to testify. He stated that he knew the defendants Carlucci and Hanna for approximately fifteen years. He admitted sending Palumbo to purchase the bags for him, but denied talking to Carlucci on that day. He said that the bags were to be used as a protection for newly planted grass on his lawns. He testified that Palumbo put the 100 bags in the back of his car which he drove home that evening. When he went to look for the bags the next day, he discovered that his daughter had taken the car with the bags in it to Robert Morris School in Pittsburgh. Upon her return a few days later, he placed them in his cellar and subsequently used some of them on his lawn. He further testified that because of this incident, he had purchased 30 other bags from the store in the interim.

In rebuttal, the government produced the testimony of an F.B.I. agent who had gone to Giordano's home to question him ten days after the seizure of the guns. The agent said that at this interview, Giordano stated that on the day he requested Palumbo to purchase the bags, he had spoken with Carlucci. Giordano also told the agent that his daughter had taken the bags to Seton Hill College in Greensburg and not Robert Morris School as his direct testimony had indicated. Upon inspection of the premises the agent discovered 148 bags: 99 in Giordano's cellar, 40 on the front lawn, 6 under the rear porch, and 3 in the trunk of his car. In addition to the numerical discrepancy between the number of bags Giordano admitted purchasing from the Arnold Cash Feed Store (130 bags), and the number found on his premises (148 bags), a close examination of the 99 bags in his cellar showed that they were new bags turned right side out.

Close examination of the evidence concerning Giordano's participation in the conspiracy, leaves no doubt that it was sufficient to take that question to the jury and to justify that body in concluding that the bags admittedly purchased by Giordano were the ones wrapped around the illegal shipment of guns. Such a finding connects Giordano with the conspiracy and makes him a party thereto. Cf. United States v. Cohen, 3 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 26, 29.

In his brief appellant Giordano argues that even if the jury did so find,

"There is no suggestion that Giordano did anything else or had any knowledge of what anybody else did or agreed to do. There is not any indication that he had a stake in the venture within the meaning of United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 61 S.Ct. 204 [85 L.Ed. 128]. He is entitled to the protection of the Falcone rule and the rule that one does not become a party to a conspiracy by aiding and abetting it unless one knows of the conspiracy. Direct Sales Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 709, 63 S.Ct. 1265 [87 L.Ed. 1674]."

In United States v. Giuliano, 3 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 582, 584-585, we precisely outlined the scope of the Falcone doctrine as follows:

"As the Supreme Court said in Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 703, 709, 63 S.Ct. 1265, 1268, 87 L.Ed. 1674, the Falcone case stands for the proposition `that one does not become a party to a conspiracy by aiding and abetting it, through sales of supplies or otherwise, unless he knows of the conspiracy; and the inference of such knowledge cannot be drawn merely from knowledge the buyer will use the goods illegally.' The gist of the rationale for the case of United States v. Falcone may be found at pages 210-211, of 311 U.S. at page 207 of 61 S.Ct.: `Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators, * * * and one who without more furnishes supplies to an illicit distiller is not guilty of a conspiracy even though his sale may have furthered the object of a conspiracy to which the distiller was a party but of which the supplier had no knowledge.' (Emphasis supplied). Cf. Direct Sales Co. v. United States, supra."

As is readily seen the principle is not applicable here. Giordano makes no assertion that he is an innocent dealer or supplier of goods to the conspirators. Nor does anything appear in the evidence that could support that sort of surmise. Moreover, there was other proof in addition to that identifying the bags wrapped around the guns as those bought by Giordano. The jury had before it, the long term association between Giordano and the defendants Carlucci and Hanna, that when Giordano purchased the bags he was at Carlucci's place of business, that he spoke with Carlucci at that time, and that he sent one of Carlucci's employees to purchase the bags for him. This collocation of circumstances provides an adequate basis upon which the jury could logically conclude that Giordano did have knowledge of the conspiracy and was an integral part of it. United States v. Giuliano, supra; United States v. Monticello, 3 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 47.1

Two main arguments are urged on behalf of the appellant Hanna. First, it is contended that even though there was clear evidence identifying Hanna as the driver of the truck whose cargo had been transferred to the plane which was subsequently seized with the illegal shipment of guns, there was no proof that the truck's cargo was the illegal shipment of guns. Factually, appellant's position is that the guns could have been placed on the plane at some other place between Remick Field, near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the Morgantown Airport, in West Virginia. The government proof discounts this theory. It shows that the plane took off empty from the Allegheny County Airport, Pittsburgh, about 9:00 A.M. on the particular day. It arrived at Remick Field at 9:30 A.M. A telephone call was then placed from the field to Carlucci's home, and approximately 15 minutes later, Hanna arrived with the truck. The cargo from the truck was transferred to the plane, the process taking approximately one hour. The plane left at 11:00 A.M. and landed an hour later at the Morgantown Airport where it was seized. The distance between Remick Field and the Morgantown Airport was 67 miles. The weight of the seized cargo of guns was 1200 pounds.

These events and their chronology, while not spelling it out completely, did furnish enough justification for the jury's deduction that the items transferred to the plane from the truck driven by Hanna were the guns subsequently seized.

Next, appellant asserts:

"* * * even if guns were being loaded into the plane on November 4 to the knowledge of Hanna there is no evidence to show that he was anything more than a chauffeur * * *."

In essence, this is the same theory urged on behalf of Giordano, i. e., lack of knowledge of the conspiracy. Again it is defeated by the trial evidence and legitimate inferences therefrom. That evidence pointed to Hanna as the driver of the truck. More important with relation to Hanna's assertion of lack of knowledge is the testimony that when the plane arrived at Remick Field a call was made from the airport to Carlucci's home and a short time thereafter, Hanna arrived driving the truck loaded with the illegal shipment of guns. Coupled with this is the story of prior association between Hanna and three other conspirators, Carlucci, Merola and Sutor. Specifically, that one week before, a similar flight was made from the same airport under the same circumstances. That plane's cargo or destination was not established but Hanna, Carlucci, Sutor and Merola were positively identified as being there at that time.

Hanna's acts in sum total are contradictory of the defense that he had no knowledge of the conspiracy. As with Giordano we are forced to hold that the trial judge had no recourse but to let the question go to the jury. The latter by its verdict decided that Hanna did have knowledge of the conspiracy and was part of it. The evidence is sufficient to support those implied findings and they must be affirmed. United States v. Giuliano, supra; United States v. Monticello, supra.

The only other important problem in this appeal concerns the alleged exposure of the jury to articles prejudicial to the defendants which appeared in Pittsburgh newspapers during the trial.2 On defense counsel calling the court's attention to these, the latter immediately inquired whether any of the jury had read them. A number of jurors indicated they had. As they were being checked, one of them said: "I would like to qualify my answer, that in reading the newspaper I have noticed the headlines, just noticed them and then just simply paid no further attention, other than those things you just scan quickly as you look at it. I didn't look at it to remember it." Another stated. "I just glanced at the headlines, I never studied it." Several jurors commented "I just glanced at it. Just the headline." The court meticulously questioned every remaining juror. These all replied that they had not read the accounts. For a page and a half of the printed record the judge followed this up by patiently and carefully reminding the jury of his long talk to them as members of the venire and prior to their selection to serve in this case.3 He repeated his fundamental thesis that a defendant is presumed innocent "* * * unless and until all the evidence and from all the evidence in the case a jury believes to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt." Finally he said to them:

"Now I am going to ask this question of all of you: From your glances or perusal of any of the headlines or of any other matter contained in any newspaper or anything you might have heard on a television broadcast or radio broadcast, is there anyone here who has any doubt in his mind or her mind but that he or she could try this case and base his or her verdict entirely upon the evidence brought into court and admitted here and uninfluenced by any outside communication of any kind whatsoever? Now don't be afraid to say so.

"If you have any qualms about it, if there is anything you have heard outside the courtroom concerning any person connected with this trial which you have reason to believe would make it difficult for you to give any of the defendants in this case a fair trial, please don't hesitate to say so."

None of the jurors indicated having heard or seen anything outside the court room regarding any person connected with the trial which had created doubt of his or her ability to try the defendants fairly. The judge expressed himself as satisfied and proceeded with the trial.

The situation before us is not that which confronted the court in Marshall v. United States, 1959, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, where members of the jury had read the newspaper articles and the query was as to the effect upon them of exposure to their content. In this appeal none of the jury had read any of the articles and there was no question of possible resultant harm. So the narrow issue for our consideration is not whether the district judge abused his discretion in gauging the consequence upon the jurors of newspaper accounts read by them but whether the judge was wrong in law by believing all twelve jurors when they told him that the most they had done was glance at the headlines. It has been argued that the jurors said this in order to avoid criticism by the court. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. A vigilant, experienced judge was in charge. His every word and every move established his determination to see to it that the trial was conducted with full justice to both sides. The court's early address to the panel, his attitude throughout this long trial which, with some interruptions, extended from January 11, 1960 to February 4, 1960, was one of highest sympathetic consideration for the jury. His above quoted language demonstrates that he was no bullier of citizens striving to do their sworn duty but perhaps caught in a hardly comprehensible problem not intentionally of their making. He courteously urged them to tell him if any one had read the stories and his "Now please don't be afraid to say so" and "please don't hesitate to say so" were statements honestly made which must be honestly interpreted. Thus interpreted they meant that any such juror would be excused without the slightest unfavorable remark. Even the most biased argument would be hard put to suggest that all twelve jurors, sworn to try the indictments fairly would deliberately break their oaths by remaining in the box, having read the items, instead of bowing out under the wise protection of the court and saving not only their dignity but their honor.

From the whole record we are confident of the jurors' probity. However, for the purposes of this appeal we need not go that far. There was most substantial evidence in support of the court's conclusion that the jurors had not read the news accounts. Suggestion to the contrary is at most suspicion founded on a worm's eye view of jurors generally. The judge was justified in believing the members of the jury. And believing them he had no recourse but to deny the motion for mistrial, the sole excuse for which was the theory that a member or members of the jury had read the trial accounts and therefore had been exposed to improper and prejudicial information respecting the defendants.

No decision has been furnished us or have we found any which is in conflict with our above conclusion. Marshall v. United States, supra [360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1173], lends no help to the appellants' view. If lays down as its guiding principle where jury prejudice is alleged to exist that "each (case) must turn on its own special facts." Here the objected to accounts never reached the jury. The headlines which are all the jury saw contained nothing relative to the trial that was not in evidence. In Marshall there was admittedly juror exposure to the contents of the articles. According to the Court of Appeals opinion, 10 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 94, 97, "Six of the jurors read one of the articles and two of the six had read both." The Supreme Court opinion is founded on the reading by the jurors of news articles concerning the trial. It says at page 312 of 360 U.S., at page 1173 of 79 S.Ct.:

"The trial judge has a large discretion in ruling on the issue of prejudice resulting from the reading by jurors of news articles concerning the trial. * * * Generalizations beyond that statement are not profitable, because each case must turn on its special facts." (Emphasis supplied).

We never reach the Marshall doctrine of whether the large discretion of a trial judge was rightly exercised on the issue of prejudice resulting from the reading by jurors of news articles of the trial. The court found that the news articles in this instance had not been read by the jurors. Therefore there was no exposure to their views and no possible prejudice to the jury.

In Griffin v. United States, 3 Cir., 1924, 295 F. 437, there was, as in Marshall, the acceptance of exposure by the jury to prejudice. The opinion itself states at page 439, "Members of the jury had been seen reading newspapers". Meyer v. Cadwalader, C.C.1891, 49 F. 32, 36, cited in Griffin, significantly makes no statement in the opinion that cautionary instructions were ever given the jury. The opinion does say "The jury separated at the close of each session of the court, and it is incredible that, going out into the community, they did not see and read these newspaper publications." To literally follow the reasoning of the opinion would mean sequestering all juries where there was a possibility of that sort of publicity otherwise mere appearance of an article held to be prejudicial regarding the trial, would be sufficient ground for granting a motion for mistrial. This is not the doctrine of the Supreme Court in Marshall. In McKibben v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 3 Cir., 1918, 251 F. 577, the complained of newspaper was indisputably brought into the jury room by a juror and read to all of the other jury members. Vaughan v. Magee, 3 Cir., 1914, 218 F. 630, is merely another example of a jury having been actually exposed to a statement which was not in evidence. The opinion, at page 632, reads: "It suffices to say the jury * * * had before it substantial statements of matters which were not only not in evidence, but which on no principle of law could have been admitted into evidence." United States v. Ogden, D.C.E. D.Pa.1900, 105 F. 371, another decision urged by appellants, contains positive proof by the jurors that they had read and discussed the offensive report.

We have examined appellants' other points. They are without merit and do not warrant discussion.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

"To establish conspiracy this court has said many times that it is not necessary to show any formal agreement among the conspirators. Judge Leahy found the picturesque language to express the point when he quoted: `The picture of conspiracy as a meeting by twilight of a trio of sinister persons with pointed hats close together belongs to a darker age.' William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 3 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 738, 743 note 15."

2 An article in a New Kensington newspaper was later included. It is clear from the record that there was no proof any juror ever saw that paper. Kensington is some twenty-five miles from Pittsburgh. It was undisputed at the reargument that no one on the jury was from New Kensington

3 He had then explained to them the necessity of being careful about newspaper accounts, radio broadcasts or television pictures regarding the case; how "Neither judge nor jury must have any thought in mind other than that this defendant at this time must be presumed to be innocent and that he cannot be adjudged guilty unless and until the evidence in the case convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt." He, at that time, appealed to any panel member who had been so affected by the publicity that he or she could not be a fair juror to tell him. He stressed "* * * the sacred importance * * * of following these simple rules, which are the most important rules we have, that every individual accused of an offense is innocent unless and until the evidence introduced in this case convinces that person, that jury, to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt."

HASTIE, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

I think the defendant Giordano should have been acquitted and that this court should now require his acquittal. He was convicted on counts five and seven of the indictment. In my view there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt his guilt on either count. Count five is a substantive charge of unlawful failure to register certain firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. I find no evidence whatever that Giordano had any such connection with the possession or transportation of the firearms here in question as to make it his duty to register them. Indeed, the opinion of this court does not discuss this count but rather supports Giordano's conviction of conspiracy under count seven.

The entire proof thought to support the conspiracy charge against Giordano consists of evidence that he purchased some burlap bags; that a friend who worked for Carlucci made the purchase for him; that later these bags, no longer in the possession of Giordano, were used as wrappings for a shipment of contraband firearms; and that his explanation of the purchase to an investigator shortly after the event differed in some particulars from the account he gave later on the witness stand. It was not proved that Giordano ever knew or intended that the bags were to be used to wrap guns. Beyond that, the prosecution did not even attempt to show that he knew the guns were stolen, unregistered or untaxed, or that there was to be an interstate or foreign shipment of contraband. Yet, only if he was aware of the gun-running scheme and some illegal aspect of it, could he be properly convicted as a member of the conspiracy to commit particular offenses as charged. For, as Judge Learned Hand has reminded us: "While one may * * * be guilty of running past a traffic light of whose existence one is ignorant, one cannot be guilty of conspiring to run past such a light, for one cannot agree to run past a light unless one supposes that there is a light to run past." United States v. Crimmins, 2 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 271, 273. I think Giordano has been convicted of conspiring to commit various substantive crimes with no evidence whatever of his awareness that these crimes were contemplated, much less, that his activity in connection with a quantity of burlap bags would facilitate these crimes.

The worst that can properly be found in this regard is that Giordano's conflicting statements about the bags show apprehension or even belief that the bags had become involved in some wrongdoing. But that is far short of demonstrating that he acquired or disposed of them intending that they be used in any of the crimes charged in this indictment. In my view this conviction must have been based upon speculation by the jury about the connection of Giordano with the conspiracy charged. Therefore, it should not stand.

The case of the defendant Hanna is different. He was the truck driver who transported the stolen goods to the airport. He is charged in several counts. In count three he is charged with the substantive offense of possession of property of the United States knowing it to have been stolen. Cf. Rayborn v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 368. Unquestionably he did for a time have a truck load of stolen guns in his possession. He never offered any exculpatory explanation of this. Accordingly, a jury could properly infer guilty knowledge from his unexplained possession of the stolen articles. Cf. United States v. Allegrucci, 3 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 70. For this reason I think Hanna is not entitled to acquittal as a matter of law.

Quite apart from questions as to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the participation of particular individuals in the crimes charged, the appellants contend that the district court erred in its disposition of their request that a mistrial be declared because of the jury's exposure to information highly prejudicial to the appellants which was published in daily newspapers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania while this trial was in progress there.

The case was tried to a jury for more than three weeks. During this period the jury was not sequestered. Its members were entirely at large from the end of each trial day until the beginning of the next. During the first week of the trial derogatory articles about the defendants appeared, conspicuously placed and headlined, in local daily newspapers. The articles contained a substantial amount of material prejudicial to the defendants which was not and, in large part, could not have been put in evidence at the trial. As to this there is no dispute. The newspaper stories stated that all of the defendants were connected with a "gambling combine" in New Kensington, that one of them also operated a gambling concession in Havana, and that the purpose of their attempted exportation of guns was to protect gambling franchises in Cuba.

On June 21st, a few days after these derogatory articles were published, counsel brought the publications to the attention of the trial judge who thereupon questioned the assembled jurors about the matter in open court. The judge first asked the jury whether any of them had read newspaper accounts of the trial. Juror No. 8 replied, "I have". The court then asked: "Are you the only one that has?" At this point jurors No. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and two alternates all raised their hands, signifying that they too had read newspaper accounts of the trial. This, of course, was in violation of the instructions the court had given the jury. Then one of the jurors addressed the court as follows: "I would like to qualify my answer, that in reading the newspaper I have noticed the headlines, just noticed them and then just simply paid no further attention, other than those things you just scan quickly as you look at it. I didn't look at it to remember it". Thereupon each of the jurors who had admitted reading newspaper articles modified his admission to conform with what had just been said. One of them observed: "I can say about the same thing. I paid little attention to the accounts in the headlines, knowing it don't mean nothing to me, what is in the paper. I use my own judgment". Two jurors then said: "I am the same". Four others stated: "I have been doing the same".

The judge then emphasized to the jury the importance of deciding solely on the basis of the testimony in court. He also stressed the gross impropriety of newspaper, radio and television reports containing derogatory information about the defendants on trial. Having thus sought to minimize the risk of prejudice to the defendants the court denied the defendants' motion for a mistrial.

It is indisputable that when jurors are allowed to disperse from day to day during a long much publicized trial there is danger that they will be subjected to improper influences. When derogatory materials about the defendants are published in daily newspapers in communities where the jurors live the likelihood of prejudice to the defendants often becomes so great that corrective action is required. Griffin v. United States, 3 Cir., 1924, 295 F. 437. The problem is to decide when and whether a situation has developed in which a court should not risk any corrective less drastic than a new trial.

Marshall v. United States, 1959, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, is a significant new development of the law in this area. In that case, during a criminal trial some jurors had "read" and others had "scanned" articles prejudicial to the defendants. But, examined separately and apart from their fellow jurors, each of them assured the court that he had not been influenced by the articles in question and could put them out of mind in reaching a decision on the evidence. Before the Marshall decision various courts had held that this sort of assurance combined with impressive judicial admonition was enough to make unassailable a decision of the trial judge that the defendants had suffered no serious prejudice from adverse newspaper stories and that there was no sufficient reason for declaring a mistrial. E. g., United States v. Leviton, 2 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 848; United States v. Carruthers, 7 Cir., 1945, 152 F.2d 512. But in the Marshall case the Supreme Court, ignoring this older line, said that this kind of "exposure of jurors to information of a character * * * so prejudicial that it could not be directly offered as evidence" was in itself enough to require a new trial. 360 U.S. at page 312, 79 S.Ct. at page 1173. And see the foreshadowing concurrence of Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Frankfurter in a somewhat similar, though clearer, situation in Shepherd v. State of Florida, 1951, 341 U.S. 50, 71 S.Ct. 549, 95 L.Ed. 740.

In the present case, if the jurors had adhered to their first admissions of reading newspaper accounts of the trial, the Marshall rule would unquestionably have required that a new trial be ordered. If this case is significantly different from Marshall, the difference must be found in the fact that the jurors so modified their original admissions as to indicate only a minimal contact with or observation of articles published about the trial. Two circumstances deserve special mention in this connection. The judge at no time examined individual jurors out of the presence of their colleagues. Each was in position to be influenced by what his colleagues had said about paying little attention to the articles. Second, even in the general questioning of the entire jury there was no inquiry, much less a searching cross-examination, to obtain any explanation of the jurors' uniform modification of original admissions in order to adopt what a colleague had been heard to say about merely reading "headlines" and "those things you just scan quickly as you look at it". On its face this conduct gives the impression of an effort to escape or minimize possible criticism of their reading about the trial rather than a genuine recollection that admissions made only minutes earlier were mistaken. In these circumstances I think that the change of position by the jurors does not to any really significant extent diminish the great likelihood of prejudice disclosed when on first inquiry so many of them admitted that, contrary to the court's earlier admonition, they had read newspaper accounts of the trial. And because I read the Marshall case as meaning that very substantial risk of prejudice in all the circumstances, rather than clear affirmative demonstration of prejudice in fact, is enough to require a mistrial when jurors have been exposed to inadmissible and derogatory publications about a person on trial, I think the Marshall rule strongly supports the appellants' demand for a new trial here.

Finally, even in the absence of direct evidence that jurors have read the publications in question, early decisions in this circuit have taken the position that there is a strong logical inference that jurors permitted to separate during a trial have seen or learned of derogatory material about the defendants which has appeared conspicuously during the trial on the front page of a local daily paper. In Meyer v. Cadwalader, C.C.E.D.Pa. 1891, 49 F. 32, 36, Circuit Judge Acheson said:

"It is idle to say that there is no direct evidence to show that the jury read these articles. They appeared in the daily issues of leading journals, and were scattered broadcast over the community. The jury separated at the close of each session of the court, and it is incredible that, going out into the community, they did not see and read these newspaper publications." In Griffin v. United States, 3 Cir., 1924, 295 F. 437, the only evidence that a single derogatory front page newspaper story about the defendant had come to the attention of the jury was testimony that one juror had been seen with a copy of that paper in his possession. The court held that a new trial should have been granted.

These uncompromising rulings of our predecessors in this circuit are old. The Supreme Court ruling in the Marshall case is very new. In sum they provide what to me are convincing reasons for directing a new trial in the circumstances of the present case.

The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for dismissal as to Giordano and new trials in the cases of the other appellants.

BIGGS, Chief Judge, and KALODNER, Circuit Judge, concur in the views expressed in this dissenting opinion.

[Linda Minor]

Jospeh Raymond Merola was an associate of Norman Rothman and the Mannarino brothers (Sam and Gabe). The Mannarinos, members of the Pittsburgh Mafia under John Sebastian LaRocca, were the original owners of the Sans Souci in Havana.

Merola was involved in flying guns to Castro with Rothman, Lou Pessolano, and the Mannarinos.

He was convicted of transporting stolen guns from a National Guard Armory in Canton, Ohio (Pittsburgh Mafia territory) to Castro's forces in 1958. He got five years in prison. I believe that is the case in which Jose Aleman testified for the prosecution.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ode=linear

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec29.htm
WEAPONS FOR CASTRO

On October 14, 1958, about 317 weapons were stolen from a National Guard Armory at Canton, Ohio. On November 4, 1958, a plane load of guns piloted by Stuart Sutor of Hialeah, Florida, was tracked on radar by the Border Patrol flying from Pennsylvania to West Virginia where the soldier-of-fortune was arrested. The weapons stolen in Ohio were recovered.

What had happened behind the scenes was this: Controni contacted Gabriel and Samuel Mannarino, racket figures in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Gabriel and Samuel Mannarino contacted Norman Rothman who rented a plane for $6,000 to run the guns, and contacted Joseph Merola, a close associate of Carlos Prio. Merola's job was to fly to Pittsburgh to contact Gabriel and Samuel Mannarino's boys about shipping guns to Cuba.

Rothman lined up William W. Rabin to handle the finances. Rabin set up a Swiss Bank account and posted the stolen securities as collateral for a loan. [Miami Herald 3.13.60] Others involved included Austin Young, who was in contact with Rabin and Rothman, and Paul Bert Hickman, an associate of Edward Browder.

JOE MEROLA

Joseph Raymond Merola (201-257804 born October 9, 1925), was a gun-running pilot linked to Edward Browder. Joseph Merola served in the Marines from 1941 to 1945. In the late 1950's he ran arms to Fidel Castro. The CIA described him as a "fast dealer with connections at all levels in many foreign countries. His information is usually very good. He was Batista's personal pilot and was right next to Fidel Castro at the time of the take over." In March 1959 Joseph Merola was involved in an invasion of Panama from Cuba. In May 1959 he was involved in a plot to counterfeit Cuban currency. In February 1961 he was restricted to the Miami area following his conviction on charges of theft of arms from a National Guard Armory. On February 15, 1964, a cleared police contact advised the CIA that three men who had been caught stealing dynamite claimed it was stolen on behalf of Kubarker Joseph R. Merola. The CIA declared that Joseph Merola was not an agent, only a informant: "In an occasional contact of our overt office in Miami since 1961." In November 1972 Joseph Merola began serving a one year sentence for petty larceny in New York City. In November 1974 Joseph Merola was indicted by a Los Angeles County Grand Jury for stock manipulation and fraud. In December 1974 PHILLIPS sent a telex to an unnamed component about Joseph Merola:

1. Regarding Joseph Raymond Merola [201-257804] U.S. citizen please inform (Deleted) the following: Joseph Raymond Merola, an occasional contact of our overt office in Miami since 1961, periodically provides that office with foreign positive intelligence information. It is suggested that (Deleted) be contacted for additional information.

2. (Deleted) Headquarters informed (Deleted) June 1974 that Merola was of operational interest. They requested traces and stated he reportedly worked for (Deleted) in late 1950's. We replied that Mr. Merola had never worked for (Deleted) although we were aware that he had made such claims on number of previous instances.

3. Headquarters relaying for Station use only 20664, January 11, 1974 ,and Director 502254, January 17, 1974, which reports derogatory information on Merola.

4. Merola being processed in the ISR as (Deleted) source. Will advise when registration completed.

5. Please advise local (Deleted) Orlando Batista Viera's occupation as detective is included in category whose operational use is prohibited throughout the intelligence community and ISR policy precludes his registration. However, emphasize to (Deleted) that this fact not intended to prohibit their use of the Subject. Batista will be recorded as contact of (Deleted) in (Deleted) files in case any other U.S. Government agency expresses operational interest. (Deleted) Headquarters is being informed of above.

6. The following may be past to (Deleted). Batista was born July 10, 1933, Havana, Cuba. Was in Cuban Navy. Arrived in U.S. in early 1960's as exile. Subject was in prison several months in 1959 in Cuba accused of being member of Batista's Armed Forces and having idea opposed to Castro revolution, subsequently released. Subject of operational interest to (Deleted) in 1963 to 1964; interest dropped in 1964 and Subject terminated without prejudice. Ask (Deleted) to refer to (Deleted) for more info on Subject.

7. FYI only: POA granted 1963 for Subject's use in PM boat operations; however, POA canceled when he claimed he was unable satisfactorily treat his seasickness. In 1964 Subject interviewed by (Deleted) in Los Angeles, California, regarding group of Cubans in Miami involved in drug operations. Subject revealed his (Deleted) connections to FBI.

8. File: 200-11-11/19; 201-740127; 201-257804.

*Requested priority traces on Merola and Batista. (Deleted) Sources and register in ISR.

(DCD/OSS (Telecoord) December 6, 1974.

Unit: LA/NARC/LA/CAR DAVID A PHILLIPS C/LA LA/NARC (Deleted) DDO/NARCO (Deleted) LOSN/ISR (Deleted) C/LA/CAR.

The CIA considered using Merola as a source of information on developments in Beirut. [JM WAVE Cable 2.15.64; CIA Index Cards on Merola - type is so small it is unreadable; MFR 12.2.74 9-28-49; To: Director Domestic Contacts Service. From: Chief, Miami Field Office 11.20.72 MIN-181-72; Outgoing Message 630872]

Joseph Merola reported to Herbert J. Miller of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.

ROTHMAN' S INDICTMENT

On January 2, 1959, Norman Rothman flew to Havana. On March 27, 1959, Rothman was charged with violating the National Firearms Act. On April 9, 1959, Rothman was arrested for violation of the National Stolen Property Act in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and on June 30, 1959, Rabin, Controni, Rene Robert, Sam Marrarino and Norman Rothman were indicted in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division for arms smuggling and stolen securities charges. [59CR374 Luis Kutner, Counsel] In July 1959 Rothman was charged with interstate transportation of stolen property and conspiracy. S.A. George Davis of the FBI observed Rothman when he left for Mexico from Miami on December 10, 1959, in the company of Richardo Madan Rivas, a gun-smuggler. In late 1959 Norman Rothman helped Fulgencio Batista establish headquarters at the Biltmore Terrace Hotel on Miami Beach. Norman Rothman managed the Biltmore Terrace. His associates included Rolando Masferrer and Orlando Piedra. At this time Norman Rothman supplied anti-Castro groups with stolen arms.

Rothman was convicted in February 1960 with others attempting to smuggle guns stolen from a National Guard Armory in Ohio to Cuba, and received a five year prison term and $10,000 fine. [FBI HO 165-689]

Sam Mannarino was interviewed by S.A. John S. Portella, who had been acquainted with Sam Mannarino for the past ten years: "Mannarino predicted that 30 days after Merola is released from Federal Prison, he will be murdered. Mannarino stated that he wanted the record to show that he himself was not going to kill Merola and probably would have nothing to do with his murder. Merola's testifying as a Government witness, however, would raise serious doubts and concern in the minds of several people that Merola has been involved with over them over the past five years. It would be one of those persons who probably committed some crime with Merola, according to Mannarino, who would wonder when Merola was going to testify against them. It would therefore be one of these former associates who would probably kill him. Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice by memorandum dated April 26, 1962, referred to Joseph Merola and advised that on April 13, 1962, a petition for executive clemency, together with his recommendation that petition be granted, was forwarded to pardon attorney Reed Cozart." [FBI CG 87-11127]...

[Linda Minor]

Morgantown, W.Va Post
Nov. 5, 1958
Seized Arms
Said Stolen From Armory
Part of Canton, Ohio, National Guard
Stock Stolen in Mid-October

Arms found on board the Beechcraft C-18, captured shortly after noon yesterday at the Morgantown Municipal
Airport, have been definitely identified as part of those stolen from a Canton, Ohio, National Guard Armory on Oct. 14. Customs officials arrived last night to remove the guns from the twin-engined plane and check the serial numbers
against those missing from the Ohio armory. Some 320 guns were taken from the armory. There were about 150 pieces aboard the plane.
The plane was captured yesterday by local State and County Police as it was being refueled here for a flight on to Florida and a rendezvous with Fidel Castro's Cuban rebels. Its pilot, Stuart Sutor, 34, of Hialeah, Fla., was lodged in the Monongalia County Jail overnight.
Sheriff Charles J. Whiston said that Mr. Sutor was arraigned before U. S. District Commissioner L. P. Eddy in Fairmont this morning. Mr. Sutor was taken to Fairmont
by Customs and Border Patrol men. Facts in the case were
turned over to Federal District Attorney Albert M. Morgan.
Speculation is that the plane here is one of five Beechcraft planes stolen in Cuba recently. Two of the planes are known to have crashed, but three are still in operation, so far as is known. Bearing the name, Transit Flasher Co., the plane was said by the pilot to belong to a DuPont Air Interest, owned by a Henry DuPont. Mr. Sutor said that he had been ferrying planes to Central and South America for years, but that he had only recently joined the company for whom he was flying prior to his capture here yesterday.
Border Patrol men said that the aqua and white Beechcraft had left Allegheny Airport near Pittsburgh yesterday about 8 a.m. and that it was apparently carrying no load at the time. They said that they had tracked the plane by radar to a small field near Butler, Pa. They said that Pittsburgh reports indicated that three men were aboard when the plane left Pittsburgh and that the Pilot was a Puerto Rican. They theorized that Mr. Sutor took over the plane at the Butler field. Mr. Sutor said that he had taken the plane from a small "field" airport but averred that he did not know whether the guns had been put aboard there. He said
that he took on only 25 gallons of
(Continued on Page 2, Column 4)

Post Photo
CHECK FOR CONCEALED WEAPONS—In this photo, taken shortly after the arrest of Stuart Sutor, charged with flying stolen guns to the Cuban Rebels, Mr.. Sutor's personal belongings are taken from the plane prior to sealing it.
Left to right are Sheriff Charles J. Whiston, checking the overcoat; Peter J. Grottendorst," Border Patrol air intelligence officer; Mr. Sutor and two county deputies.

-------------
SEIZED
(Continued From Page 1)
gasoline there in order to make his takeoff.
Manager Lee Rinick at the airport here said that he had sold Mr. Sutor more than 147 gallons. He detained Mr. Sutor briefly by miscounting the change from a $100 bill given him for the gasoline, for the police to have time to move in and make the arrest. Mr. Sutor seemed a bit disgusted at the time of his arrest. "I've flown all over the world," he said "and here I am caught by a bunch of hillbillies" The pilot complimented the local police on their
arrest. He said that ordinarily "you can sense when law officers are around an airport when you arrive." Mr. Sutor stated that he nad no idea that anything had gone wrong until he saw the guns sticking in his face.
Border Patrolmen had alerted the local authorities from Pittsburgh. Peter J. Grootendorst, patrol inspector of Air Intelligence, J.S. Border Patrol, arrived in a Piper Comanchee shortly after the arrest had been made. He took charge of the sealing of the plane until other authorities could arrive.
Present last night, when the arms were removed from the
plane were FBI agents Charles Vatson and Vernon Daniels of Fairmont, Inspectors Riley and Lacy of U.S. Customs in Philadelphia, David Blackwell, with the Border Patrol in Burlington, Vt, and Mr. Grootendorst. The 150-odd weapons included one .50 cal. machine gun, seven .22 cal. rifles, four .45 cal. guns, and the rest mostly carbines and
M-l rifles. Authorities say that there may be some link between Mr. Sutor's plane and three men who were arrested in Pennsylvania yesterday afternoon. The three had helped load & plane at Tarentum, Pa. Tarentum is located just northeast of Pittsburgh on the Allegheny River. It is about 18 air miles from Butler.
--------------
Charleston Daily Mail
NOV. 5, 1958
Arms-Carrying Plane
Seized At Morgantown
MORGANTOWN (AP) — A twin-engine Beechcraft, reportedly ferrying firearms to Cuban rebel forces. Tuesday was seized and its pilot arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol at the municipal airport Agents of the border patrol swarmed aboard the aircraft after it landed at Morgantown for refueling. They said it took off earlier from a small airport at Tarentum. Pa., 20 .miles northeast of Pittsburgh.
Carl Endress, assistant chief patrol inspector at Buffalo, N.Y. identified the pilot as Stuart Sutor. about 33, of Hialeah, Fla. He said Sutor spent Monday night in Pittsburgh and the plane was loaded Tuesday morning.
Endress said the cargo contained an undetermined number
of M-l rifles and .50 caliber machine guns. He did not say
where the plane was from or how the border patrol learned of the arms shipment.
The plane was placed under police guard and Sutor was
turned over questioning to authorities for
No charges were placed against Sutor immediately
He refused to reveal who hired him or where he was ferrying the arms.
Heavily armed state police just missed seizing the plane at Tarenturn, Pa. Road blocks were set up in the area for a panel truck and two autos reportedly used in transporting the firearms to the airport. J. B. Grootendorft, an agent of the Border Patrol air intelligence service, and another landed
just behind Sutor here. They had followed him from the Pittsburgh area, some 80 miles from Morgantown.

[Linda Minor]

THE MORGANTOWN POST
Thursday Afternoon. Nov. 6, 1958
Seized Arms Linked to Alleged Racketeer
Arraignment of
Pilot Nabbed Here
Reset for Monday
PITTSBURGH (UPI) —Federal authorities pressed their investigation into a gun - smuggling operation which was broken up when the Border Patrol intercepted a shipment of rifles stolen from a Canton, Ohio, National Guard Armory and apparently was being flown to rebel forces in Cuba. At Fairmont, W. Va., the arraignment of the pilot, Stuart Sutor, 34, Hialeah, Fla., who was arrested when he landed his twin-engine plane at Morgantown, W.Va., Airport Monday to refuel, was postponed until next Monday
to permit appearance of his Florida attorney.
At Pittsburgh, three men, including the son-m-law of reputed New Kensington racket figure Sam Mannanno, were freed on their own recognizance after questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Federal authorities disclosed still another link with the Maunarinos. They said a federal agent and a state policeman had watched the plane being loaded at the Allegheny Valley Airport, near Tarentum, from a truck
registered in the name of the S & S Distributing Co., a firm
owned by Gabriel Mannarino, brother of Sam.
U.S. marshals have been unsuccessful in finding Gabriel to serve subpenas issued by racket-investigating grand juries at Pittsburgh and New York. Also questioned along with Victor Carlucci, Sam Mannarino's son-in-law, were Tony Remich, owner of the Allegheny Valley Airport, and William J. Falter, Creighton, who told police he merely was hunting in the area and stopped to watch the plane load.
The federal agent and state trooper who observed the loading operation radioed to the Butler barracks of the state police for assistance, but the plane had taken off before three automobiles carrying heavily armed trooper arrived. But a Border Patrol plane followed Sutor and his plane to Morgantown, where the pilot was taken into custody and the plane and cargo of 150 stolen rifles and
carbines, plus two machine guns, were seized. The truck seen at the airport
(Continued on Page 2, Column 9)
FBI QUIZZES
(Continued From Page 1)
was located at the Ken Iron and Steel Co. in New Kensington.
Sam Mannarino is listed as an owner of the firm, which occupies the same premises as his distributing company.
Sam Mannarino formerly was an owner of the Sans Souci gambling establishment in Cuba, but the property was seized by the government of Gen. Battista, whom the rebels seek to overthrow.

[Linda Minor]

October 14, 1958
Van Wert, Ohio
300 Guns Are Stolen
From Canton Armory
CANTON, Ohio (AP)—More than 300 guns were stolen by burglars who broke into the National Guard Armory here Monday night. Police said the loot included 300 M-I and carbine rifles, four .45 caliber submachine guns and eight
.22-caliber bolt action rifles. No ammunition was taken.

THE JOURNAL-TRIBUNE
Wednesday, October 15, 1958
Armory Raid Laid
To Cuban Rebel
Sympathizers
KENT, 0. (UPI) — P o l i c e guarded the Kent National Guard Armory until dawn today following a tip that Cuban Rebel sympathizers might raid the place. A tipster, speaking in a heavy Spanish accent, told police Tuesday
of a plot to raid the armory. He said the same gang struck the Canton Armory Monday night and took rifles, carbines, burp guns, and practice rifles valued at $20,000.
Authorities believed the Canton raid was made by Cuban Rebel sympathizers because no one else could readily dispose of such a quantity of arms.
The FBI, meanwhile, investigated the Canton burglary but has reported no new leads. The raiders escaped with 148 rifles, 153 carbines, four burp guns and eight 22 caliber practice rifles. In Columbus, state Adjutant Gen. Leo M. Kreber said, all unit commanders have been ordered to make a thorough check of armories before locking up for the night. "We haven't had any indication that the Canton robbery is a widespread attempt to obtain weapons," Kreber said. "For that reason we are not planning any aighfguards at this time," Kreber said. Weapons and ammunition have been stolen from armories before, but the Canton robbery was the largest haul he remembered.
The robbers were believed to have hidden in the Canton armory before it closed Monday. They forced open supply room door and, wheeled gun racks to a side door where they apparently were loaded into a truck, Canton police said.

[Tosh Plumlee]

The National Guard brake in was a CIA operation using "cut-outs' and CIA informats, mostly with close associations with organized crime (Mafia associates)

Rothman and Roselli were good fiends and used to meet at the Rodney Plaza Beach Hotel, before the Fountain Blue hotel was built. Also they used to meet at Sloopy Joes on Flager Street before going to the Mc Allister Hotel for meetings with JM WAVE personal from Miami Station. John Farentello was a CIA contact and used to bring maps over from the hotel to Biscanne Park where we would plan our airdrops inside Cuba.

Some of these meetings took place in the years before JM WAVE was even formed. And others after the operations of JM/ WAVE were organized. The old OPS were known as "WAVE STATION" or Miami Station, before JMWAVE.


Very Good research pulling all this together... now if some will take the time to read it, they might really learn something other than theories about how all this is inter connected with CIA covert operations of that time frame. "... the hip bone connected to the thigh bone... the thigh bone connected to the leg bone...". and so on......

[Tosh Plumlee]

What does all this mean? Well it means that The United States Government through the CIA was supporting Fidel Castro's Revolution from the very beginning. We were sending guns and band aids, illegally, to the Castro's rebels, while on the other hand sending Tanks and aircraft to the dictator Batista in compliance with the Organization of American States Treaty (OAS). We were playing both ends on the middle and we were using the Mafia to do it.

Does not mean much today, but in Ike's day (the mid fifties) if known, it would have meant one hell of a lot. We do not teach this in our Latin America history classes Then we are lead to ask? Why was JFK assassinated? We had rather not ask that question.

So much we do not know, because we fail to look at the record. And too, we fail to learn from history.

The following should be of interest:


",,, JOE MEROLA (taken from previous document)

Joseph Raymond Merola (201-257804 born October 9, 1925), was a gun-running pilot linked to Edward Browder. Joseph Merola served in the Marines from 1941 to 1945. In the late 1950's he ran arms to Fidel Castro. The CIA described him as a "fast dealer with connections at all levels in many foreign countries. His information is usually very good. He was Batista's personal pilot and was right next to Fidel Castro at the time of the take over." In March 1959 Joseph Merola was involved in an invasion of Panama from Cuba. In May 1959 he was involved in a plot to counterfeit Cuban currency.(*1 ) In February 1961 he was restricted to the Miami area following his conviction on charges of theft of arms from a National Guard Armory. On February 15, 1964, a cleared police contact advised the CIA that three men who had been caught stealing dynamite claimed it was stolen on behalf of Kubarker Joseph R. Merola. The CIA declared that Joseph Merola was not an agent, only a informant: "In an occasional contact of our overt office in Miami since 1961." In November 1972 Joseph Merola began serving a one year sentence for petty larceny in New York City. In November 1974 Joseph Merola was indicted by a Los Angeles County Grand Jury for stock manipulation and fraud. In December 1974 PHILLIPS sent a telex to an unnamed component about Joseph Merola:

1. Regarding Joseph Raymond Merola [201-257804] U.S. citizen please inform (Deleted) the following: Joseph Raymond Merola, an occasional contact of our overt office in Miami since 1961, periodically provides that office with foreign positive intelligence information. It is suggested that (Deleted) be contacted for additional information. (deleted CIA)

2. (Deleted) Headquarters informed (Deleted) June 1974 that Merola was of operational interest. They requested traces and stated he reportedly worked for (Deleted) in late 1950's. We replied that Mr. Merola had never worked for (Deleted) although we were aware that he had made such claims on number of previous instances. (deleted CIA)

3. Headquarters relaying for Station use only 20664, January 11, 1974 ,and Director 502254, January 17, 1974, which reports derogatory information on Merola.

4. Merola being processed in the ISR as (Deleted) source. Will advise when registration completed. (deleted CIA)

(*1 ) note: ... with one named Robert D Morrow known CIA asset... referenced in his book "Betrayal"

[Tosh Plumlee]

Good references are found in this book concerning early background of some of the events concerning early Cuba and its players.

The strength of the wolf

By Douglas Valentine
[URL="http://books.google.com/books?id=Bed0gQKn-ucC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0"]
Preview this book

[/URL]


The Strength of the Wolf presents for the first time a definitive history of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) from its birth in 1930 until its wrenching termination in 1968. Carefully and extensively documented, the book is based largely on interviews with former FBN agents, and in this respect The Strength of the Wolf represents a new chapter in American history, one that introduces a cast of fabulous characters. Douglas Valentine tells how the FBN's premier case-making agents penetrated the arcane world of international drug trafficking and, by uncovering the Establishment's ties to organized crime, brought about their own demise. As the book reveals in startling detail, the CIA and FBI were often protecting the FBN's major targets in the Mafia and the French Corsican underworld. The CIA and its Nationalist Chinese allies were found to be the largest drug-trafficking syndicate in the world, but for political and national security reasons, the FBN was prevented from investigating this overarching conspiracy.

More details

The strength of the wolf: the secret history of America's war on drugs
By Douglas Valentine
Edition: illustrated
Published by Verso, 2004
ISBN 1859845681, 9781859845684
554 pages

[Linda Minor]

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.ph...ject_Files

# Gabriel Mannarino
# Sam Mannarino
# John Martino
# MDC (Movimiento Democrata Cristiano)
# Orest Pena
# Alexander Rorke

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry135690

From a post some years ago. Today some of this information has been declassified (reference 1976 classified date)

"... Hi Christy: Sorry I have taken so long in getting back to you. I have tried to answer the questions as they come, in order... but it does not seem to work that way..,

I'll try to make this short. In early 1954 Fidel Castro was in the southern mountains of Cuba with a "rag tag' bunch of rebels.. about 60 or 70 I think.. The CIA was active in Guatelmala and some of these operatives were soon working in behalf of Castro. That was the start of the gun running to the Cuban Rebels known as the Jul 26 rebel movement. In the United States arms and amo were taken from National Guard Armorys and transported by air and boat to the Castro rebels. It was a CIA OPS and the FBI had no knowledge of the arrangement. Soon the gun running reached epidemic proportions in the lower southwest and Florida. The M-26-7 was a group of Students inside Cuba working for a free Democratic Cuba. Joe Westbrook operated as contact for CIA "cut-out" contract personnel. I think but not real sure that "Wild Bill" Harvey later set in motion a team of contract CIA operatives to supply and work with the M-26-7 and this group were the go betweens for getting weapons from Florida to Cuba. In the early days Havana and safe houses around Havana were used to stage the weapons and explosive before getting them to Castro's rebels in the mountains. Soon this group was used as the main link for the CIA to get Castro the equipment he needed to defeat Batista. After Jan of 1959, all that changed and so did the CIA and its support for Castro... We became "anti-Castro and the whole arm of the U.S. Government was thrown against him.........

In the early part of 1963, or perhaps the late part of 62. I flew a lot of operatives and hit men into Cuba. John Roselli and Jack Ruby went into Cuba many times. Ruby before the fall of Batista and Roselli also before the Fall of Batista. Roselli also went in after Castro came into power, twice that I know of.

I had contact with a Cuban pilot who was connected to our government. He introduced me to another Cuban who had made contact with President Kennedy that Castro would consider talks. This was the beginning of Lisa Howard and my flying her into Cuba three times I think.. the last time around April or June of 63, about the time of the Wm Pawley affair and the dealings concerning Eddie Bayo.. I flew her from NY to Miami on two other occasions and then covertly from Miami to Havana. I did not know Attwood, but he knew of me as the pilot because I had a long history of covert flights into Cuba. I also talked to her many times about Cuba and at one time she ask if I would like to work with the team who were working with her... I already knew who they were and declined. I was too close to secret assassination teams to eliminate Castro and I was associated with John Roselli (aka Col Rawlston) from JMWAVE and its EX Action ZR/RIFLE programs.. I would have never got into President Kennedy's "Olive Branch" to Castro program. I would only be a liability and would have been in time 'Eliminated". I know this is spotty and short and perhaps raises more questions than it solves... But you know when I first mentioned this to you.. I think it was some years ago when we were talking about Havana and your Father... long before the Lisa Howard story and documents were de-classified and released. Right? Take care... hope this helps.. ".

AND ONE MORE FROM LONG AGO.

"... Thanks Tim: I'll try to insert in italics and bold where I think clarifications should be made, and why: I'll try to keep it brief.

The following is my synopsis of Tosh Plumlee's story about his involvement in the assassination in Dallas. If I have missed any particulars, please post them so that we can have a complete, but distilled version of the story.

Tosh Plumlee was a Military/CIA covert operative pilot who "knew John Roselli rather well." They first met in late 1960 (could have been in 1958) or early 1961 at Biscayne Park, after coming to the park from "a meeting place called Sloppy Joe's." They were introduced by Johnny Farantello. Plumlee later says "Farentino" (as opposed to "Farantello") "was maybe Frank Sturgis or whoever."( I was asked if it could have been Frank Struges.( I replied 'It could have been, (Sturges) but I did not think so') During 1963, Tosh flew Roselli "perhaps more than 6 or 7 different occasions, to such destinations as Marathon Key, Bimini, Havana, New Orleans, Houston, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Santa Barbara. ( I flew Rosellie many times before 1963. I am not sure how many or starting when but I thought it was around 1960) I had flown him to the Thunderbird Inn in Las Vegas and to Burbank CA, and Santa Barbra, Ca. around 1963.

Beginning November 21, 1963 Tosh has asserted that he was a co-pilot on a top secret flight aboard a D-18 twin Beach and a DC-3 supported by the CIA. ( The CIA acted as our support we were Military attached at the time The pilot was Emmanuel Rojas. Mr. Plumlee's flight left Florida on November 21, 1963, traveling from a "place called Lantana" in (outside West Palm Beach about five miles south) West Palm Beach to Tampa, where Roselli ("the Colonel") (Col. Rawlston) was picked up after staying at the Congress Inn.[u] The plane then flew to New Orleans, where two people got off and three got on. After flying to Houston International and spending the night at the Hilton, the plane and its occupants continued on to Garland, (instead of Red Bird Airport in Oak Cliff because of weather) where they had to stop "because of weather."

This post has been edited by William Plumlee: Feb 2 2008, 03:11 PM

-------------