Fred Litwin, one of the top JFK researchers and authors around, has written his fourth book. It's called A Heritage of Nonsense. Fred does something not all JFK authors do. He goes out and visits document archives of all types and obtains primary material. Please check out this fine book which features debunkings of nine Garrison myths including Rose Cherami and Richard Case Nagell. The Kindle version is a steal at $4.99.
Fred Litwin's third book on the JFK assassination is called Oliver Stone's Film Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza. While the title accurately describes the main subject of the book, it cannot begin to convey the depth of material covered by Litwin. This is really a reference work for debunkers and those seeking the truth about the JFK murder that goes well beyond the abuses of the truth by Oliver Stone and his screenwriter James DiEugenio. Litwin is also releasing a list of online references to accompany the print version of the book that will be a useful tool for anyone doing research on the matter. Highly recommended.
Author Fred Litwin has found himself embroiled in a manufactured controversy regarding his first book about the JFK assassination entitled I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. The individual who has created this bogus debate is Jim Garrison apologist James DiEugenio. The following quote from DiEugenio’s article “Litwin and the Warren Report” describes his alleged problems with Litwin’s book:
The very title of Litwin’s book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, strikes this reviewer as being deliberately provocative, but at least a bit ersatz. The implication of that title would be that, at one time, the author really believed that a conspiracy killed President Kennedy. Litwin says this was so, yet somehow, he does not produce any evidence to demonstrate it was in his entire book. He notes articles and talks he gave which support the Warren Commission and ridicule the critics.
In response, Litwin has prepared a blog piece that gives specific examples of his critical and skeptical attitude toward the Warren Commission. Yet, for some reason, DiEugenio still doubts Fred's claims. I am not sure why this is, but if I were the cynical type, I might say that Jim is bothered by the fact that Fred has written an excellent book debunking Garrison. Because of this, DiEugenio is striking back at Litwin by implying that he was never a conspiracy believer and his "Conspiracy Freak" book is therefore a fraud. But as I say, I can't read DiEugenio’s mind so a motive for his curious behavior is unclear.
The question is—does evidence exist to support Litwin’s statements that he once believed in a conspiracy? And has DiEugenio mischaracterized said evidence for his own purposes?
Litwin’s writings on the subject were not voluminous prior to his conversion to a “lone nut” position. However, enough examples exist to allow us to evaluate DiEugenio’s claims. In Litwin's blog piece, he mentions the first JFK article that he wrote in 1975 at age nineteen. In that article, he writes:
The assassination of JFK is perhaps the most shocking and controversial act of this [20th] century. The Warren Commission did nothing to stop the controversy.
As is obviously and immediately apparent, this statement does not “support” the WC and does nothing to “ridicule” the critics. Indeed, far from deriding the critics, Litwin’s article goes on to succinctly state their case.
The conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin is seen by most critics to be the major fault of the Warren Commission. Critics say this conclusion is contradicted by the Zapruder film: the most graphic illustration of the assassination.
Litwin then goes on to discuss the Zapruder film and the evidence against the lynchpin of the commission’s case—the single bullet theory. Litwin writes about the upcoming appearance of Rusty Rhodes, a WC critic. While Litwin makes it clear that he believes that the evidence does not support a shot from the front, he also writes: [Cyril Wecht] has found several other facts [aside from a frontal shot] which are not consistent with the Warren Commission.
Litwin then writes about the problems that Wecht and other critics have with the infamous Bullet 399 which was found on Connally’s stretcher. Additionally, Litwin mentions the then-impending HSCA investigation:
Many people argue a new investigation will do little. This is not true for there are still reams of secret evidence in the National Archives that have not yet been examined.
None of this sounds to me like someone who is trying to “ridicule the critics” or “support the Warren Commission.”
Litwin’s second JFK article discusses the appearance of Rhodes and highlights some problems that Litwin had with his presentation. He called Rhodes a “sensationalist” for emphasizing some of the more controversial aspects of the case (such as a frontal shot) while neglecting to mention evidence that contradicted his theories. The main reason that Litwin was critical of Rhodes was because he had agreed with Litwin that there was no evidence to support a frontal shot during a private discussion that preceded his presentation. Despite Litwin’s disagreement with Rhodes over the tone of his lecture, he still noted the following:
The Kennedy assassination has enough legitimate mysteries about it without a necessity to invent them.
Litwin’s next writing on the assassination happened in June of 1976. In a letter to the editor of “People and the Pursuit of Truth” Litwin argues for the theory of Robert Forman and Cyril Wecht that the shot which traversed the back/neck of JFK then exited the limousine rather than hitting Connally. In other words, Litwin argued against the single bullet theory. Which is an odd position to take if one is not a true conspiracy believer.
Litiwn’s next article came in November of 1977. The title of that piece, “Mysteries Persist in Kennedy Killing” gives away the substance of the article. For instance:
A storm of controversy arose when it became clear that the evidence in the case did not sustain the Warren Report conclusions. Critics pointed out that the physical evidence pointed to the existence of a second gunman.
Litiwn criticized the media’s handling of the HSCA investigation:
Chief among the critics of the [HSCA] investigation were the major media in the United States—notably the New York Times and CBS broadcasting. The New York Times assigned one reporter to continually attack the reputation of the chief consul Richard Sprague. These attacks almost succeeded in stopping the investigation—Sprague was fired because of them. One committee member, after seeing the massive media blitz against the investigation, commented that, “I never believed in conspiracies until now.”
Litwin’s words were echoed years later by another critic:
The first attacks on Sprague began with the Los Angeles Times. These were then picked up and amplified by the New York Times. And then the Washington Post jumped into it … [New York Times Reporter David] Burnham went to the newspaper morgue in Philadelphia and wrote a long series about Sprague’s career in the Philadelphia DA’s office. He picked five small points of controversy in Sprague’s illustrious eighteen-year career. When the series was over, the Times ran an editorial asking Sprague to resign.
These words, which could have been authored by the 1977 Fred Litwin were written by Jim DiEugenio himself and are taken from his book Destiny Betrayed. Is this symbiosis of thought between Litwin and DiEugenio proof enough of Fred’s seventies conspiracy pedigree? Most reasonable observers would say yes.
Litwin’s last article as a conspiracy theorist concludes by mentioning the conspiracy staples of witnesses dying and the fact that the HSCA would be the first “real investigation.”
One can hope that DiEugenio will stop his silly attacks on Litwin’s “Conspiracy Freak” book although I am not holding my breath. Obviously, individuals can and do change their mind regarding the JFK assassination as the conversions of Paul Hoch, Dale Myers, Gus Russo and Dave Reitzes, to name a few, prove.
Introduction
What connects Lee Harvey Oswald, George De Mohrenschildt, George Bouhe and Jack Ruby in the mind of Jim Garrison? The answer is the theory of “propinquity,” but after reading Fred Litwin’s new book, On the Trail of Delusion: Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser, it is obvious that is the wrong question. The real query is—why did anyone believe that the nutty Garrison had one scintilla of substantive evidence to connect Clay Shaw or anyone else to the JFK assassination? And a great follow-up to that would be—why does the discredited Garrison continue to retain devotes to this very day?
The question of why anyone listened to Garrison has at least a plausible answer, but the follow-up is harder to wrap your mind around. Litwin points out that Garrison, the sixties New Orleans District Attorney who was infamous for his prosecution of businessman Shaw, was a commanding 6 feet 6 inches tall and wielded an air of integrity by virtue of his charisma and booming voice. He dressed impeccably, was well read and fast on his feet, and used the maturing medium of television to his advantage. Garrison charged Shaw with conspiracy to kill Kennedy in 1967, and assured a myriad of journalists, Playboy magazine, Johnny Carson and anyone else who would listen that he had unraveled the New Orleans based plot. So, everyone assumed that Garrison “had something” to back up his audacious claims. But he did not, as Litwin shows.
Garrison’s abuse of power and shameful distortion of the judicial process would be almost comical if it were not for the lives ruined and money wasted. Litwin provides the most complete chronicle of the farce since Vincent Bugliosi’s 2007 tome Reclaiming History and adds new information gleaned from his extensive research which included the use of nineteen separate document archives.
Why should anyone concern themselves with the discredited Garrison at this late date? Litwin points out that “a new wave” of individuals has appeared that thinks the “jolly green giant” was right all along. A few of these people have created a political magazine called garrison dedicated to exposing the “deep politics” of the current age. In its pages, you will find stories from 9/11 truthers and claims that FDR was murdered, that Courtney Love killed Kurt Cobain, and that the CIA offed Robert Kennedy. Additionally, Garrison devotee Jim DiEugenio is currently partnering with Oliver Stone on a documentary film that will no doubt resurrect at least a few of big Jim’s canards. More on DiEugenio later.
The Mind of Jim Garrison
Litwin, a marketing professional from Canada, has now authored three books—two of those on the JFK case. Litwin makes the case that Garrison was a “dangerous” and psychologically damaged individual who was able to run wild because of his personal magnetism and because he amused his constituents in a city where entertainment is taken for granted. When Garrison was discharged from the military in the early fifties, a report noted he was suffering from, “a severe and disabling psychoneurosis of long duration” that had “interfered with his social and professional adjustment to a marked degree.” The report concluded, “He is considered totally disabled from the standpoint of military duty and moderately severely incapacitated in civilian adaptability. His illness … is of the type that will require long term psychotherapeutic approach, which is not feasible in a military hospital.”
Learning that Garrison had mental problems makes his belief in “propinquity” easier to understand if not accept. What is “propinquity” anyway? That problematic investigative method was explained by Garrison staffer Tom Bethel:
In Dallas, at the time of the assassination there lived a Russian-émigré oil geologist named George De Mohrenschildt who had befriended Lee Harvey Oswald after Lee returned from the Soviet Union in 1962 (whither he had defected in 1959). There was another member of the Dallas émigré community named George Bouhe, who knew De Mohrenschildt (who knew Oswald). And city directories showed Bouhe lived right opposite … Jack Ruby! (he shot Oswald, just in case you had forgotten.) And there you have the long-sought Oswald-Ruby link—based on propinquity.
Joining the DA’s office in 1957, Garrison rose through the ranks and was himself elected District Attorney in 1962. Litwin provides ample evidence that he was a corrupt individual who abused the power of his office. For example, Garrison used the grand jury as his personal court by packing it with his friends from the New Orleans Athletic Club. During grand jury sessions, witnesses were not allowed to have legal representation and hearsay and opinions were allowed in the atmosphere of secrecy.
One of Garrison’s favorite techniques was to subpoena a witness and then charge them with perjury thus rendering them unable to leave the jurisdiction. These individuals had a difficult time getting a mortgage or finding a job and thus people feared going before a Garrison grand jury. Garrison instituted a crackdown on “police characters, homosexuals, B-drinkers, prostitutes and narcotics violators.” Gays were a favorite target of the homophobic Garrison who was himself accused of fondling a thirteen-year-old boy in 1969. One unlucky individual was arrested for the vague crime of “Being a homosexual in an establishment with a liquor license.” Being an equal opportunity accuser, Garrison also launched campaigns against judges, the police, the Louisiana Parole Board and the legislature.
Garrison Takes on the JFK Case
By the summer of 1966, Garrison was bored with “cleaning up” the big easy. After perusing a few conspiracy books, he decided to investigate the JFK assassination. Initially conducting his inquiry in secrecy, Garrison was forced out into the open by a news story that reported the questionable use of taxpayer funds for his “work.” He told Life magazine’s Richard Billings, “I’m gonna use every legal form of power I have at my disposal. I have the power available, and I’m gonna use it.” Litwin quips, “It was an exciting time to be alive. Jim Garrison was now the most powerful politician in Louisiana, and he was going to reveal the truth. What could possibly go wrong?”
Garrison based his assassination theories on a crazy cast of characters. Jack Martin, who FBI agent Regis Kennedy called a “self-styled New Orleans private eye” with a “poor reputation” and a “psychopathic personality,” put Garrison on to former Eastern Airlines pilot David Ferrie who big Jim thought was the “transportation manager” of the plot. Garrison resurrected jive talking attorney Dean Andrews who had spun a story immediately after the assassination of receiving a call from a man named “Bertrand” asking him to represent Oswald. After Oswald was shot, Andrews embellished the story to include visits by him to his office accompanied by up to five homosexuals. As Andrews continued to mold the story, “Bertrand” morphed into the gay “Clay Bertrand” who might have accompanied Oswald on office visits. Garrison ultimately “knew” Clay Shaw had to be Bertrand since they were “both homosexuals, both spoke Spanish, and both had the same first name.”
Perry Russo
On February 22, 1967, Garrison suspect David Ferrie was found dead in his apartment. Garrison claimed he committed suicide by overdosing on his thyroid medication, but the cause of death was determined to be a berry aneurism and toxicology tests proved negative. With the death of Ferrie, aides tried to get Garrison to “drop the faltering investigation and save face,” then write a book or run for governor. But Garrison’s probe was given new life when a friend of Ferrie’s, Perry Russo, came forward. Russo originally told the media only that Ferrie had threatened JFK. When interviewed by Garrison’s office, Russo said Ferrie knew Shaw and that a bearded Oswald could resemble Ferrie’s roommate. But Russo still said nothing about a conspiracy. However, under the effects of sodium pentothal and hypnosis, Russo recalled a plot to kill Kennedy involving Shaw, Oswald and Ferrie.
Litwin describes Russo’s testimony at the preliminary hearing thusly:
In the middle of September 1963, he walked into a party at David Ferrie’s apartment. By the end of the evening, only a few people were left, including Leon Oswald (whom Russo claimed was Lee Harvey Oswald), Clem Bertrand, David Ferrie, and Perry Russo. They discussed the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a triangulation of gunshots, and flying the assassin out of the country, and they said that all participants should do something noticeable on the day of the assassination so that they could have alibis. Russo described Oswald as dirty and as having whiskers [Oswald was always clean shaven and neat]. He also identified Clay Shaw as Clem Bertrand.
But the veracity of Russo’s assertions was in question. When Lieutenant Edward O’Donnell of the New Orleans Police Department attempted to administer a polygraph, Russo’s constant movement caused erratic readings. O’Donnell removed the apparatus and questioned Russo who stated that “he was under a great deal of pressure, and that he was sorry he ever got involved in this mess.” O’Donnell continued:
So, I then asked him was Clay Shaw there at the David Ferrie apartment, and he asked me if I really wanted to know, and I said yes, of course, that’s why you are here, and he said, I don’t know. He said again, I don’t know. I said, “Well, Perry, Clay Shaw is a big man; he’s the type of person who, after you see him, you would probably remember him.” I said, was he there, or wasn’t he?” His answer was, “If you really want a yes or no answer, I would have to say no.”
O’Donnell reported the incident to Garrison who “became enraged and stated something to the effect that I had sold out to the press, or … sold out to the establishment.” O’Donnell prepared a written report, which was ignored.
Garrison’s Two Theories
Garrison portrayed his first theory of the assassination this way:
They had the same motive as Loeb and Leopold when they murdered Bobby Franks in Chicago back in the twenties. It was a homosexual thrill-killing, plus the excitement of getting away with a perfect crime. John Kennedy was everything that Dave Ferrie was not—a successful, handsome, popular, wealthy, virile man. You can just picture the charge Ferrie got out of plotting his death.
Kennedy was the “victim of a sick and vicious homosexual plot,” according to Garrison investigator Joel Palmer. Oswald was “steeped in the homosexual underworld” and had developed a “bitter hatred” for Fidel Castro. According to Palmer, the homosexual circle consisted of Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, Shaw, Russo, and J. D. Tippit, a police officer whom Oswald killed on the afternoon of the assassination, and he was certain that they were involved in “one of the most unique and diabolical plots in the history of the world.”
But shortly after Shaw’s arrest, a series of articles in Rome’s communist newspaper Paese Sera provided Garrison with fresh material. The articles claimed that Shaw had participated in unsavory actions while serving on the board of Permindex-Centro Mondiale Commerciale, a corporation founded in the late 1950s to take advantage of the new European common market. Paese Sera alleged that this corporation was a “creature of the CIA … set up as a cover for the transfer to Italy of CIA-FBI funds for illegal political-espionage activities.” The newspaper repeated the Garrison allegation that Shaw’s International Trade Mart “had turned over varying sums of money as contributions to the so-called Cubans in exile.” Other left-leaning outlets picked up on the story. Years later, it was determined through evidence uncovered by researcher Paul Hoch in the Mitrokhin archive that the story may have been the product of the KGB propaganda machine.
Garrison gave up on the concept of a “homosexual thrill killing” since he now had “proof” of something much bigger through the Paese Sera articles. Those pieces and the influence of conspiracy buffs led him to postulate multiple conspiracy scenarios that included elements such as, “a fourteen-man band of Cuban guerrilla fighters,” “the Dallas police force,” “oil-rich psychotic millionaires,” “anti-Castro adventurers” and “ultra-militant para-military elements who were patriotic in a psychotic sense.” One such scenario that Garrison divulged to Playboy illustrates the absurdity of his logic:
We’ve uncovered additional evidence establishing absolutely that there were at least four men on the grassy knoll, at least two behind the picket fence and two or more behind a small wall to the right of the fence. As I reconstruct it from the still-incomplete evidence in our possession, one man fired at the President from each location, while the role of his companion was to snatch up the cartridges as they were ejected.
Even other conspiracy believers saw the humor in Garrison’s reasoning. Author Sylvia Meagher commented, “without intending levity on matters as grave as these, I have to admit that Garrison’s theory of men on the grassy knoll whose sole function was ‘to catch the cartridges as they were ejected from the assassins’ rifles’ strikes me as comical.”
Shaw is Acquitted and Recharged
Despite Garrison’s pre-trial rhetoric and the extremely low bar the prosecution had to clear, when the long-awaited trail arrived it quickly became clear that the evidence against Shaw was completely lacking. Dean Andrews declined to implicate Shaw and Russo disavowed most of his key allegations. There were new witnesses from Clinton and Jackson, Louisiana who said they saw Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw together. But there were numerous problems with their claims. A surprise witness named Charles Spiesel also remembered an Oswald-Ferrie-Shaw connection. But Spiesel lost credibility when it was shown (among other things) that he fingerprinted his own children in the morning to make sure the government hadn’t replaced them with doubles during the night.
Shaw was quickly found not guilty but he had little time to celebrate. The next business day after the verdict, Garrison charged him with perjury for his statements that he had never met Lee Harvey Oswald or David Ferrie. Garrison conducted an investigation to support the new charges but came up empty handed. In May 1971 Judge Christenberry ruled in favor of Clay Shaw and granted a permanent injunction against further prosecution. He noted that “to characterize these facts [of Garrison’s investigation] as unique and bizarre is no exaggeration.” Garrison, Christenberry said, had “offered no evidence to show any basis or cause for his office’s interrogation of the plaintiff concerning such a shocking crime.”
The judge concluded that Garrison acted in bad faith, resorting to the use of both hypnosis and drugs in order to fabricate his story. Garrison appealed all the way to the Supreme Court without success. Soon after his legal victories, Shaw died of cancer. He was, as Litwin notes, “ruthlessly deprived of not only the best years of his retirement but most of his savings too.” Litwin also chronicles the plight of lesser-known Garrison victims such as Louis Bloomfield and Edgar Eugene Bradley. Speaking of the latter, even DiEugenio admits, “[Garrison] did some things I wish he had not done, like the Edgar Eugene Bradley indictment.”
Oliver Stone and the Rehabilitation of Garrison
In the eighties, Garrison busied himself with writing his memoirs. McGraw-Hill, who had published Garrison’s earlier work, A Heritage of Stone, passed on his latest manuscript. Prentice Hall gave Garrison a $10,000 advance for a book, but Sylvia Meagher did a 26-page writeup noting several problems with his work which prompted the publisher to reject the manuscript and recover the hefty advance. Finally, Garrison found a friendly publisher in the form of Sheridan Square Publications. The owners of the firm were Ellen Ray and William Schaap, who along with CIA turncoat Phillip Agee, had been involved with the CovertAction Information Bulletin, which sought to “out” the identities of CIA personnel around the globe.
Garrison’s editor, Zachary Skalar, turned the manuscript into a first-person narrative that repeated the “case” against Shaw. The book, called On the Trail of the Assassins, expunged some of the more dubious aspects of the Garrison investigation and replaced them with accusations of sabotage by the CIA and infiltration of the investigation by individuals close to the probe. New Orleans States-Item reporter Rosemary James called the book, “a great piece of fiction.” Although James wasn’t impressed, Oliver Stone was. The filmmaker paid $250,000 for the movie rights and hired Skalar as his screenwriter.
Litwin notes that Stone’s 1991 film JFK maintained the fiction that Shaw was the “evil gay mastermind along with his band of conspiring homosexuals.” Many critics were also less than impressed with the homophobic bent. David Ehrenstein called Stone’s work, “the most homophobic movie ever to come out of Hollywood.” “Even supposing these men were conspirators,” the Gay & Lesbian Alliance for Defamation noted, “the lurid depiction of their gayness, to augment Stone’s portrait of evil, is purely homophobic.” The New York Times said that, “Shaw’s homosexuality is meant to signify nothing except the fact that he’s sinister and capable of murder. The inclusion of the orgy scene is gratuitous. Mr. Stone might as well have shown Jack Ruby bargaining with other Jews in the back row at temple.”
As it turns out, such an anti-Semitic portrayal could have been in the back of Stone’s mind. Stone believes 9/11 was a “revolt,” and he told the Sunday Times that Jewish control of the media was preventing an open discussion of the Holocaust and that an upcoming film of his would place Hitler and Stalin in context. Stone went on to claim that, “Israel had [expletive deleted] up American foreign policy” for years. The anti-American Stone has gone on to make fawning film projects about Castro, Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin, whom he described as a “stabilizing force” in Syria. A few months after that comment, he told Putin’s propaganda arm Russia Today, “Empires fall, let’s pray that this empire [the United States], these evil things … because we are the evil empire. What Reagan said about Russia is true about us.”
In Stone’s film, Garrison meets the mysterious Mr. X who delivers a rambling monologue on the assassination. “The organizing principle of any society is for war,” X tells Garrison adding that JFK had to be killed because of his plan to pull out of Vietnam and end the cold war. Additionally, X claimed that the 112th Military Intelligence Group at Fort Sam Houston was ordered to “stand down”, resulting in a purposeful lack of security for Kennedy. All these claims are “pure fabrication” maintains Litwin.
“Kennedy did have plans to remove a thousand troops by the end of 1963,” Litwin says. “But it was contingent on progress training the South Vietnamese Army.” Litwin goes on to note that, “National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #273, signed by Lyndon Johnson a few days after the assassination, said that “The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U. S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.” Indeed, respected Vietnam War historian Stanley Karnow wrote that NSAM #273, “perpetuated the Kennedy policy.”
Indeed, shortly before his death, Kennedy told Walter Cronkite, “I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw,” and similarly advised NBC’s Chet Huntley that “we are not there to see a war lost.” And a speech that he was to give during the fateful Dallas trip warned that Vietnam would be, “painful, risky and costly … but we dare not weary of the task,” adding that “reducing our efforts to train, equip and assist [the allied] armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in the time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces.”
“It’s a left-wing myth that Kennedy wanted to end the Cold War,” Litwin says. “His planned speech for Austin, Texas, bragged about increases in the military budget. Historian Michael Beschloss agrees saying that Kennedy had initiated, “the largest peacetime defense buildup since 1945,” and had overseen more “covert action than by any president since the CIA was founded.” Litwin concludes that “Kennedy was a Cold Warrior through and through.” Stone’s “Mr. X” nonsense was based on Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who had “a history of crackpot relationships” as Litwin shows.
Prouty was associated at one time or another with the Lyndon LaRouche organization, the Church of Scientology and the far-right Liberty Lobby whose founder, Willis Carto, believed that the Jews were “public enemy number one.” Litwin says that Prouty was an advisory board member of Liberty Lobby’s Populist Action Committee, which had been formed, “to support a variety of bigoted candidates for public office.” Additionally, the Institute for Historical Review, a Carto organization that denied the Holocaust, republished Prouty’s 1973 book, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World.
Indeed, according to JFK researcher Edward Jay Epstein, “When the Liberty Lobby held its annual Board of Policy convention in 1991, he [Prouty] presented a special seminar, ‘Who is the Enemy?’ which blamed the high price of oil on a systematic plot of a cabal to shut down oil pipelines deliberately in the Middle East. ‘Why?’ he asked and explained to the seminar: ‘Because of the Israelis. That is their business on behalf of the oil companies. That’s why they get $3 billion a year from the U.S. taxpayer.’” In a private letter, Prouty elaborated and said that “major pipelines from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and others are dry because of Israeli threats and unrest.” According to Robert Sam Anson, when Prouty was asked about Carto’s belief that the Holocaust never happened, he replied “I’m no authority in that area.”
Prouty’s idea that the 112th Military Intelligence Group (MIG) was ordered to “stand down” was based on a phone call he supposedly made to the 316th Field Detachment of the 112th MIG. But when questioned in 1996, Prouty said he was the one who had been called and had no recollection of the caller’s name. “You know, that phone call has troubled me for a long time,” Prouty admitted. “I’m not sure that guy was even authentic.” The commander of the group in question thought that Prouty had been “smoking something” and was so incensed by his comments that he wanted to take legal action. Undeniably, the excesses and fabrications in Stone’s film have been known for years. Researcher Dave Reitzes did one of the best takedowns of the film.
Jim DiEugenio and the Neo-Garrisonites
Litwin’s previous book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak told the story of Clay Shaw. Litwin says that his book was well received except for, “a group of neo-Garrisonites who took great offense at his portrayal” of the conspiracy-minded DA. One of these individuals is the aforementioned DiEugenio who wrote his own book on the Garrison case called Destiny Betrayed. Litwin says that DiEugenio became “obsessed” with him for a short period of time. “He claimed that I owned a media empire and that I wrote for an alt-right website,” Litwin writes, “and he threatened to start a ‘Litwin Watch.’” DiEugenio accused Litwin of not having reviewed all the documentation on the Garrison matter, a claim which Litwin concedes is “partly right.”
“I decided to have a look,” Litwin says, adding, “I began going through the files and immediately started finding memos that were utterly crazy, and I started putting them aside. The more I read, the more it confirmed the fact that Jim Garrison had nothing. Most of his leads were little more than rumors, which naturally led nowhere.” DiEugenio is one of three authors whom Litwin devotes an entire chapter to, the other two being William Davy and Joan Mellen. Litwin accuses these writers of, “invincible ignorance” and says they “peddle ridiculous conspiracy theories.” Litwin says that all three authors, “believe that federal agencies interfered with Garrison’s investigation and that Garrison was betrayed from within by a coterie of spies and agents.” They echo the chestnut that “Kennedy had to be killed because he was going to end the Cold War, withdraw from Vietnam, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.”
Of the three writers, Mellen is the “most credulous” says Litwin. The “centerpiece” of her work is the conman Thomas Beckham who Litwin notes, “fooled Garrison, and so it’s no surprise that he fooled Mellen.” Litwin concedes that, “It takes chutzpah to argue that Clay Shaw was involved in the JFK assassination, but all three books take a shot. This means they thus have to prove that Shaw was Clay Bertrand.” In this regard, DiEugenio and Mellen rely mostly on witnesses including a private statement that the dubious Dean Andrews allegedly made to Harold Weisberg. But Litwin cautions that “Andrews was always adamant that Shaw was not Bertrand.” Also, Weisberg said that “Andrews told me that Shaw was Bertrand without putting it that way.” Litwin concludes, “It seems to me that Weisberg read just a little too much into his words.”
A witness that DiEugenio finds, “utterly fascinating” is Leander D’avy. In 1977, D’avy was called to testify by the HSCA and told a story of entering a small apartment where he found Oswald lying across the bed. D’avy also observed David Ferrie and the three tramps, which pretty much destroys his credibility for Litwin and other reasonable people. But if that isn’t enough, D’avy also saw Jack Ruby, Garrison favorite Fred Crisman and Beckham. No wonder the HSCA said there were, “serious questions about his credibility.”
DiEugenio maintains that Clay Shaw’s maid Virginia Johnson said that “a man who stayed with Shaw on several occasions told her that Shaw had used the name of Bertrand.” However, Litwin points out that Johnson’s statement says something altogether different. Johnson said that she had heard the name Bertrand, but she was not sure of the details. Litwin writes:
Lots of people were talking to her; she had conversations at a fabric class about the case, but “When asked if Mr. Formadol [sic] [she was clearly talking about Shaw’s friend William Formyduval] referred to Mr. Shaw as Bertrand, she stated no.” Garrison’s investigators went back several months later for another interview, and this time she said that “she had never heard the name, Bertrand.” Litwin provides many other examples of the poor scholarship of DiEugenio, Davy and Mellen.
Conclusion
Fred Litwin has written a book that will be warmly welcomed by anyone who enjoys cold war era history and even long-time students of the Garrison saga will find fresh material here. Novices to the case will no doubt be shocked by the homophobia in both Garrison’s original investigation and Stone’s film and by Prouty and Stone’s anti-Semitic remarks. Undeniably, all but the most credulous Garrison acolytes will be appalled by the demonstrable miscarriage of justice against Clay Shaw and others documented by Litwin in this fine book.
With Chapter 3 of Into the Storm, John Newman has done a good job of debunking Antonio Veciana’s 1959 and 1960 stories of how he met Maurice Bishop (who he now claims was David Phillips). Now, let’s turn our attention to Chapter 11: Veciana, the Secret Years-1961-1962. Newman’s premise for this chapter is that when you remove David Phillips from the equation, Veciana’s true story is much different than what he has portrayed, both to Fonzi and in his book Trained to Kill (TTK).
Veciana’s “Lost” TestimonyIn his section on Operation Loborio, Newman mentions that researcher Bill Simpich believes that the “Harold Bishop” mentioned in CIA files may be a pseudonym for Harold Swenson and provides some evidence for this. Of course, any “Bishop” that turns up in the Veciana story could be a candidate for Maurice Bishop, if such a person existed. Newman writes (attributed to Simpich):
… in 1976 Veciana did not know the first name of Bishop and … over the next twelve months, Veciana added “Morris” as the first name and then later changed it to “Maurice.”
But that is not strictly correct and brings up a subject I have been looking into-Veciana’s “lost” Church Committee (SSCIA) and Senate Select Committee testimony. Veciana referred to “Morris Bishop” in the very first telling of his story to Fonzi on March 2, 1976. “Morris” eventually became “Maurice” and Fonzi claimed the difference was attributable to the way he had written down what Veciana told him because of language differences (Veciana did not speak English, at least very well). But that does not explain documents which say the first name of Bishop could also have been “Jim” or “John.” This information had to have come from Veciana, but when? Newman says that there are six versions of the Veciana story, but I would add this caveat to that statement. There are six publicly available versions.
It turns out that Veciana testified under oath before the SSCIA. Logically, this occurred in a small window after he spoke to Fonzi in March 1976 and before the SSCIA published its report on April 29, 1976. In fact, according to Fonzi and alluded to in ARRB memos, Veciana testified twice. The second testimony was given to the new permanent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (which, of course, is still in existence). As early as December 1976, HSCA documents were produced that mention “Morris” “John” and “Jim” as possibilities for Bishop’s first name. Since “Jim” and “John” appear in no other versions of Veciana’s story, it is very likely that this information came from statements made by Veciana during one of these unseen testimonies.
According to information provided by the Mary Ferrell Foundation, both testimonies have apparently been lost. However, the existence of the testimonies is confirmed by references in Fonzi’s book and other sources. According to a July 1996 ARRB internal memo, the ARRB sought the testimonies in preparation for their own questioning of Veciana that ultimately never occurred. However, it would stand to reason that, if the ARRB had reviewed the testimony, it would have ended up being declared a JFK record and placed in the JFK collection. Since this did not happen, it may be that the ARRB never really received the SSCIA testimony. A 1997 memo by Ronald Haron that identified SSCIA testimony relevant to the ARRB listed only Veciana’s interviews by Fonzi and not his testimony.
The point of all of this is that Veciana was indeed uncertain about Bishop’s first name but not in the way characterized by Newman. Researchers need to understand that “Morris Bishop” existed right from the very first telling of the story. “Morris” likely became “Maurice” simply because Fonzi thought it sounded better. And the varying first names of Bishop may be the tip of the iceberg regarding inconsistencies in the Veciana SSCIA testimony or the second testimony before the permanent committee. We may never know since it appears the testimonies have been lost.
UPDATE: An FBI report (RIF 104-10102-10198) on an interview of Veciana's friend Felix Zabala states that the last of the testimonies occurred around December 10, 1976. This would be Veciana's testimony before the permanent committee.
Veciana and the Army
It has been one of the tenets of CIA-did-it researchers that Veciana was a CIA employee or at least worked very closely with the agency. I reported on this blog in 2017 that Veciana had been issued a Provisional Operational Approval (POA) as a sabotage man for the MRP that was never used and eventually expired. Thereafter, Veciana worked with Army Intellegence, not the CIA. Now, Newman provides new detail that confirms my findings and successfully explodes the CIA employment myth for all time.
Newman says that the price of CIA help for the anti-Castro rebels was “complete subordination to the agency.” Not only did Veciana have no interest in such subordination, but he disliked the CIA and never intended to work with them. The CIA paperwork for Veciana is now available and consists of a simple “Personal Record Questionnaire” (PRQ). This paperwork is consistent with the type of minimal relationship we know he had with the agency and is not the extensive documentation used for contract agents. Newman says that the approval of Veciana’s POA occurred before the CIA realized that the MRP had lost significance and would never recover inside Cuba. Additionally, the CIA’s Mongoose operation did not include ALPHA-66. Indeed, the head of Mongoose, William Harvey, found Veciana to be a nuisance and disrupted his sabotage plans by broadcasting government-wide alerts.
Considering these and other issues, Veciana turned to the Army for help. By 1962, Veciana had fled Cuba in the wake of the failure of Operation Liborio and founded ALPHA-66. In September 1962, around the same time as ALPHA-66’s first attack on a Cuban port at Caibarien, Veciana contacted the Army through an intermediary named Jordan Pfuntner. ALPHA-66 “refused to work with” the CIA and instead desired to work with the Army and Pfuntner laid out a plan that requested funds and equipment while providing intellegence in return. The Army expressed interest in the proposal but needed Veciana to provide Soviet “ordinance material and intellegence information on Cuba” to access his credibility.
On November 1, Veciana met with “Patrick Harris” (actually Captain Milford Hubbard) and two other Army officers in Puerto Rico. The Army men wanted to talk to Veciana about the frogmen that had participated in a recent ALPHA-66 raid. At the meeting, Veciana gave the Army men the rifles and ammunition they had requested. Newman goes on to describe the meeting and a subsequent one that occurred the same day in considerable and dramatic detail. The point is that Veciana had extensive interaction with the Army that he initiated through Pfuntner.
An excellent observation made by Newman is that, with one exception, Veciana never related his presumably memorable experiences with the Army to Fonzi or congressional investigators and did not write about them in TTK. At the 2014 AARC conference under questioning by researcher Malcolm Blunt, Veciana again minimized his involvement with Harris and the Army saying that the Army contacted him first when the reverse was true.
The single time that Veciana mentioned the Army came in his discussions with Fonzi and he again sought to minimize his involvement. In The Last Investigation, Fonzi wrote:
From a series of long conversations with Harris, Veciana concluded that Harris was Army Intelligence—especially after he told Veciana that he might be able to provide some support for his anti-Castro activities. But Harris first wanted to make an inspection trip to Alpha-66’s operational base in the Bahamas. Veciana eventually came to trust Harris and gave him and a couple of his associates a tour of the base, but Harris never did come through with any aid.
But as Newman shows, it was Veciana who wanted the inspection trip and who initiated the contact with the Army in the beginning. What was the reason that Veciana promoted the story that he worked for the CIA rather than the Army? Newman speculates that it had to do with Veciana’s time in the Atlanta penitentiary for drug smuggling and I agree with him. Newman says he is in no hurry to speculate further. However, I will have a piece up shortly that explains Veciana’s grand motive.
Zabala’s Revelation
Feliz Zabala was one of Veciana’s best friends and his occasional roommate. He was also an FBI informant. A recently released FBI report of an interview with Zabala provides more confirmation of Veciana’s desire to be known as a CIA agent. In September 1976, Veciana told Zabala that he had been called to testify before a congressional committee investigating the JFK killing. For an undisclosed reason, Veciana needed to “publicly establish himself as a former CIA operative.”
But Veciana wasn’t finished. He also told Zabala that he wanted his sister, who happened to be married to Castro’s Interior Minister, to take a letter to Fidel describing Veciana’s involvement in the 1971 plot to kill the bearded dictator. Zabala was to tell his sister that he and Veciana had a falling out and the letter was a form of revenge. Veciana believed that the hot-blooded Castro would take to the airwaves and denounce Veciana as a CIA operative, thereby establishing his agency connection in one neat action. Again, Veciana never mentioned his best friend Zabala to Fonzi or any congressional inquisitors.
Conclusion
John Newman has done much to add to our understanding of Veciana’s true history and to explain what may have motivated his baffling activities. We now have confirmed that Veciana worked with Army Intellegence and not the CIA. We also know that his story of meeting Bishop/Phillips in Cuba did not happen as he said it did. Newman does make a few missteps and arrives at some unwarranted conclusions in my opinion. One mistake is his claim that James O’Mailia was Veciana’s CIA case officer during the brief time he was an agency asset. But documentation has the case officer as Cal Hicks, so why Newman is adamant to name O’Mailia as case officer is unclear. Also, Newman is convinced O’Mailia was “Joe Melton”, another character based solely on Veciana’s unreliable statements. Another mistake is placing too much faith in statements by Delores Cao since Veciana probably coached her. These mistakes can likely be explained by Newman’s desire to neatly tie up his current assassination theory which evidently has Lansdale and the Army brass behind the JFK killing rather than the CIA. Despite these issues, I look forward to Newman’s future work on Veciana and recommend Into the Storm.
Delores Cao (“Fabiola”)
According to Antonio Veciana’s book Trained to Kill (hereafter TTK), around the end of October 1959, he began a three-week training course on psychological warfare and sabotage operations which was managed by “Joe Melton.” This training allegedly occurred at the Edeficio LaRampa building in the El Verdado section of Havana, which also housed offices for the Moa Bay Mining Company and a Berlitz language school. After the training was over, Veciana would have little physical contact with his CIA mentor “Bishop” because they began communicating through “secret writing.” But, as Newman points out, never in any of his previous accounts including extensive conversations with Fonzi, had Veciana mentioned this form of communication. Indeed, in his HSCA testimony, he said that he contacted Bishop through an intermediary. All of which leads to a new topic. When pressed by HSCA counsel to name the intermediary, Veciana refused. Remarkably, the matter was dropped but this mysterious intermediary remained of keen interest to researchers.
Author Anthony Summers interviewed Veciana in 1978 and “goaded” him into providing the name of the Bishop intermediary. She was Delores Cao [1] of Puerto Rico who was previously referred to as “Fabiola” by both Fonzi and Summers to “protect her identity” even though, according to Newman, she was outed in 1993 by newly released HSCA documents. My guess is that Fonzi and Summers really wanted to keep exclusive domain over Cao, who allegedly acted as Veciana’s secretary during the years he worked as an accountant at Julio Lobo’s bank and handled his incoming calls. I use the qualifying word “allegedly” since, to my knowledge, Cao’s employment at Lobo’s bank has never been independently verified. In other words, she could simply be a friend of Veciana’s who agreed to pose as his “secretary” for all Fonzi and Summers knew. In fact, this could explain why Veciana refused under oath to give her name to the HSCA; “Fabiola” didn’t exist and Fonzi, Summers and Newman have evidently never considered that possibility. But I’ll proceed with the assumption that Cao was who she said she was for the purposes of this discussion.
During an interview with Cao that was first summarized in the 1980 paperback edition of his book Conspiracy, Summers provided Cao with the names of people who might have contacted Veciana during the time she worked with him. All the names were phony except for the name “Bishop.” Cao claimed to remember “Bishop” as a person who had contacted Veciana, a fact that theorists have trumpeted as verification of the Veciana-Bishop relationship by a third party. But as Newman points out in this passage, there is a problem with Cao:
Fonzi’s 2013 edition of The Last Investigation reveals a noteworthy remark Mrs. Cao made to Summers: “until Veciana had called her to ask if she would talk with me, she hadn’t been in touch with him for years.” Therefore, Veciana could have steered Delores into using the name Bishop before Summers arrived to interview her.
So, Newman understands that since Veciana called Cao before her interview with Summers, that certain information Cao provided to Summers must be taken with a large grain of salt. But doesn’t it also taint anything she had to say to Summers? Veciana could have told her exactly what to say or at least discussed certain subjects with her in order to plant a seed in her mind as to how he wanted the interview to turn out. It is in this section of chapter three where Newman begins to run off the rails in my view since he conveniently fails to consider the possible coaching of Cao when it comes to the issue of Veciana taking language courses in the evening. Newman writes:
In the 2013 edition of his book, The Last Investigation, Fonzi reported this crucial detail from Summers’ report about his interview with Cao: She did remember a time when he [Veciana] started taking “language courses” in the evening. (That coincided with the period when Bishop put Veciana through intelligence training with “Mr. Melton,” in the building which housed the Berlitz Language School, one of David Phillips’ “public relations” clients.)
Newman continues:
The importance of this single recollection by Mrs. Cao needs to be emphasized. Language instruction was the cover Veciana created for his presence in the Edeficio LaRampa building. Similarly, the importance of Fonzi’s parenthetical comment that the timing of Veciana’s language studies coincided with Melton’s training sessions cannot be overemphasized.
But as Newman knows, Cao could have been prompted by Veciana to say what she did. And what is the evidence that Veciana was trained at all by Melton or anyone else or that language courses were a cover? While Newman has used documentary evidence to refute some of Veciana’s claims, in this case he relies completely on Veciana’s word to support the training story. I went back to the earliest sources of information to confirm this.
The earliest version of Veciana’s Bishop story dates to March 1976 when Fonzi interviewed him for Schweiker. In those three interviews, Veciana made no reference to the alleged training at all. The next version of his story comes from the June 1976 interview of Veciana by Dick Russell. According to Russell’s Village Voice article based on that interview, Veciana only said that Melton (who had no first name in this version) “assisted with his instruction” and no date or other details are mentioned. This leaves us with Veciana’s HSCA appearance and in his first day’s testimony, Veciana stated that he couldn’t remember when he agreed to participate in the program. The following day, Veciana said that the training occurred in “the middle of 1960” and he now remembered his instructor as “Joe Melton.” Veciana qualified that by saying that “this happened almost 18 years ago, and many things happened after that” indicating that he could not be more specific when counsel logically asked him if it was “June or July” of 1960.
The point of all of this is that out of this sketchy information Newman concludes “the importance of Fonzi’s parenthetical comment that the timing of Veciana’s language studies coincided with Melton’s training sessions cannot be overemphasized”? As I have shown, the earliest sources, which are just statements by the unreliable Veciana, say the training occurred in “the middle of 1960.” And there is nothing about language courses being a cover for the training just that the training occurred in the same building as the Berlitz school but on a different floor. Finally, Veciana himself now places the training in October 1959 when it could not have occurred (at least with the help of Phillips) and did not occur according to Newman. It seems Newman has fallen into the trap of “cherry picking” what he wants to believe. And he does that because he says he has found the identity of Veciana’s “Joe Melton.”
“Joe Melton”
Newman says Melton is James Joseph O’Mailia Jr., a known CIA agent and language professor, whose cryptonym was AMCRACKLE-1 and whose files pseudonym was Gordon M. Biniaris. Newman goes to great lengths to show how he obtained details about O’Mailia and his research looks reasonable in this regard. But connecting O’Mailia to Joe Melton is more problematic for Newman.
One powerful piece of evidence against O’Mailia being Melton comes from Veciana’s HSCA testimony. Veciana stated, “Melton didn’t know any Spanish and this was one of the main problems that we encountered.” I would think that a professor teaching at Villanueva University in Havana who had obtained his degree in Peru and married a Peruvian woman would be able to speak Spanish.
As mentioned, in his HSCA testimony, Veciana stated that he was trained by “Mr. Melton.” When asked for a first name he said, “I think it was Joe.” However, in TTK, Melton became “Dick Melton” a discrepancy that was not acknowledged or explained by Veciana. Newman tries to brush off the problem by saying that there were numerous differences in Veciana’s stories over the years. But isn’t that the point? The HSCA also questioned David Phillips about knowing a “Melton” in Havana. As he was known to do, Phillips danced around the subject, but did say that Melton, “may have been the name of the man at the Berlitz school.” But Newman admits that a man named Drexel Gibson, rather than Melton, ran the school. However, Newman maintains that, “it is not out of the question that … O’Mailia might have sometimes been addressed by a version of his middle name-Joe.”
The last piece of information connecting O’Mailia to Joe Melton is the most persuasive but falls well short of being ironclad. O’Mailia is a reasonable match with the profile of Melton created by the HSCA and used as a template when attempting to locate him. The profile detailed a white American male living in Havana during the years 1959-61 who was engaged in anti-Castro propaganda as well as clandestine paramilitary and explosives training, psychological warfare and infiltration activities. O’Mailia was certainly a white male living in Havana during the years in question. And Newman says that O’Mailia was engaged in “clandestine paramilitary and explosives activities … infiltration and exfiltration activities … [and] anti-Castro propaganda and psychological warfare activities.” But the key word missing from the profile of O’Mailia that Newman provides is “training.” It seems to me that if O’Mailia were a training specialist, as is implied by Veciana’s story, that this would be a part of the documentary record.
Newman often goes too far, in my opinion. He discusses O’Mailia and Melton early on and later makes statements such as “O’Mailia used the pseudonym Joe Melton” and “[Veciana was] trained in the fall of that year by James Joseph O’Mailia, Jr.” as if these are documented facts. And while he does not come right out and say so, Newman implies that O’Mailia was Veciana’s CIA case officer and refers to him at more than one point as Veciana’s “handler.” Consider the following sentence from the book:
If Phillips was not Veciana’s CIA case officer in Cuba, then who was?
One sentence later, Newman begins his discussion of O’Mailia as Joe Melton and thereby seems to imply that O’Mailia could be that case officer. But as Newman knows, documentation naming Veciana’s CIA case officer already exists. He was Calvin Hicks, who Newman acknowledges “relayed the [December 1961] JMWAVE request [for a POA] to the Counterintelligence Operational Approvals Division.” Newman provides a citation to that document but does not mention that another document has a box which says, “Signature of Case Officer” and in the box is the name Calvin Hicks. [2] Another document provided by Newman states that Veciana’s POA was canceled and is addressed “Attention: Cal Hicks” which is strange if O’Mailia was his case officer. [3] Newman’s problem is that no documentation exists for O’Mailia being Veciana’s case officer, O’Mailia using the pseudonym Joe Melton, or for O’Mailia, or anyone else, having trained Veciana. And Newman conveniently omits any discussion of Hicks as Veciana’s handler even though he discusses Hicks later in the book.
Earlier in the same chapter, Newman makes this observation supporting his theory of O’Mailia as case officer:
I believe whoever Veciana’s case officer was would also have needed the same plausible cover for regular access to the Edeficio LaRampa. Therefore, Fonzi’s linkage of Veciana’s evening language classes to his intelligence training with Mr. Melton—a language professor at Villanueva University—crucially gives us a CIA candidate other than Phillips.
Why would Veciana’s case officer necessarily need “regular access” to the Edeficio LaRampa? Is Newman alleging that all CIA operations involving Veciana originated from that building? Even if Veciana’s story of being trained there is true, why would his case officer necessarily need access to that building rather than just the person who administered the training? And Fonzi’s “linkage” of the language classes to intellegence training comes from Veciana and his subordinate Cao only. Newman’s reporting of O’Mailia as Veciana’s case officer is problematic since those who follow Newman will repeat this “fact” when there is a distinct possibly that it is just another Veciana myth. Perhaps Veciana was never trained since he was ultimately never used by the CIA. Or perhaps no training was necessary for what the CIA hoped Veciana would do for them. Or, if such training were proposed, perhaps Veciana never showed up since, as Newman says later in the book, he hated the CIA and never intended to work for them at all.
Finally, Newman labels Melton as “a language professor at Villanueva University” before even making his case to readers that Melton was O’Mailia (he only begins to do that shortly thereafter). The bottom line is that the possibility that O’Mailia was Melton (if Melton was real) certainly exists. If true, it would not be unusual since we know the CIA did approve Veciana for sabotage operations even though he never acted in that capacity. But Newman’s characterization of O’Mailia/Melton as Veciana’s “handler” or case officer is not warranted and is refuted by documentation that shows his handler was Hicks.
In the case of both “Fabiola” and “Joe Melton” Newman cherry picks evidence to fit his theories. And even though he is one of Veciana’s biggest critics and debunkers, he is willing to believe him when it suits his purposes. There is no hard evidence currently to support the idea of “Joe Melton” as O’Mailia or that the latter trained Veciana. Similarly, even if Delores Cao was Veciana’s secretary in Havana, her statements to Summers must be viewed skeptically since Veciana contacted her prior to her meeting with Summers.
It would be prudent for researchers to stick to the facts as established by the documentary record. And the evidence that David Phillips was Bishop or that Bishop existed at all is very sparse save for Veciana’s ramblings. Ultimately, Newman seems to be setting the stage for a complete denunciation of the “LHO met with David Phillips” story but to blunt the shock on the research community (and confirm his own theories), he will evidently seek to bolster at least some of Veciana’s claims. We will have to wait for the next installment of his series to see where he goes.
In Part Three, I’ll discuss chapter 11 of the book.
Notes
1. Theorists have made much of the fact that Cao remembered the name "Prewett" and "linked the name" to Bishop during an interview with Summers. Virginia Prewett was a columnist for the Washington Daily News specializing in Latin American affairs. Her column was syndicated by the North American Newspaper Alliance which had ties to the OSS and she was undoubtedly sympathetic to right-wing causes. She told Summers she didn't know David Phillips although Phillips told a different interviewer that he knew Prewett. But all of this goes nowhere since Veciana could have coached Cao.
2. "Antonio Carlos Veciana Blanch", RIF 104-10181-10431.
3. "Memorandum for: The File on AMSHALE/1 is Canceled", RIF 104-10181-10412. Another document requesting a POA for Veciana says, "POA req'ed by PM (C. Hicks)" (NARA Record # 1993.07.12.11:46:21:620580).
Since reading his book Trained to Kill (hereafter TTK), I have felt that a complete biography of Antonio Veciana, the Alpha 66 co-founder who claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of CIA contract agent David Phillips in 1963, is a much-needed addition to the body of work related to the JFK assassination and the history of the cold war. Although Professor John Newman’s latest work, Into the Storm, discusses the enigmatic Veciana in two chapters, it naturally does not embody such an ambitious project, although Newman promises two future volumes that will discuss Veciana and could lend clarity to his murky life story. While Newman’s book does debunk some myths and represents an important resource that future biographers would want to draw upon, it turns out to be a mixed bag.
Newman is a conspiracy theorist who is in the process of writing a multi-volume series on the JFK assassination and evidently believes that elements within the military hierarchy were responsible for murdering the 35th President. I don’t agree with that verdict, but Newman has reviewed thousands of documents and his work is more reasonable than many of his fellow theorists. Therefore, his research deserves attention but with a clear understanding of where he is coming from. In the process of developing and documenting his “grand thesis” on the JFK case, Newman is willing to abandon kernels of wisdom that were previously considered sacrosanct in the conspiracy community when they are not needed for his theories. A case in point is Veciana’ s alleged recruitment by David Phillips in Cuba, an event that he shows could not have happened as Veciana said it did. However, he falls into the trap of accepting dubious, or at least undocumented, “facts” that help to promote his theories. Part 2 of this series will discuss some of these issues. However, Newman has uncovered a wealth of material and offers documentation for many of his assertions. He does occasionally rely too much on the statements of Veciana, a man who has lied repeatedly for years as he knows and writes about. In my opinion, this weakens some of his conclusions.
This article will be a discussion of Into the Storm solely as it relates to Veciana and all information here is from that book unless otherwise indicated. To cut to the chase, Newman does not discuss the holy grail-the alleged meeting between Phillips/Bishop, Veciana and Oswald. He is saving that for a later volume and will apparently have an in-depth analysis. I’ll start my review with Newman’s well-done analysis of Veciana’s changing story concerning his alleged recruitment by David Phillips in 1959 or 1960, depending on which version you are talking about. Note that some of this material has been covered previously on this blog.
Veciana’s Cuba Recruitment Stories
Newman lists six versions of Veciana’s Cuba recruitment story. They are:
To summarize, from 1976 to 2013, Veciana maintained that he met Bishop in 1960 (usually mid-1960) at a Havana bank where he worked as an accountant. The details vary somewhat, but the story was essentially consistent. It is interesting to note that Veciana did not mention the 1959 recruitment date or state unequivocally (he had previously merely hinted) that Phillips was “Bishop” until after Fonzi’s death in 2012. But beginning with the 2014 AARC conference in Bethesda Maryland, Veciana changed his story. He now claims that the shadowy Bishop was indeed David Phillips. Also, during that presentation, according to Newman, he stated that he had met Bishop at the end of 1959. But by the time of his 2017 book, Veciana had moved the date backward in time even further pinpointing it as “just a few days after Jack Ruby departed Cuba.” Available documents identify this date as September 11, 1959 [2]. Therefore, we are left with two stories of Veciana’s alleged recruitment by Phillips/Bishop-the original story of 1960 and the current version dated 1959. But Newman’s review of the documentary record shows that both are false.
The 1959 Story From TTK
The release of CIA documents in the mid-nineties revealed the true chronology of David Phillips in 1959 to 1960 [3]. Although it is unclear when Veciana became aware of the discrepancies in his story, he ultimately chose to preserve the story with alterations to the timeline rather than abandon it. According to Newman, activities that Veciana alleged Phillips/Bishop undertook in 1959 were, “out of place and out of context” when compared to the known chronology of Phillips. Newman uses the documentary record, which he refers to as “robust” to refute the 1959 recruitment.
As a result of his July 1959 contact with a Cuban cattlemen’s association, a group that was plotting to overthrow Castro, Phillips’ cover became compromised. Indeed, in his book The Night Watch, Phillips called his situation “precarious” and he and his wife decided that he would leave both Cuba and the CIA itself, eventually changing their minds on the latter point.
On August 18, Havana station cabled Washington that Phillips might have been recorded by surreptitious means and that the cattlemen and 3000 others had been “rounded up” by Cuban police. Despite the growing concerns regarding his safety, Phillips was persuaded to go back to Cuba with the instruction to “begin planning for his permanent departure” and he arrived there on August 25th.
An investigation was launched by Havana station on August 31st as a result of events that further compromised Phillips’ and the CIA position. That investigation concluded that Phillips’ security situation was “the major concern at the present time.” The report of that investigation was written on September 15, 1959. This was the same time period that Phillips allegedly began his recruitment of Veciana, a situation that defies all credibility considering his ongoing security problems. According to Veciana, Phillips/Bishop walked into Julio Lobo’s Banco Financiero in mid-September to begin his recruitment of him. But Newman argues that Phillips would not take such a risk at the heavily-surveilled bank. Additionally, Lobo was known to Cuban authorities as a CIA informant who was bankrolling anti-Castro operations and was also under surveillance.
Veciana allegedly met Phillips/Bishop the following day at the famous (and very public) La Floridita restaurant. Again, Newman points out that this is the last place Phillips/Bishop would want to be seen considering his precarious security situation. And as I have noted previously at this blog, Veciana could have lifted the idea of the La Floridita from Phillips’ 1977 book The Night Watch which preceded Veciana’s first indication of the restaurant during his 1978 HSCA testimony.
Phillips/Bishop supposedly informed Veciana that he needed to undergo testing before his CIA mission could begin. Veciana received a call at Lobo’s bank about a week after the initial contact but, as Newman points out, the phones at the bank would have been monitored making such a contact unlikely. “Joe Melton” was waiting at an apartment building near the US embassy to administer the test while Phillips/Bishop causally waited, reading a newspaper.
After another week went by, Phillips/Bishop called again at the bank and allegedly drove Veciana to a ranch style home in Miramar. Here, Veciana was submitted to another test (administered by “John Smith”) in the form of a type of truth serum. Phillips/Bishop then drove Veciana back to the bank. Newman says that the idea of Phillips driving Veciana around Havana given his security situation is “about as likely as a germ at a Lysol convention” and the only thing missing was the “Aston Martin with automatically revolving license plates.”
At about the same time Veciana was allegedly interrogated under truth serum (about September 30th), behind the scenes the CIA was concerned about the use of Phillips in a previously authorized project that involved propaganda operations in the Havana television field. The project, which was to be supervised by Havana station, was given the cryptonym AMOURETTE-X. After extensive internal machinations which included concerns about Phillips’ security situation, an October 12 memo by Counterintelligence OA Chief Thomas Carroll Jr. stated that he was “unable to give further consideration” to Phillips for use in the project. However, at about the same time, Veciana says that Phillips/Bishop was meeting with him for six hours at the Hotel Riviera to discuss the results of his CIA tests.
By November 12, Phillips was finally authorized for project AMOURETTE-X [4]. But according to Newman, Phillips’ usefulness was a thing of the past because of his security situation and he was eventually replaced by Emilio Rodriguez who used the pseudonym Arnaldo Berenguer. Phillips left Cuba permanently in February 1960 according to CIA documents.
John Newman has done a good job of dispensing with Veciana’s Cuba recruitment stories. To sum up, it is apparent that the 1959 Cuba recruitment of Veciana by David Phillips is a mere fantasy. Similarly, Veciana’s mid-1960 recruitment by Phillips was equally impossible since Phillips was not in Cuba at the time and indeed, Newman characterizes the story as “fabricated.” And according to Newman, Veciana’s first chronological appearance in CIA records is not until December 9, 1960, about ten months after Phillips left Cuba. [5]
In Part 2, I’ll discuss “Fabiola” and “Joe Melton”, two subjects where I have problems with Newman’s research.
Notes
[1] A minor mistake made by Newman is when he says that the first interview with Fonzi took place while Veciana was still incarcerated. But that interview took place at Veciana’s home in Miami on March 2, 1976 (Fonzi, 123). Fonzi had originally intended to visit Veciana at the Atlanta Penitentiary, but changed his mind and this might explain the mix-up.
[2] Ruby apparently first returned to the US from Cuba on September 11 and then, for reasons that are unclear, returned to Cuba on the 12th and finally came back to the US on the 13th. (https://www.mafiahistory.us/a001/f_ruby.html).
[3] Newman says that Fabian Escalante was the first to discover the problem with the date Phillips supposedly recruited Veciana in Cuba and therefore moved it to 1959 in his 1995 book The Secret War. Newman diplomatically says he will leave it to “others to ponder” the reason it took researchers so long to catch up to Escalante. But it is obvious that researchers simply wanted to believe Veciana’s assertions as reported in Fonzi’s book and therefore did not question the 1960 time frame.
[4] Critics of Newman, who potentially include conspiracy theorists, might point out some problems with his narrative of the 1959-60 period. For instance, Newman tries to show the difficulty Phillips had in getting approved for the AMOURETTE-X project and implies it was because of Phillips’ ongoing security issues. Those security concerns were a consideration, but Phillips was eventually approved for the project, and critics could say the security issues could not have been as bad as Newman claims. Additionally, Newman makes the case that Phillips was in danger of being imprisoned or even executed because of his association with the Cuban cattlemen (many of whom were arrested) and the loss of operational cover that resulted. But despite this, Phillips went back to Cuba in August 1959 and remained there until February of the following year, again leaving Newman open to criticism on this point.
[5] Theorists have been proven at least partly correct that the 2017 document releases would provide new revelations as some of these were used by Newman in his work debunking Veciana.
Canadian Fred Litwin, a marketing professional who worked nine years for the Intel Corporation, has written a book on the JFK assassination with a catchy title-I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. This concise, entertaining and well written volume will be of interest to conspiracy skeptics and open-minded newcomers to the case. It may even be of interest to long-time conspiracy buffs who actually read it. Litwin previously authored a book called Conservative Confidential: Inside the Fabulous Blue Tent, which is about his journey from anti-nuclear activist to Conservative party campaigner. His JFK book describes an analogous trek from conspiracy believer to “lone nutter.”
Litwin begins by documenting the missteps of the early critics of the Warren Commission. An important point made by Litwin, one that he returns to frequently, is that these early critics (and subsequent generations) often consisted of individuals on the political left. They included Bertrand Russell, Raymond Marcus, Sylvia Meagher, Vincent Salandria, Thomas Buchanan and of course Mark Lane. Litwin notes that “… you weren’t a proper leftist if you didn’t understand the “right-wing” plot to take over America and the huge coverup.” To illustrate the critic’s mindset, Litwin quotes Marcus who thought that If people became aware of the “fraud” of the Warren Report, “they’ll start to demand other answers. Maybe they’ll ask about the Rosenbergs, Hiss, the whole Cold War. Maybe we can get clean and whole. But if this stays down, there’s no hope.” However, while Litwin is critical of conspiracy theorists on the left, he notes that President Trump promoted the discredited story that Ted Cruz’s father was one of the men who handed out pro-Castro leaflets in front of the Trade Mart in New Orleans at the behest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Litwin begins his coverage of the investigation of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison early in the book and later devotes an entire chapter (titled Jim Garrison’s Excellent Homosexual Adventure) to the “Jolly Green Giant.” Garrison’s theories did indeed revolve around homosexuals at first, but as Litwin points out, eventually mushroomed to include “Minutemen, CIA agents, oil millionaires, Dallas policemen, munitions exporters, “the Dallas Establishment,” reactionaries, White Russians and certain elements of the invisible Nazi substructure.” Reading Litwin’s concise chronology of Garrison’s farce reminds one of the myriad absurd aspects of his investigation. These would be laughable except for the fact that the investigation destroyed the life of an innocent man-New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw. Garrison charged Shaw with conspiring to assassinate JFK, but Shaw was properly exonerated. The New York Times called Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw “One of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of modern jurisprudence.” Garrison was ultimately barred from further legal action against Shaw by a court injunction.
Litwin’s uses his personal journey from conspiracist to lone assassin advocate to drive his narrative and begins in this regard with the 1975 airing of the Zapruder film on Geraldo Rivera’s Good Night America. Rivera appeared with Robert Groden, Dick Gregory and Ralph Schoenman. Litwin, and millions of TV viewers, were impressed by the fact that the film showed JFK moving “back and to the left” which seemed to indicate a shot from the grassy knoll. But as Litwin shows, a close analysis of the evidence proves a shot from behind. Litwin goes on to refute claims by Gregory and Schoenman while outlining the extreme leftist views of both men. Litwin also provides some interesting background on Schoenman, who was Bertrand Russell’s personal secretary before they had a falling out.
Speaking of Schoenman, he turns up again in Litwin’s chapter on Oliver Stone and JFK the movie. It seems that Schoenman wrote Garrison in 1971 suggesting that “… we take the offensive. Let’s get out a book, hard and fast, which nails the case against Shaw that we couldn’t get into the courts … let’s put THEM on the defensive by blowing the Shaw case sky high with a muck-raking book that closes in on the company [CIA] even closer.” The eventual result of this strategy was Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins, which was the basis for Stone’s film. Litwin argues that in Stone’s upside-down world, Garrison became the hero and Shaw the villain rather than a victim of an unjust prosecution. He goes on to document elements of the film that are complete fantasy, but which millions of movie fans accepted as fact. Litwin also discusses the homophobic aspects of the film and provides historical context for his analysis.
Returning to Litwin’s personal narrative, following a period of relative inactivity he resumed his JFK research upon seeing Stone’s film in 1991. He subscribed to journals and had his own articles published and even lectured on the subject himself. Two powerful influences for Litwin during this period were the HSCA volumes, which largely agreed with the WC findings, and the writings of noted researcher Paul Hoch. HSCA findings that impressed Litwin included the authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays, the forensic pathology panel, the photographic panel, the study of “earwitnesses”, the handwriting and fingerprint analysis, the Mannlicher-Carcano firing tests and the firearms panel. Hoch, who Litwin describes as “not your run-of-the-mill conspiracy freak,” wrote in his newsletter “My model is that there were many coverups, probably many independent ones … One possibility-ironically- is that Oswald did it alone but so many people had things to cover up [unrelated to any assassination plot] that the reaction of the government made it look like the assassination resulted from a conspiracy.”
Litwin devotes a chapter to the JFK documentaries from producer Brian McKenna that appeared over the years on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s acclaimed series The Fifth Estate. Litwin carefully documents the abuses of McKenna, which date back to 1977. McKenna revealed his bias toward conspiracy theories during his acceptance speech upon receiving the JFK Lancer Pioneer award in Dallas. McKenna said that a “sophisticated coup plotted by the US military and CIA with support from Hoover’s FBI and Kennedy’s bodyguards” was to blame for the killing. McKenna also fingered the Mafia, HL Hunt and LBJ as conspirators, all perennial conspiracy favorites.
A persistent rallying cry of the conspiracy theorists has been to “release the documents.” As of 2018, approximately 99 percent of the documents have been released, depending on whose tally you use. Litwin shows that withholding documents is something routinely done by governments worldwide although it often makes little sense. He provides several examples of documents that theorists were suspicious of, but ultimately proved to be innocuous. In the same chapter, Litwin presents evidence that the conspiracy theorists may have been influenced by a disinformation campaign run by the Soviet Union designed to promote the “CIA did it” angle. Litwin also shows that conspiracy guru Mark Lane received at least $2000 from the KGB.
Fred Litwin has written an entertaining and informative book that explains why he changed his mind about a JFK conspiracy. The book does not discuss every issue of interest to JFK assassination students (impossible since there are hundreds) over the course of its modest 272 pages. Nor will it change many minds among the current generation of theorists, who are motivated by a naïve view that the world, had Kennedy lived, would have been very different. Under this belief, the Vietnam War, Watergate and any number of other national maladies would have been avoided by the continuation of the Camelot regime, a view that Litwin argues credibly against. These theorists simply choose to ignore the voluminous evidence developed by the Warren Commission and enhanced by the HSCA, or they say it is falsified, planted or otherwise misinterpreted. These same individuals scour the millions of available documents for bits of information that when viewed through the lens of their own bias results in confirmation of whatever pet theory they support. Most of these people will not read Litwin’s book, but they will criticize it. However, those open minded enough to give it a chance will be entertained and, in the process, learn something from a guy who has been there.
For more information see: Conspiracy Freak.com
In the Forward to Antonio Veciana’s book Trained to Kill: The Inside Story of CIA Plots Against Castro, Kennedy and Che, David Talbot writes that the mantra of lone assassin theorists which states, “someone would have talked” is put to rest by Veciana’s memoir. Veciana is certainly talking, but the problem is the things he is saying now are not the same as what he was saying in the beginning. As I explain here, Veciana’s March 1976 interviews with Gaeton Fonzi as well as his HSCA testimony are often vastly different than the story that is told today. That evolution continues with the release of his book.
After a short perusal, I stopped reading long enough to check for a disclaimer advising that a form of literary license had been employed. I found none. Veciana’s tale now includes suicide pills, disappearing ink, lie detector tests, truth serum and other clichés that are notably absent from earlier versions of the story. He now says that he lied about Phillips being Bishop at least partly because of his CIA secrecy oath which he apparently believes was administered at a one of a kind Knights of Columbus-style ceremony. The following list of questions for Veciana will be forwarded to his publisher for comment. This will be an ongoing project as the discrepancies in this latest version are numerous.
· You testified under oath before the US Congress that David Phillips was not Maurice Bishop. For over thirty years you continued to deny that Phillips was Bishop. Despite the fact that you were given immunity and assured that you were released from any CIA secrecy oath you may have taken, why did you lie about Phillips being Bishop in your HSCA testimony and why should we believe you now?
· You admit that when Phillips died in 1988 you could have gone public with your story since “the danger, or most of it, I think, died with him” yet you didn’t. And you continued to insist Phillips was not Bishop for the next 25 years. You now claim this was because you didn’t want to appear like you were “dancing on his grave.” Since you want us to think Bishop and the CIA may have been behind the 1979 attempt on your life, is this scenario really believable?
· In all versions of the story you say Bishop’s first name was Maurice. Yet documents reveal that government investigators asked the CIA to search for “Morris," "Jim” and “John” Bishop as well. This was probably a result of what you told the Church Committee when you testified in 1976. Isn’t it true that you were originally uncertain about Bishop’s first name and settling on “Maurice” was just a way to add legitimacy to your allegations?
· Why do you now say you met Bishop in 1959, when in all other versions of your story you say the date was mid-1960?
· In your book in an attempt to add legitimacy to your story, you state that you met Bishop at the Floridita restaurant in Havana, the same place mentioned by David Phillips in his book as a favorite. But what is your evidence that you made this statement before Phillips published his book in 1977? According to my research, the first appearance of this claim is your 1978 HSCA testimony.
· Why do you now say Bishop spoke Spanish with an American accent when you originally said it was an Argentinian accent?
· You say that at the initial meeting with Bishop he provided a “detailed account” of your life story implying his CIA involvement and when you asked him where he got this information he merely smiled. Since this anecdote is absent from other accounts of your experiences with Bishop, isn’t this just a newly invented way to make people believe Bishop was CIA and add legitimacy to your allegation that he was Phillips?
· Why did you say in the book that during the first meeting with Bishop he stated that he was working “on behalf of a US intelligence agency,” yet in your initial interview with Fonzi in 1976 and in your 1978 HSCA testimony, you stated you believed Bishop was “working for a private organization, not the government?”
· Why would a CIA man such as Bishop, who was presumably interested in remaining incognito, travel around in a large black sedan complete with a driver?
· In most accounts of your story, the man who allegedly conducted your CIA training is referred to simply as “Melton.” However, in your HSCA testimony, when asked Melton’s first name you stated, “I think it was Joe.” Yet in your book you say he was “Dick Melton.” How did you come to this conclusion?
· In your HSCA testimony, you said that Melton didn’t speak “any” Spanish, but in the book you say he “spoke a lot of Spanish but he wasn’t fluent.” Why the discrepancy?
· You now say that you were given a lie detector test by Melton which was “straight from the CIA’s own manual on interrogation techniques.” Isn’t this story, which is absent from other accounts of your experiences, just another poorly disguised way to try and connect yourself to the CIA?
· You now say you were given a sort of truth serum by a CIA man named “Smith” who is a newcomer to your story. Isn’t this allegation, which is again missing from other accounts of your experiences, just a fabrication?
· You state that Bishop gave you a pill with which to commit suicide in case you were captured and that you communicated with him by letters written in invisible ink which were then conveniently destroyed. Yet these allegations are absent from earlier versions of your story. Wouldn’t Fonzi and the HSCA have been interested in this information if it were true?
· You say that you met privately with Che Guevara and recount detailed conversations. But this fact is again missing from other accounts of your story. Why?
· You claim you were “trained to kill” by the CIA and worked for many years to eliminate Castro yet he died an old man and there is no evidence you killed anyone. Why were you so spectacularly unsuccessful?
· You say your drug conviction was a setup, yet your appeal was denied. What evidence can you produce to prove your innocence?
· In the Preface, you say that when you testified before Congress that you “said nothing” but “now you will.” You also say that when you saw Phillips at the AFIO luncheon you “said nothing.” In fact, in both instances you said Phillips was not Bishop. If you thought Phillips was Bishop you could have requested protection from the government and testified against him. Why didn’t you?
· Since Fonzi used a translator in interviews with you, he couldn’t have understood Spanish, at least not very well. So, isn’t Fonzi’s description of the encounter at the AFIO luncheon with Phillips based on what you told him?
· You now imply a connection with the CIA calling yourself a “spy” and a “CIA asset.” But the CIA only reports three meetings with you in which they listened to your ideas but offered no encouragement. What evidence can you provide that proves you worked for the agency? Surely you have some documentation. After all, what “spy” or “asset” works for free?
· In the early Fonzi interviews and your HSCA testimony, you often could not remember significant details about your experiences with Bishop. Yet now you recount entire conversations with him and specific dates in excruciating detail. How do you account for this sudden improvement in your memory?
· You told Fonzi in an interview that you did not keep a diary, so if you are referring to documentation of some type to refresh your memory why was this not made available to investigators to help verify your story?
· Are you aware that the CIA does not have an “asset” sign a loyalty pledge during a “commitment ceremony" as you claim happened? The mafia perhaps, but not the CIA. By the way, in your HSCA testimony you described this ceremony as being similar to those used by the Knights of Columbus. Is this really believable?
· You say that “Bishop preferred conferring in public places” but doesn’t it defy logic that a CIA man would meet two alleged assets such as yourself and Lee Harvey Oswald in a public place as respected conspiracy advocate Harold Weisberg maintained?
· In your book, you say that “it’s hard to mistake the 42-story Southland Center for any other edifice.” Yet in all the early interviews, you never said the building where the alleged meeting between you, Bishop and LHO took place was the Southland Center, only that it was a bank or insurance company and that it could have been white or blue in color. Later in your HSCA testimony, you said it had “blue marble or blue ornaments.” But when Fonzi specifically asked you if it was Southland during the March 11 interview you said you didn’t remember. Why do you now make this claim?
· As you point out, at the time the Southland Center was the tallest building west of the Mississippi. Why did you never mention the building’s unusual height in any early interviews?
· Aren’t you inserting Wynne Johnson and his girlfriend into your story now only because you feel he is some sort of confirmation of your allegations? Why did you never mention him or the girl before?
· You state that the date of the LHO-Bishop meeting was “near the end of the week” and “near the end of August or the beginning of September.” Yet in your March 1976 interviews with Fonzi, you only mention “summer,” “July” and “August” with no mention of September or “late August” at all. In your HSCA testimony you simply say it was “three months prior to the Kennedy assassination.” In the summer of 1976 interview with Dick Russell, you again said August. Wasn’t the “late August-early September” time frame Fonzi’s idea and a result of his own theories?
· You have always maintained that Bishop paid you $253,000 in cash on July 26, 1973. Yet in his book, Fonzi moved the year to 1972. Why did Fonzi not believe that you received the cash two days after you were arrested on a drug charge?
· You state that over the course of three years Fonzi “found ways to corroborate nearly every single detail of that meeting in the lobby of the Dallas skyscraper.” But isn’t it true that the HSCA report on you written by Fonzi said that “no definitive conclusion could be reached about the credibility of Antonio Veciana's allegations regarding his relationship with a Maurice Bishop. Additionally, no definitive conclusions could be drawn as to the identity or affiliations of Bishop, if such an individual existed?” And isn’t it true that the report said, “No corroboration was found for Veciana's alleged meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald?”
· You refer to a 1979 incident in which you were shot saying that “someone didn’t want me around to see the final [HSCA] report.” But you had already testified before both the Church Committee and the HSCA, so what purpose would be served by shooting you then? Why not silence you before you could testify and before your numerous media appearances that went on for years?
· Considering all the demonstrable inaccuracies in your book, should your publisher have added a disclaimer?
· Finally, why did you continually plead the fifth amendment in your testimony before the HSCA despite the fact that you had been given immunity against prosecution?