Morley's Bombshell a Dud

JFK researcher Joseph Backes said yesterday (December 5th 2022) that he hoped Morley wasn't "over selling" his latest assertion regarding the JFK assassination and a "smoking gun" that he thinks is in some unreleased files related to CIA officer George Joannides. But over selling wasn't a strong enough term for what Morley did during a press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. In fact, he seriously misrepresented what this gathering would show. Morley, who hinted at a "smoking gun" and a "major break" in blog posts, presented exactly no new information to back up his claims of an alleged "Oswald Operation" managed by the CIA. And Morley did not name or even mention the "living witnesses" who will supposedly lend credence to the existence of the operation. Admittedly, Morley did not specifically say that the witnesses would be discussed, but he did say the evidence would be coming "in the near future" and it was logical to assume it would be at this presser.

What follows is a quick summary of the press conference. I may do another blog post if documents on Joannides are released on December 15th. If not, I may let the matter rest since Morley provided no new proof for his theories which have been discussed at length.

Morley, a gadfly and far-left blogger who says he has been studying the assassination for 28 years by his own count, originally presented himself as an agnostic on the JFK matter who was merely interested in the truth—whatever that might be. But in recent years, it has become apparent that he is indeed a full-fledged conspiracy theorist who believes (among other things) that JFK’s enemies “made Oswald a patsy for their crime” as he wrote in an eBook. Why care what Morley thinks? Because as a former editor/reporter for the Washington Post, he still commands attention and has been published by the likes of Newsweek and Politico. I have written extensively about Morley and I am not alone. You may see a listing of the pieces critical of Morley HERE.

Morley was joined at the National Press Club in Washington DC by a cast of characters who disagree on just about all aspects of the JFK case. Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, who appeared by video, believes that "Oswald was recruited into a rogue CIA plot." Morley admits that he doesn't "entirely agree" with that. Similarly, Lawrence Schnapf, an attorney who served as moderator for the confab, thinks that the Mafia killed Kennedy. Schnapf likely doesn't believe in Morley's theory any more than I do. Judge John R. Tunheim, who was Chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board tasked with overseeing the records, almost certainly doesn't believe in a conspiracy at all and simply wants the remaining JFK records released. Fernand Amandi, a political analyst for MSNBC who presented the results of a meaningless poll, thinks among other things that proven hoaxster Antonio Veciana was “one of history’s most important individuals” and therefore can be dismissed outright.

Schnapf opened the event with the well-worn mantra "what are they hiding?" Schnapf handed off to Mary Ferrell's Rex Bradford who it should be said is a talented individual who created the database that the Mary Ferrell Foundation uses. Unfortunately, Bradford repeated two well-worn myths during his brief remarks. One is the remark made by Earl Warren regarding "not in your lifetime" explained HERE. The second unfortunate remark made by Bradford was that at the time of JFK's death, he was committed to fully withdraw from Vietnam. This statement is false and is discussed HERE.

Judge John Tunheim followed Bradford and his remarks primarily consisted of what the Assassination Records Review Board did and his belief that the records should be released. Tunheim did note that he had seen the records and there were "no bombshells." Tunheim also mentioned that the Walter Sheridan files held by NBC should be released.

Schnapf returned to the podium and noted that even if all of the records are released by Biden that would not be the end of the lawsuit filed by him and Bill Simpich since there are other records that should be in the JFK collection that are not. Schnapf then introduced Morley and the main event proceeded.

Rather than naming his "living witnesses" and demonstrating their relevance to his hypothesis, Morley proceeded to regurgitate the same tired theories he has been promoting for years under the umbrella of what he is now calling the Oswald Operation. Morley made use of an audio-visual presentation to dramatize his thesis which is summarized by these bullet points:

• There was a covert operation involving Oswald in the summer 1963.
• The Warren Commission was duped by CIA who was monitoring Oswald via Angleton.
• Deception operations were used in 1963 including COINTELPRO, Northwoods and the targeting of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
• Oswald's FPCC chapter was targeted for disruption.
• Oswald was represented as “Pro-Castro gunman” by the news media.
• The hidden hand of the CIA shaped the media's narrative and thus public understanding regarding Oswald.
• The CIA funded the DRE and George Joannides was their case officer.
• The "Oswald Operation" was cleared to begin in June of 1963 and documents indicating this fact are being withheld.
• Joannides was cleared for "special intelligence" which Morley says means wiretapping.
• This is significant according to Morley because the CIA was wiretapping FPCC leaders at the time. Within two months, the DRE would generate propaganda about Oswald in New Orleans and in Mexico City, Oswald was monitored by a wiretap.
• The Oswald Operation was implemented in August of 1963 with Joannides playing a supporting role. The well-known interactions between Oswald and the DRE occurred during this time.
• "What a difference 30 days makes" Morley intoned during this part of the presentation. Before Joannides took over the DRE on August 1st, Oswald had no public record as a Castro supporter. But 30 days later, a legend had been created according to Morley. But Morley doesn't explain the statements of Oswald's wife Marina who said he idolized Castro or the remembrances of fellow Marine Nelson Delgado (and others) who recalled Oswald speaking glowingly of Castro back in late 1958.
• Morley says that COINTELPRO used techniques like he believes were used against Oswald including the planting of deceptive information, leaking negative information and the use of law enforcement to harass or arrest individuals.
• CIA headquarters didn't mention Oswald's arrest in New Orleans when asked about him by Mexico City Station because of the ongoing operation.
• The secret campaign against FPCC succeeded culminating with the disbanding of the group in the US.
• Documents concerning Joannides cover and methods during 1964 are still withheld.
• The HSCA didn't know that Joannides was the DRE case officer when he served as CIA liaison to that body.
• Why did Joannides receive a CIA medal after stonewalling investigators. This is a moot point since Morley knows that it was for career service.
• The CIA is hiding 44 documents regarding Oswald that include a secret CIA operation that has never been disclosed.
• The term "smoking gun" is disliked by Morley and he admits not used by investigative reporters but he uses it anyway. But Morley admits that what he is talking about is not "smoking gun" proof of a conspiracy to kill the President. Rather, it is "smoking gun" proof of a CIA operation involving Oswald that the agency is still concealing in 2022. "Is the undisclosed Oswald operation evidence of CIA complicity in JFK's assassination?" Morley muses. "Is it evidence of incompetence in understanding the threat Oswald posed to the President?" Only full disclosure of the records can resolve these questions Morley insists.

There are several problems with Morley's analysis. First, he has no proof that there was an Oswald operation at all. He merely has suspicions. If he has any witnesses, they did not appear and were not mentioned. Next, Morley believes that Oswald was "made a patsy." So, why does he leave open the possibility that the CIA was merely incompetent? Is he now willing to be proven completely wrong if the records indeed show the CIA had nothing to do with Oswald and only minimal knowledge of him? Finally, the overwhelming evidence shows that the DRE was not directed by the CIA to do the things they did regarding Oswald. As anti-Castro activists, they did not have to be. In fact, they often disobeyed CIA orders and finally were defunded because of that fact.

But the main problem for Morley is that Michelle Combs of the ARRB saw the complete Joannides file and found no evidence of any Oswald project. I am sure Morley and his followers would say that Ms. Combs did not have the proper background to determine what she saw. But presumably if there was a project that empowered the DRE to run an operation against Oswald at the CIA's behest, it would be pretty obvious even to those not steeped in JFK assassination lore. And evidently, Ms. Combs did not find such a project. She reported:

During the period December 1962 to April 1964, Mr. Joannides was assigned as a covert action officer at JMWAVE, serving as deputy and then chief of the station's covert action branch. During this time period, Mr. Joannides was the case officer for the Cuban exile group Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE). The descriptions of his duties and accomplishments in the personnel file are very general and contain no specific reference to his relationship with the DRE. There is no mention of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the file and no information relevant to the assassination in the file (emphasis added). There is also no indication that Mr. Joannides may have used or been known by the name "Howard" during his contacts with the DRE, although personnel files typically would not reveal this information one way or another.

So, the bombshell was a dud and a ploy to gain media attention to the cause of opening the files. If Morley produces his "evidence" of the alleged "Oswald Operation," this blog will report on it.