Title Quote: Jefferson Morley
Throughout the late seventies and eighties, David Phillips continued to speak out against critics of the CIA and sustained his personal battle with those who maintained he was involved in JFK’s murder. Throughout these years he was in demand as a writer and lecturer and appeared regularly on radio and television broadcasts. He also remained active in the pro-CIA organization he founded, the AFIO.
One public appearance in 1976 was out of the norm. Phillips faced a “mass” of anti-CIA demonstrators at the Park Motor Inn in Madison, Wisconsin during his address for the Civics Club. Things were crowded inside the hotel ballroom as 600 paid guests joined 200-400 protestors. Police assessed the situation and decided to let the demonstrators remain since there “would have been problems” if they had tried to eject them. The protestors shouted, “Hey, hey, CIA, how many did you kill today” while signs branded Phillips and the agency “murderers and butchers.” Phillips’ speech was the usual collection of anecdotes, some taken from his book The Night Watch. Still, there was substance in his remarks and he referred to the CIA-Allende matter as “the inexcusable period” while admitting his role in the killing of General Schneider. Phillips was undaunted by the protestors observing, “it’s sort of titillating to have all this commotion. It’s interesting.”1
In December of 1977, Phillips testified before the House Intelligence Committee on the necessity of covert services and specifically on his concern regarding the directive by CIA Director Stansfield Turner that restricted relationships between agency employees and journalists.2 1978 saw the publication of Phillips’ novel The Carlos Contract, an international thriller featuring terrorism and South American intrigue that his hometown paper called “stunning.”3 In May of that year in Sacramento, Phillips, in a typical lecture of the period, argued that intelligence gathering would be conducted even if the CIA were abolished. Pointing to Nixon’s “plumbers” Phillips maintained that “strong-willed” Presidents would create their own intelligence apparatus in the absence of a centralized intelligence system. “One thing I found out,” Phillips related, “is that there is a tremendous difference in Richard Nixon in the shadows and Richard Nixon in the light.”4
In 1979, Phillips’ non-fiction work about the T. Cullen Davis case titled The Great Texas Murder Trials debuted. Davis’ case was fascinating since he was the richest man ever tried in America up to that time. On a more somber note, Phillips’ brother Edwin Jr. died that year in Fort Worth at the age of 66.5 In May of 1980, Phillips appeared in the PBS Television documentary On Company Business. Phillips’ own AFIO was not happy with the production and published a critical analysis. The review said that Phillips and former DCI William Colby appeared “ostensibly to balance the anti-CIA bias” of the program but were really used as “straw men to be knocked down.” The AFIO writeup concluded that the broadcast was “so deceptive and distorted without a shred of any claim to balance and objectivity that AFIO questions the judgement of the PBS, a taxpayer funded entity, to sponsor it.”6
Phillips participated in an AFIO symposium on intelligence before an audience of 300 in Naples, Florida in March of 1982. Phillips told the attendees that boatlifts from Havana to Miami made it easy for Cuban intelligence officers to infiltrate the US. “They need only to board a boat, come across, get in with the local Cuban community and they’re in,” he maintained.7 In March of 1983, Phillips held an audience of 400 “spellbound” in Grand Junction, Colorado with tales of his CIA exploits. Phillips told the crowd that he supported the then-proposed $110 million in aid to El Salvador especially if most of the cash went to economic development.8
One year after the Grand Junction affair, Phillips took part in the Borah symposium at the University of Idaho. Other participants included former DCI William Colby, former congressman Michael Harrington, former CIA agent Ralph McGehee, Lawrence R. Birns, the director of an international research organization, Manuel Cordero, Nicaragua’s Deputy Ambassador to the US and Jaime Barrios of Chile Democratico. Although Phillips argued forcefully for the CIA throughout the conference, he occasionally tempered his advocacy with criticisms of the agency.9
In 1985, Phillips released Careers in Secret Operations which informed readers about the finer points of becoming a federal intelligence officer. One year later, Phillips’ Writing for Pleasure and Profit in Retirement was published by his own Stone Trail Press. Phillips’ final non-fiction book was Secret Wars Diary which again documented facets of his CIA career. Phillips died at his home in Bethesda on July 7, 1988, of lung cancer at the age of 65.10 A second novel, The Terror Brigade, was published about six months after his death.11
In the years after Phillips' untimely demise, theorists have had a field day promoting often poorly supported myths that purport to prove his involvement in in a JFK conspiracy. This chapter of the book will look at some of the more enduring memes.
Shortly before his death, Phillips allegedly made a comment to Kevin Walsh, who had been an HSCA staffer. According to Walsh, Phillips said “My final take on the assassination is there was a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers." Unsurprisingly, theorists have had a field day with this alleged remark. “Did [Phillips] know something the public did not … something … he felt bound to conceal?” Anthony Summers, who was evidently the first writer to quote Walsh, asked his readers.12
Assuming Walsh’s recollection of the Phillips statement is accurate, there is an explanation that doesn’t require guilty knowledge on his part. Phillips, like most people, had his own personal opinions on the assassination and could have expressed those to Walsh. Indeed, in 1977, Phillips appeared on the David Susskind show. On that occasion he said in response to another guest, “Sir, I’m not trying to defend the [Warren] commission. I’m not saying even that there wasn’t a conspiracy involved, because I don’t know.”13 But there is no evidence that Phillips’ beliefs regarding a possible conspiracy were the result of any special knowledge he possessed.14
Theorists have taken pains to show that Phillips was connected to New Orleans where Oswald ran his one-man FPCC campaign in the summer of 1963. For example, Garrison supporter Jim DiEugenio writes, “… CIA Officer David Phillips was likely involved in the [Bay of Pigs] training in New Orleans ….”15 The primary evidence that theorists use to support this belief comes from two places. First is a 1967 CIA report by Phillips on a Bay of Pigs training camp. Secondly, we have the statements of Gordon Novel, an apparent conman who at times claimed to be a CIA operative and at other times denied it.
Theorists believe the report by Phillips on the training camp is evidence that he was behind anti-Castro activities in New Orleans. “[Phillips] had spent a lot of time,” writes chief critic Jefferson Morley, “at a military training camp in the suburb of Belle Chase during the run-up to the Bay of Pigs.”16 But the non-contemporaneous report says nothing about the amount of time Phillips spent at the camp, which was managed by Gilbert Strickler. Indeed, it does not indicate that Phillips was there at all. Phillips noted that his report had been “requested” by an October 1967 memorandum and has all the earmarks of being a strictly informational document that was generated because of the agency’s ongoing interest in the Garrison investigation in New Orleans.
But the allegations by Novel provide an even more tantalizing connection between Phillips and New Orleans in the eyes of theorists. “[Guy] Banister, together with CIA’s David Atlee Phillips,” insists Joan Mellen, “organized a burglary.”17 Novel came to the attention of Jim Garrison when the latter was concerned that the FBI was bugging his office and phones. Novel supposedly owned a company that had the equipment necessary to find such listening devices.18
During their conversations, Novel told Garrison about a 1961 raid on the Schlumberger Corporation in Houma about fifty miles from New Orleans. This raid has been described as a either a “burglary” or a CIA authorized “weapons transfer” depending on who is telling the story. Novel said that accompanying him on this raid to obtain explosives (and possibly other munitions) were Rance Ehrlinger, David Ferrie, Layton Martens and Sergio Arcacha Smith among others.19 The facts surrounding this incident have never been established beyond doubt. The strongest circumstantial evidence that the raid really took place is the fact that the only police report from Schlumberger during the time in question mentions merely a “cut” padlock on the bunker where the material was kept.20 If explosives or other material had been stolen it would be normal for the people at Schlumberger to report it to the authorities which they evidently did not do.21
Author Gus Russo believes that Schlumberger “served as a small arms depot for the CIA.” Russo notes that “some of the weaponry” at Schlumberger was earmarked for the Bay of Pigs invasion. But after the April 1961 assault failed, Schlumberger decided to terminate its contract with the agency. Russo thinks that Guy Banister, a former FBI agent turned private investigator and anti-Castro activist, learned of the leftover weapons and masterminded the Houma raid with the goal of repurposing the material. To help accomplish this, Banister obtained a legal device called a “Letter-Marque” from the Justice Department according to witnesses Russo interviewed. The Letter-Marque protected the raid participants from prosecution in the event they were apprehended by local authorities.22
Whatever the truth about the raid and its participants, a story told by Novel is what is relevant since the assertions of theorists regarding Phillips and two of the alleged raid participants are totally based on it. Novel’s statements come from a deposition that he gave during his 1969 lawsuit against Playboy magazine which was prompted by the declarations of Garrison to that publication.23
Novel claimed that he attended a meeting in New Orleans with Banister, Arcacha Smith and a “Mr. Phillips.” The purpose of the conference was to plan a telethon to raise awareness about atrocities in Cuba and not necessarily to raise funds (a most unlikely “telethon” indeed). “Mr. Phillips” was “running the show” at this meeting according to Novel through his “commanding presence.” Although the “telethon” never happened for unspecified reasons, Novel claimed that he saw “Mr. Phillips” a couple of times after the meeting. Conspiracy author Lisa Pease wrote that “Mr. Phillips” could “only be David Atlee Phillips, the notorious coup plotter and propagandist who was seen with Oswald shortly before the assassination of Kennedy.” 24
But the man Novel allegedly saw with Banister and Arcacha Smith could not have been David Phillips. In Pease’s PROBE article, not many details about “Mr. Phillips” are provided. But an ellipsis in the partial transcript of Novel’s deposition that Pease provides indicates some missing information. What was absent is revealed in another article by Pease titled “David Atlee Phillips, Clay Shaw and Freeport Sulphur” from the July-August 1998 edition of PROBE. The new transcript includes the following:
Q: How old a man was [Mr. Phillips]?
A: I would say he was around 51, 52.
But in 1961, when the alleged meeting took place, David Phillips was only 39 years old. It is highly unlikely that Novel would think a man of only thirty-nine was “51 or 52.” There is little doubt that Pease sought to mislead readers by this omission. In fact, in the “David Atlee Phillips, Clay Shaw and Freeport Sulphur” piece, she does not even mention who is being deposed saying only that it was, “a person whose name would be instantly recognized by anyone who has studied the Kennedy assassination.” Pease may have sought to conceal Novel’s identity because of his lack of credibility as a witness.
What are the facts regarding Novel’s reliability? Even Pease’s report on the matter, which can be expected to paint Novel in a positive light, raise doubts. Suspending all disbelief, Pease, who wrote a book arguing that Sirhan Sirhan is innocent of the RFK murder, calls Novel’s assertions “striking.” Like most CIA-did-it theorists, Pease believes it was “obvious” that Novel worked for the agency and accepts his claim that he had a “close relationship” with Allen Dulles. But that would be somewhat unusual for a man who was managing a bar called the Jamaican Inn when Garrison met him in the late sixties.
Indeed, a relationship with Dulles would be especially rare in Novel’s case since the agency stated in an internal memo that he “is not now nor has he ever been an employee or employed in any capacity with the CIA." Novel’s own attorney, Jerry Weiner, said of his alleged CIA association, “It’s utterly ridiculous. Novel is not now and has never been a CIA agent.”25 Even Novel admitted he wasn’t with the agency. “I have never knowingly worked for the CIA …” Novel told researcher Dave Reitzes in 2002, one of several times that he disavowed an agency connection.
In a statement that undoubtedly represents the pinnacle of irony, Jim Garrison said Novel was a “complete phony.” Still, theorists readily accept Novel’s statements regarding Phillips and other matters even though his litany of dubious claims is beyond extensive. For instance, Novel stated in 1975 that he was about to be named director of the CIA. Gus Russo interviewed Novel and was, “treated to two hours of the most sensational tales imaginable—everything to the truth behind UFOs, Watergate, Hoover, LBJ, the Kennedy Assassination, air-powered engines, etc.”26 Dave Reitzes, who Novel threatened with legal action over an Internet article, cataloged some of his assertions on various subjects from a 2006 interview.27 Here are just a few:
- Extraterrestrials are here.
- JFK’s interest in extraterrestrials was a factor in his death.
- Extraterrestrial vehicles are capable of time travel (as in the movie Back to the Future).
- The ability to see into the future with extraterrestrial technology will completely revolutionize government.
- Most people answer to “the illuminati.”
- Prior to meeting Garrison, Novel was working with the White House on a counterintelligence project.
- Oswald was a patsy.
Another Novel attorney, Elmer Gertz, probably said it best. “… take what he says with at least one grain of salt; I would say a whole salt shaker.”28
When it comes to Phillips, the unproven claims of Gordon Novel are, of course, not the only dubious ideas embraced by theorists. Many believe an outline written by the CIA veteran that has been rippling through the conspiracy community in one form or another since 1994 is meaningful.29 To take it one step further, theorists almost universally believe it is really a sort of declaration of guilt. For example, conspiracy author Lamar Waldron calls the outline a “secret novelized confession.”30
Phillips critic Jefferson Morley was one of the first authors to have access to the full outline, titled “The AMLASH Legacy,” and wrote about it in his book Our Man in Mexico. Morley thinks that the concept of Phillips (or Angleton or somebody in the CIA) running an operation involving Oswald just before the JFK killing is “less implausible” as time goes by and that Phillips’ novel outline is evidence that the CIA man considered such an idea. Although not so stated by Morley, implied is the notion that Phillips had knowledge of such a plot.31
The outline features a character named Harold Harrison based on Phillips himself. Morley uses a passage from the outline to delineate the “role” of the Harrison character as follows:
I was one of the two case officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald. After working to establish his Marxist bona fides, we gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba. I helped him when he came to Mexico City to obtain a visa, and when he returned to Dallas to wait for it I saw him twice there. We rehearsed the plan many times: In Havana Oswald was to assassinate Castro with a sniper's rifle from the upper floor window of a building on the route where Castro often drove in an open jeep.
Whether Oswald was a double-agent or a psycho I'm not sure, and I don't know why he killed Kennedy. But I do know he used precisely the plan we had devised against Castro. Thus the CIA did not anticipate the President's assassination but it was responsible for it. I share that guilt.
Although Morley wisely concedes that “The outline for a novel cannot be taken as proof of anything save the workings of Phillips’s imagination,” he nevertheless quickly adds, “but it is tantalizing.” Morley then reiterates what he and countless theorists believe is the crucial part of the outline—emphasizing it with italics. “The CIA did not anticipate the President’s assassination but it was responsible for it. I share that guilt.”
Morley goes to great lengths to make the case that the outline is significant. He insists that the recruitment of Oswald for a Castro assassination plot was not too farfetched for a CIA loyalist such as Phillips to write about and potentially market. Indeed, Morley claims, the plot mentioned in the outline had mirrored real life in at least one way. Phillips had helped to “establish Oswald’s Marxist bona fides” through the DRE “publicity blitz” against Oswald and the post-assassination Trenches article (see chapter 25). Indeed, Morley maintains that “most” of the evidence used to tie Oswald to pro-Castro tendencies came from Phillips and the DRE. Finally, Morley wonders if Phillips felt guilty about his DRE contacts although he admits there is “no other trace” of it. Still, Morley’s implication is clear—Phillips’ outline is some sort of confession.32
But Morley’s assertions are mere speculation. Phillips never wrote a book based on the outline although he wrote two other novels.33 Likewise, there is no proof that Phillips had plans to market such a project. Finally, Morley’s assertion that “most” of the evidence of Oswald being pro-Castro came from DRE activities is contradicted by the statements of those who knew him best.
“[LHO] wanted to be an active guerrilla in the effort to bring about the new world order” noted Michael Paine who got to know Oswald very well through his wife Ruth. Nelson Delgado, who served in the marines with Oswald, said that his hero was William Morgan, the American who served under Castro before the dictator executed him. Oswald’s wife Marina related several anecdotes regarding her husband’s devotion to Fidel. “I only know that his basic desire was to get to Cuba by any means and all the rest of it was window dressing for that purpose” she told the Warren Commission.
Indeed, Morley doesn’t tell his readers that Harold Harrison’s description of the Castro plot that involved Oswald comes from a letter ostensibly written by him to his son Don who is the main character in the outline. But the letter turns out to be a forgery used to tie the CIA to the JFK killing. Thus, the letter is untrue even in its own fictional universe.
Harold Harrison dies in the first scene of the outline and the letter purports to explain to Don the $400,000 in cash bequeathed to him by his father. The factual parts of the letter were obtained from a journal stolen from Harold by the KGB agent. The part of the letter omitted by Morley reads:
Allen Dulles gave the other CIA agent and me $800,000 in cash to finance the operation and set up Oswald for life after Castro’s death. When the scheme went so horribly awry Dulles told us to keep the money—he feared that an effort to give it to the agency’s operational funds would cause problems. I asked my colleagues (sic) to hold half for delivery to you after my death. If he has not done that something must have happened to him, or maybe he just turned greedy. You can imagine how this sad history has troubled me. Many times I have thought of revealing the truth, but somehow couldn’t. Perhaps you reading this, will decide it’s time for the truth.
Understandably, Morley did not think that his readers would find the assertion that Allen Dulles gave David Phillips’ character and an associate $800,000 to finance an Oswald assassination plot against Castro as interesting as the Phillips character’s “confession.” In fact, a straightforward appraisal of Phillips’ outline suggests at least two alternate explanations for his work. First, rather than being a confession, Phillips’ outline may have simply been a therapeutic exercise that he never intended to publish. Second, Phillips could have meant “The AMLASH Legacy” to be a satire. What evidence exists to support these contentions?
As documented in this book (see Chapter 22), Phillips debated theorists who defamed him and twice won lawsuits against them. The climax of the outline has Don Harrison being drugged by Douglass (who is really a KGB agent named Godunuv) and Richard Grace III, a character based on assassination buff and James Earl Ray attorney Bud Fensterwald. Godunuv and Grace, who are responsible for the letter implicating the CIA in JFK’s death, tell Harrison that they intend to kill him and make his death look like a suicide. But at the last minute the CIA and the FBI rescue Don by virtue of information obtained by a bug comedically placed in Grace’s Labrador Retriever’s dog collar. Thus, the villains of the tale are Phillips’ natural adversaries—the KGB and a conspiracy theorist.
Gaeton Fonzi and Antonio Veciana are not left out of Phillips’ work. Fonzi appears as “Ladslo Hermes,” a congressional investigator, while Veciana is “Enrique Ortiz,” a Cuban exile who is eventually murdered. Ortiz identifies a man he knew as “Paul Wilson,” who physically resembles Harold Harrison, as the individual he met Oswald with. Ortiz also states that Wilson wore a hat with “HH” in the band. Later, Don Harrison finds out that his father Harold was “on the high seas” during the time of the alleged Bishop-like meeting and he therefore could not be Wilson (just as Phillips was in Mexico City during Fonzi’s preferred date for the alleged Bishop incident in Dallas). Don is unsurprised by this since his father took the trouble to cut laundry marks out of his clothes proving he never would have been so careless as to wear a hat with his true initials in the band.
Phillips’ dig against Fonzi’s character is more subtle and only informed readers will get the reference. Don and his sidekick Homer visit Richard Grace who they find is “disturbed.” Grace had discovered that Ladslo Hermes once wrote an article in which he described himself as “paranoid” about the JFK assassination. This is a reference to Fonzi’s article “My Paranoia and Me” that appeared in Philadelphia magazine (see Chapter 1).
This segment of the story serves two purposes. It allows Phillips to get a form of literary revenge on Fonzi with a subtle dig and on Veciana by having his character murdered and by showing his character’s story to be disingenuous. It also lets Phillips make the very sensible assertion that he would never have been as careless in a meeting with a CIA asset as Veciana claimed he was (see Chapter 27). In the story, the hat and the hat band took the place of Phillips meeting with two assets at the same time in public.34
Fonzi and Veciana are not the only ones who face Phillips’ literary wrath. Mark Lane, who Phillips debated at USC, appears in the form of “Park Rhodes,” a “publicity-seeking assassination buff.” Rhodes speaks at a rally where he asserts that the CIA and FBI are responsible for the deaths of JFK and Martin Luther King. Rhodes promises to release “new data” about the Mexico City connection to the case. Phillips’ insinuation is that Rhodes, like Mark Lane, made promises to appease his conspiracy-oriented audience but never delivered. The mean-spirited Rhodes later insinuates that Harold Harrison’s wife Virginia was institutionalized after she learned her husband had murdered JFK.
Supporting the idea of “The AMLASH Legacy” as satire are several comic touches added by Phillips. A “mysterious woman in black” appears at the funeral of Harold Harrison. This woman turns out to be a Mexican cabinet minister named Marila whom Harold had an affair with. Marila tells Don that she and his father had “kinky sex” that featured “unusual positions.” Just a few of the other comic or improbable situations featured in the outline: Don and Homer travel to a “private spy-shop” owned by a former FBI agent. Don disguises himself as a hippie at the Park Rhodes rally (as the saying goes—when in Rome) while Homer gets a photographer to take pictures of Douglass/Godunuv by telling him he is an FBI spy. Don learns of a break-in at his home but only rock records and a six pack of beer are taken. James Angleton’s character is an eccentric who wears a homburg hat and collects antique snuff boxes. Don is fitted with an arm cast containing electronic monitoring equipment that somehow goes unnoticed.
Summing up, it is easy to imagine that David Phillips got a form of literary retribution by writing this outline whether he intended to publish it as a larger work or not. Either way, Phillips likely knew his effort would eventually be read and he no doubt enjoyed imagining the reaction of theorists. However, it is much more problematic to assume that “The AMLASH Legacy” is any sort of guilty-minded confession by Phillips. Indeed, it is amazing that Morley and like-minded theorists, who have conveniently ignored most of the manuscript, believe it could be.
To be thorough, I need to mention one other “confession” by Phillips. This one comes from the late Mark Lane who Vincent Bugliosi called the “Pied Piper of conspiracy theorists” and who “almost single-handedly invented the lucrative JFK conspiracy industry” according to former Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth.35
Lane debated Phillips at the University of Southern California in 1977. Lane’s account of the event was first published in his book Plausible Denial and is the source for the information here unless otherwise indicated.36 Lane maintains that the “confession” by Phillips was in response to a question from the audience regarding Mexico City. Phillips allegedly said, “there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy." I say allegedly because I don’t believe Lane would be above changing a word or two in the transcript and I have no way to verify it.
“I sat there stunned” Lane wrote. “Phillips had confessed. His statement to the Warren Commission given in Mexico City was, he now admitted, false, as was his recent testimony before the congressional committee and as were his words in his newly published book.” For confirmation of his instantaneous conviction that Phillips had confessed, Lane looked to that bastion of truth Donald Freed—the same Donald Freed who would later write a fabricated tome that accused Phillips of murdering Orlando Letelier. Freed supposedly nodded his acknowledgement that he had also heard the “confession.”
To get to the bottom of this allegation by Lane, it is necessary to look at the larger picture. In his book, Lane makes much of the fact that he was somehow privy to Phillips’ testimony before the HSCA the previous year. I’ll give Lane the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was working from an account of Phillips’ testimony provided by an unknown individual and not a transcript. That might explain why some of what he says is simply false.
For example, Lane writes:
Phillips testified that tape recordings were made when Lee Harvey Oswald called the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He explained that the CIA could not give the recordings to the Warren Commission because “they had been destroyed before the assassination, as a routine matter.” An internal regulation required the destruction of tapes within one week after they had been created, he said. When asked to produce that regulation, he said it too had been destroyed.
But Phillips said no such thing. He told Richard Sprague that there was a set of “Station Regulations” that dictated proper procedure regarding things such as drinking and the possession of handguns. But regarding the amount of time a tape should be held before it was erased Phillips, “never saw such a regulation nor heard of it in Mexico City Station.” Indeed, Phillips described the amount of time a tape was held as a “local matter.” Nor did Phillips utter a word about the destruction of any regulation regarding tapes or anything else.
Now on to Phillips’ “confession.” Phillips, according to Lane, said, “… but I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all there was no proof of that. Second, there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy."
Rather than being any sort of “confession” or reversal of his HSCA testimony, this statement by Phillips represents a mid-seventies clarification of his views regarding Oswald and his Soviet sojourn. Obviously, Phillips had no personal knowledge of Oswald’s physical presence in the embassy and never said that he did. He did testify about what he thought was on the Soviet transcript, later admitting in his 1978 testimony that he had been cajoled by the techniques of Ron Kessler into “remembering” things that had not happened such as Oswald asking for free transport to Russia via Cuba (see Chapter 26).
But a 1975 interview with Dan Rather again shows Phillips making the distinction between the physical presence of Oswald in the Soviet embassy and the possibility that he had only phoned them:
Rather:
You believe he was at the Soviet embassy?
Phillips: I’m not sure about that. I’m … I’m positive that he made contact with them.
This is exactly the point that Phillips was trying to make to Lane in the debate. He couldn’t say with certainty from his personal knowledge that Oswald had visited the embassy—only that he had contacted them. Perhaps Phillips emphasized this distinction because he had his own theory about Oswald’s visit to the embassy. Another possibility is that this was a way for Phillips to make it known that he was open to all interpretations of the evidence. In any case, it certainly was not any type of “confession” that reversed his 1976 testimony. And we now know from the totality of the evidence (most notably the 1993 book Passport to Assassination) that Oswald was physically at the Soviet embassy. Therefore, Phillips’ mid-seventies opinion is incorrect in this instance.
Note that while newspaper accounts of the debate do mention Phillips’ challenge to call for the abolition of the CIA if Lane could provide proof of the agency “deliberately giving fake information,” they mention nothing of the startling Phillips “confession” nor did Lane himself make note of it in his closing remarks.
The Bishop Hoax Table of Contents
Notes
1. Charles Fulkerson. “CIA Speech Draws Protest Group.” Wisconsin State Journal, October 24, 1976, 10.⏎2. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 28, 1977, 2.⏎
3. “Ex-CIA official Writes Stunning Thriller on Terrorism.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 14, 1979, 97.⏎
4. Bill Wilson. “Spying Would Go on Without CIA.” The Sacramento Bee, May 2, 1978, 17.⏎
5. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, October 21, 1979, 35.⏎
6. “A Critical Analysis of the PBS-Sponsored Production On Company Business.” AFIO, July 7, 1980.⏎
7. Steve Kaskovich. “Experts Paint Espionage Picture in Shocking Red.” (Fort Myers) News Press, April 1, 1982, 27.⏎
8. James T. Bernath. “Ex-CIA Chief Backs Aid to El Salvador.” The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction CO), March 22, 1983, 1.⏎
9. Margaret Scott. “CIA’s Actions Attacked, Defended.” Spokane Chronicle, March 27, 1984, 11.⏎
10. Fort Worth Star Telegram, July 9, 1988, 27.⏎
11. Nevins, Cornucopia of Crime, 270.⏎
12. Summers, Not in Your Lifetime, 443.⏎
13. Transcript of The David Susskind Show, WTTG-TV, October 24, 1977, 28.⏎
14. Similarly, Glenn Carle, a former CIA operative who knew Phillips, reported in a 2012 Daily Beast article, “I knew Maurice Bishop whose real name was David Atlee Phillips. A long time ago, he got me into the agency.” Anthony Summers’ wife Robbyn wrote to Carle and asked him about the allegation. “[Phillips] did not say, ‘Yes, I am Maurice Bishop,’ Carle admitted (Summers, Not in Your Lifetime, 442). Thus, Carle’s statement is an assumption on his part that could have been based more on information in the popular culture than on any alleged discussions with Phillips.⏎
15. DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, 35. Despite a lack of credible evidence, theories abound attempting to connect Oswald to training camps in New Orleans. Researcher Paul Bleau has produced a PDF document titled “David Atlee Phillips’ links to the assassination.” Bleau says, without proof, that Oswald was “present” in Cuban exile camps and Phillips “links” to him because of his CIA report on an exile camp and a film that shows him there. As noted in the main text, Phillips indeed filed a report but made no mention of his own presence at the camp. The film Bleau refers to was allegedly seen by Robert Tanenbaum who was the original HSCA deputy consul. The film supposedly contained images of Phillips, Oswald and Banister (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, 116). The problem is the film has conveniently disappeared and there is no corroboration for it or Tanenbaum’s assertions. And Tanenbaum's credibility has been called into question even by conspiracy researchers. Dan Hardway commented on this in a 2016 blog piece.⏎
16. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 174.⏎
17. Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 69.⏎
18. Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion, 159.⏎
19. Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion, 159-160.⏎
20. Litwin,On the Trail of Delusion, 160.⏎
21. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History Endnotes, 828.⏎
22. Russo, Live By The Sword, 150-151. Note that author Fred Litwin is skeptical of Russo's "letter-marque" theory. Litwin writes on page 160 of On The Trail of Delusion that such a letter-marque "would have been truly amazing since letters of marque had been issued to privateers during the Age of Sail, and the U.S. has not legally commissioned any privateers since the early nineteenth century."⏎
23. Pease, “Novel & Company: Phillips, Banister Arcacha and Ferrie.” PROBE, September-October, 1997, 32.⏎
24. Pease, “Novel & Company: Phillips, Banister Arcacha and Ferrie.” PROBE, September-October, 1997, 32.⏎
25. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History Endnotes, 827.⏎
26. Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion, 350.⏎
27. Reitzes, “Gordon Novel: CIA Agent or Con Artist?” After Novel’s threat of legal action, Reitzes asked Novel to provide corrections to all statements that he regarded as false. Novel never provided the corrections and never filed a lawsuit. Two years later, the process repeated itself with Novel again promising a lawsuit that never materialized. Novel died in 2012.⏎
28. Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion, 353. Researcher Paul Bleau has produced a PDF document titled “David Atlee Phillips’ links to the assassination.” One of Bleau’s “links” has Oswald renting an office at 544 Camp St. (which there is absolutely no proof of) and Phillips being seen there. His source for this is the dubious Novel.⏎
29. Anthony Summers and his wife Robbyn first published excerpts of the outline in “The Ghosts of November” which appeared in the December 1994 issue of Vanity Fair. But in the 2013 edition of his book, Summers acknowledged that Phillips' outline could have been a "mischievous ... thumbing of the nose at those he saw as having tormented him."⏎
30. Waldron with Hartmann, Ultimate Sacrifice, 264.⏎
31. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 238.⏎
32. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 238-239.⏎
33. Author Joan Mellen insists that a “full outline/manuscript” of “The AMLASH Legacy” is being withheld by Phillips’ widow and his friend Joe Goulden (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 454). I was unable to verify this claim as Mr. Goulden declined to participate in this project because of the severe mistreatment he has received at the hands of conspiracy theorists over the years.⏎
34. The hatband with “HH” could also be a reference by Phillips to Veciana’s initial interviews with Fonzi (assuming that Phillips had access to the files) when he talked about a file with “HH” written on it. Veciana believed the “HH” stood for Howard Hughes (Fonzi-Veciana I, 11).⏎
35. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 1000.⏎
36. Lane, Plausible Denial, 72-80.⏎
0 comments:
Post a Comment