What is the purpose of this FAQ?
To alert the news media and the public about misinformation being disseminated by Jefferson Morley regarding the November 22, 1963 assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. Misinformation is often defined as "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." Unfortunately, "misinformation” is an accurate description of what Morley has been doing for some time. This FAQ seeks to clarify the record. You may scroll to the bottom of the page for a list of all sub-pages.
Who is Jefferson Morley?
Morley is a former reporter and editor for the Washington Post who parted ways with that publication in 2007. While Morley still refers to himself as an investigative journalist, he clearly is an activist championing a number of causes. His conspiracy-oriented version of the JFK assassination fits nicely with his somewhat radical world view.
Is Morley a conspiracy theorist?
Yes. Please click HERE for a discussion of Morley and conspiracy theories. Click HERE for a discussion of Morley's own assassination beliefs.
There are a million conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination. Why so much concern about what Morley says?
And as a former journalist who still commands respect in some circles, it is irresponsible to say that you have "smoking gun" proof of something when you don't (see below). Especially when the media is sometimes reporting such conjecture as established fact or at least as something that should be given serious attention. Morley's inaccurate proclamations are a misuse of the public trust he acquired when he was working for the Post.
But there is an additional factor to consider. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Unfortunately, we live in an age where people are choosing to believe the "facts" they prefer. The danger of conspiracy theories such as those promoted by Alex Jones is obvious. But perhaps not as apparent to some is the damage that JFK conspiracy theories can cause.
New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, motivated by his unproven belief in JFK theories, prosecuted Clay Shaw, an innocent man. Although he was acquitted, Shaw depleted his life savings defending himself and died shortly after. In 1991, Oliver Stone produced his film JFK which repopularized the Garrison case and created a new generation of conspiracy believers. Recently, Stone released a "documentary" expanding on the numerous Garrison canards. So, unfortunately, Garrison's ideas live on. And even though it is very unlikely that anyone else could be prosecuted at this late date, misinformation can still cause personal harm.
For instance, a film was recently released about Ruth Paine who befriended Marina Oswald before the assassination. This film spends much time insinuating that Mrs. Paine was somehow involved in an assassination plot. Although the film provides no proof for any of its assertions, it still attracted media attention and a modest audience.
What is the nature of the Morley misinformation?
Morley has insinuated for years that certain CIA officials, including Richard Helms, James Angleton, William Harvey, David Phillips and George Joannides, were involved in the assassination of JFK. Morley has made many dubious claims but the most troubling to date was the December 2022 Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF) press conference when he claimed to have "smoking gun" proof of an "Oswald operation" managed by the CIA shortly before the assassination. For clarification purposes, both Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia report that the term "smoking gun" refers to "conclusive evidence." Morley has no such evidence or proof (see below).
Author and historian Thomas Powers summed up the matter in an exchange following his review of Morley's book The Ghost. While Powers was speaking specifically about Morley's allegations regarding Angleton, the same argument could be made about any of Morley's CIA suspects:
What then gives Morley a right to suggest that Angleton was part of a plot to kill the president? The subject here is a murder. To charge a person with murder requires evidence of intent and of material acts to carry out the intent. By evidence is meant witnesses, documents, recorded conversations and the like. Morley has no such evidence and he knows he does not have it. With his decision to make the charge anyway he forfeits all claim to be taken seriously as a historian.
Who was George Joannides?
Joannides was a CIA employee who was case officer for the DRE in 1963 when Oswald interacted with two members of the New Orleans delegation. Joannides also served as head of Psychological Warfare for a time at the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami. Joannides received the CIA's Career Intelligence Medal in 1981. Morley himself wrote that Joannides was a "warm father, a kindly uncle, a witty companion, and a valued colleague." Still, Morley insists that "[Joannides] was most likely an accessory after the fact [in the JFK assassination]." Ironically, Morley's research through the years is responsible for uncovering many positive facets of his biography.
What was the DRE?
They were the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil or DRE for short. The English translation is the Revolutionary Student Directorate. The DRE was an anti-Castro group made up of student Cuban exiles who were receiving CIA funding to wage a propaganda war against Fidel Castro after arriving in Miami circa September of 1960. The DRE are sometimes known by their CIA cryptonym AMSPELL.What is the truth about the DRE, Carlos Bringuier, Lee Harvey Oswald and their connection to the CIA?
Click HERE for the full story.
What is the truth about Morley's assertion made at a press conference in December of 2022 that there is "smoking gun" proof of an "Oswald operation" managed by the CIA in 1963 that is found in 44 documents in the Personnel file of Joannides?
To be perfectly clear, Morley was less than truthful with the media and the public at the press conference. At that presser, Morley claimed that "The CIA is hiding 44 documents known to exist in Joannides' personnel file that will shed light on his secret activities in 1963 and 1978. These include information about a CIA operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald that has never been disclosed."
It is true that the CIA is refusing to release the 44 Joannides documents, which are not part of the JFK Collection, citing national security concerns. But Morley has admittedly never seen the files and indeed has spent years trying to obtain them through legal proceedings. So, how could he "know" that they contain "information" about an "Oswald operation?" What Morley has are merely suspicions.
Morley justifies his actions with the following logic:
If I am engaging in unwarranted speculation—if someone says this is just another crazed conspiracy theory—the CIA is free to release these records ... and prove me wrong ... If the CIA doesn't release [the Joannides records] I think it will confirm the gist of what I am saying ...
But Morley is using an illogical appeal to ignorance. The witholding of the records by the CIA does not constitute "proof of the CIA’s complicity in the assassination" as Morley asserts. The agency has valid reasons to withhold certain material.
What secrets could really be in these ancient records that Morley and others are seeking?
It is the CIA's job to safeguard the nation's intelligence secrets. And Morley knows from experience that the CIA is, as Vincent Bugliosi wrote, "averse to providing any records, of any kind, unless forced to by law." But Morley also knows that there is sensitive information that could be jeopardized by the release of certain documents. Indeed, Gerald Posner found that recent document releases have shown the redacted information consists of "names of assets and agents, locations of the agency’s stations abroad, and often minutiae about some of its off-shelf international operations." Attorney and JFK expert Mark Zaid framed the issue this way in a 2021 CNN appearance:
… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now.
In other cases, Robert Reynolds discovered that the redacted information that Morley and others are so concerned about had actually been previously released.
Has anyone reviewed the Joannides files that Morley is seeking?
Indeed they have. Morley is well aware that at least one competent researcher has reviewed those records. Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) researcher Michelle Combs made the following statements in a 1998 memo:
In response to AARB's informal request for additional information and records ... CIA provided access to the Office of Personnel file for Mr. George E. Joannides. I have examined the personnel file for Mr. Joannides for the period 1961-64 and 1978-79 ... 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).
Additionally, a second document confirms that the ARRB was granted "full access to [Joannides'] personnel file and all other relevant materials." Although the ARRB decided that most of the Joannides records were not pertinent to the assassination, the review board did make several performance reviews for Joannides available to the public. These performance reviews say nothing about an "Oswald operation."
So, to believe Morley, one must believe that Michelle Combs and others working for the ARRB were either involved in a plot to conceal what the documents really show or they were so inept that they were unable to recognize an "Oswald operation" that was documented by these CIA records. But there is no reason to believe that Combs was inept. Morley himself at the MFF presser credited Combs saying she "knew the record-keeping systems " and "found" the Joannides records which were released to the public. And it is silly to think that Combs or anyone who worked for the ARRB is part of a plot to conceal what is in the records since the President could release them at any moment and thereby expose their duplicity.
Finally, here is what the CIA said about the matter in December of 2022:
The assertion that CIA has been holding, and has not disclosed, a set of documents about Lee Harvey Oswald that were part of now-deceased, former CIA officer George Joannides’ files in the JFK Collection is false.
Ironically, at the same press conference where Morley was claiming "smoking gun" proof of an "Oswald operation," Judge John Tunheim, who headed the ARRB and who Morley frequently implies is of a similar mindset, said that there are no "bombshells" in the unreleased JFK records. But Morley's "Oswald operation" would certainly qualify as a bombshell in any universe. Similarly, Tunheim told author Vince Bugliosi years earlier that there was "nothing in any of the documents that was central to the assassination. There’s no smoking gun, and no substantive information was protected and not released by way of redaction." Note that Tunheim's support of the Morley press conference could well be because he wants the last of the JFK files released because he believes they will show nothing of significance regarding who killed JFK as he has been saying for years.
Morley has made several paradoxical statements regarding the "smoking gun." One of these was his statement to Reynolds in early 2022. "I don't make many assumptions about documents I can't see," Morley said adding that he was "waiting for full disclosure before I jump to conclusions." Less than a year later with no new evidence, he leapt with both feet.
Just as puzzling is Morley's assertion from his 2020 eBook Morley v. CIA (p. 68), "Is there a 'smoking gun'? Maybe. Maybe not. Nothing I say, depends on finding one." Yet a couple of years later, he decided there is a "smoking gun" whose existence is now significant.
Finally, Morley himself admits that the term "smoking gun" is "a bit of a cliché--that's not a term that investigative reporters use ..." But in this case, he maintains his use of it is "appropriate."
Morley says that the CIA lied to the ARRB about George Joannides and the DRE. He also says that progress reports for the DRE are missing. Is any of this true?
Morley's claims are false or misleading. Please click HERE for the complete story.
Is a document shown by Morley at the December 2022 MFF press conference significant?
Almost certainly not. At the presser, Morley dramatically displayed a heavily redacted document. "This document you see here" he said "partially declassified in 2004 shows that Joannides was cleared for special intelligence, the CIA's term of art for wiretapping." Indeed, one media outlet understandably assumed that this document was proof of Morley's "smoking gun" claims and attached a significance to it that was not warranted by the facts. But the document proves nothing and turns out to be insignificant when compared to similar requests for CIA special clearance.
Additionally, Morley has never produced proof for his claim that "special intelligence" refers specifically to wiretaps. It is likely that "special intelligence" is the CIA's euphemism for several methods of intelligence gathering used by operatives like Joannides.
What prompted Morley to produce this "smoking gun" claim despite the lack of new evidence and his past statements about not jumping to conclusions?
Morley has written that his pronouncement was a result of "the pattern of secrecy discernible in the Joannides file." In other words, because the CIA won't release the records Morley wants and because he has suspicions, he now claims there was an "Oswald operation" hoping to force the agency to release the records. Morley will then comb through the records looking for inconsistencies that he can use in his conspiracy-oriented articles and books.
But the withholding of records by the CIA and Morley's suspicions about Joannides are situations that have existed for years. What changed? Morley says that Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former CIA employee who has his own conspiracy theories about the JFK case, gave him "the confidence to write up my findings." Mowatt-Larssen's theories "led to a breakthrough" in Morley's thinking.
But Mowatt-Larssen has no more proof of a conspiracy than Morley does. In a video presentation at the MFF presser he refused to associate himself with a CIA plot to kill JFK. Mowatt Larssen told Morley:
If this is a CIA rogue operation of some sort your story is central to what happened. I'm not saying it is but I'm saying it's a compelling enough case you've made to examine the possibility and then dig deeper into if that were the case who were the people involved (emphasis added).
Mowatt-Larssen's idea of examining possibilities is reasonable. But Morley is no longer just "examining the possibility" of an "Oswald operation" He is falsely and irresponsibly declaring he has "smoking gun" proof of one.
An additional motive for Morley's behavior is likely the time and energy he has consumed pursuing the matter. An individual is more likely to justify a dubious theory after such a personal investment rather than admit there is nothing there.
What is the truth about other claims (or implications) Morley made at the MFF press conference or in his various writings regarding the alleged "Oswald operation?"
- The CIA's knowledge of Oswald before the assassination is indicative of either their guilt in an assassination plot or their negligence.
- The "Oswald operation" was a COINTELPRO-style action managed by the CIA against the FPCC.
- Operation Northwoods was a template for the JFK assassination.
- The CIA Created a "Legend" of Lee Harvey Oswald as a Marxist supporter of Fidel Castro.
Recently Morley has been making noise about someone who was reading Oswald's mail for the CIA. What is the real story?
Morley's latest "smoking gun" revolves around a man named Reuben Efron. Fred Litwin clarifies the record in this blog post.
Who was Jane Roman and what is her connection to Morley?
Roman was a former CIA employee who Morley and author John Newman "interviewed" in 1994. Read about it HERE.
Who is responsible for this FAQ?
This FAQ (which is a work in progress) was written by W. Tracy Parnell who is solely responsible for its content. It was created using the active research contributions of Paul Hoch, Max Holland, Robert Reynolds, Fred Litwin, Steve Roe and Larry Haapanen. Also used were publicly available research materials (including books, web pages, documents and Internet forum comments) from the following individuals: Vincent Bugliosi, Jean Davison, John McAdams, Gerald McNally, Dale Myers, Gerald Posner, Thomas Powers, Dave Reitzes, David Robarge, Johann Rush, Gus Russo and David Von Pein. Additionally, Myers graciously provided information regarding Morley and the DRE.
List of FAQ Sub-pages
Is Jefferson Morley a Conspiracy Theorist?
Morley's Theory of the JFK Assassination
Did George Joannides Receive a Medal for "Stonewalling" the HSCA?
Did the CIA "Lie" to the ARRB About Joannides?
What Did the CIA Know About LHO?