Jefferson Morley has made so many varying assertions regarding the assassination that it may be difficult for readers to ascertain what he believes really happened to the 35th president. Morley has said that he has no theory of the assassination. It is true that he has not publicly released a theory that says specifically which individuals masterminded the assassination and how they did it. But a careful study of his writings since 1995 as well as newly revealed material provides some clues to Morley's thinking.
It turns out that Morley has entertained two different assassination theories. Some elements of the first theory are at least plausible although they fall apart on close examination. However, the second theory, which is the one Morley is currently pushing, is clearly untenable.
Morley 1.0
Morley has studied and written about the DRE extensively and even became acquainted with former members of the group. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising to realize that the DRE was Morley's first assassination suspect. But thanks to a document located by Robert Reynolds, we now know that Morley met with Manuel Legaspi of the ARRB in July of 1997. Morley treated Legaspi to a "multimedia presentation" of evidence that purported to show the "possible involvement" of the DRE in the JFK killing. Legaspi called the one hour and fifteen minute lecture "interesting and well done."
Legaspi noted that the DRE's motive for the murder, according to Morley, was their "disenchantment with President Kennedy's policies toward Cuba." This disenchantment led the DRE to "possibly" conspire to kill JFK and pin the crime on Cuba. While he was generally impressed with the presentation, Legaspi still noted some "factoids" such as Morley's assertion that the DRE's Isidro Borja was the individual who was photographed with Oswald in August of 1963 at the International Trade Mart in New Orleans handing out leaflets. In reality, the person with Oswald has never been identified. Ironically, twenty years later Morley would criticize Donald Trump for promoting the idea that the man was Ted Cruz's father.
A few years later in his unpublished manuscript entitled "The Perfect Man for the Job," Morley presented more evidence for the DRE as assassination masterminds. First, Morley bemoaned the fact that DRE case officer George Joannides did not "investigate the DRE's recent activities or ask any questions about the group's contacts with Oswald." Morley said that at least two other CIA officers working out of Miami, Calvin Thomas and Warren Frank, had done just that. If Joannides had conducted such an inquiry, Morley maintained that he would have uncovered the following facts:
- DRE leaders had left Miami just before and right after Kennedy's death.
- Salvat had gone to Dallas in October to shop for guns.
- Manuel Salvat and Luis Fernandez Rocha went to Puerto Rico and then to Costa Rica after the assassination traveling on CIA funds.
Morley noted that Thomas thought the DRE was "capable of orchestrating the murder of President Kennedy." He also found the DRE leaders, whom he had worked with, to be "untrustworthy" and reported on their "animus against President Kennedy." Thomas recommended that the DRE be investigated but the CIA found his allegations to be "baseless" according to Morley.
Finally, Morley notes Joannides' own experience with the DRE which he presumably believed the CIA man should have seen as evidence of the group's violent tendencies. For instance, the DRE leaders had "approached Joannides himself for guns and money before the assassination." Likewise, Joannides had "received the DRE's military plan, with a weapon shopping list attached ...."
Morley's early work makes it clear that he believed Oswald may have been the shooter who killed JFK. For example, in his web article What Jane Roman Said, Morley wrote "If you insist that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the fatal shot on November 22, 1963, I would say you are probably right." Therefore, version one of Morley's theory of the assassination has the DRE as masterminds and Oswald as the shooter. In an alternative version of this theory, Oswald was a patsy who was somehow framed by the DRE and/or the FBI and Dallas police. The exiled Cubans provided the shooter who may have been one of their own. In both of these scenarios the precise details of how the crime was accomplished have been conveniently omitted.
As mentioned, Morley has wisely abandoned this scenario since there is no credible evidence that the DRE was involved in the murder of Kennedy or that Oswald was framed.
Morley 2.0
Morley's current version of the alleged assassination conspiracy, while still lacking specifics, is even more complicated and therefore less tenable than his original DRE-Oswald concept. In his 2020 eBook Morley v. CIA (p. 67), he said that "JFK's enemies" "made Oswald a patsy for their crime." They supposedly did this with "covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL [DRE] program." Similarly, at his old blog JFKFACTS, Morley said the idea that Oswald fired the fatal shot "strikes me as impossible."
In Morley's world, "JFK's enemies" are certain CIA officers and Pentagon officials and/or "higher-ups in Washington." Morley's chief suspects in the CIA are Helms, Angleton and Harvey whom he believes "approved the counterintelligence operation targeting Oswald and the FPCC" according to his Morley v. CIA. Morley says that Joannides was merely an "accessory after the fact" who was following the orders of his superiors. David Phillips, who emerged as a major suspect in Morley's 2008 book Our Man in Mexico, is rarely mentioned anymore.
Morley now says that there was not one conspiracy but two. "I see two operations, one to kill the president, the other to lay blame for the crime on Fidel Castro" he wrote in a piece on his Substack blog. Morley says the relationship between the two operations is "impossible to resolve" because of the "official secrecy" still employed by the CIA. In other words, Morley believes (or wants people to think he believes) that when all of the documents are released they will prove his case. That is, the CIA and the military industrial complex never thought to simply destroy the documentary evidence of their crime. They just left it there to eventually be discovered.
Let's look at the two operations that comprise Morley 2.0 starting with the second one first. Note that this analysis is necessarily speculative to a degree since Morley's writing on the matter has been ambiguous.
The second operation is Morley's "Oswald operation." The purpose of this operation was to blame Castro for the assassination. Unlike Morley, I see no separation between the two operations. In order for Castro to be blamed for the assassination, obviously JFK has to first be dead. And those in charge of the operation to kill JFK would have to be aware of the "Oswald operation." Indeed, Joannides' CIA superiors would have been the ones to order the "Oswald operation" unless Morley is saying that it happened spontaneously and the operation to kill JFK just took advantage of it. But if the masterminds desperately wanted JFK dead and Castro blamed it is unlikely they would rely on such a chance occurrence.
It would make more sense for Morley to say that Joannides was told to have the DRE mount the "Oswald operation" in order to discredit Oswald. This was something that Joannides and the DRE would naturally want to do and Bringuier indeed did it well. And neither the DRE nor Joannides necessarily had to know that the ultimate goal of the operation was the murder of JFK. Of course, they would eventually figure out what happened to JFK and their role in the plot. Of course, they would then have to remain silent out of self-preservation. But to my knowledge, Morley has never maintained any of this.
What Morley is saying is the DRE's embarrassment of Oswald created a "legend" that he was a Castro supporter. Then after the assassination, the DRE would logically seek to blame Castro for JFK's death. Once the public knew Castro was "behind" Oswald, they would supposedly demand an invasion of Cuba. If all went according to plan, JFK would be dead (conspiracy one), an innocent patsy would be blamed (presumably conspiracy one), Cuba would be liberated (conspiracy two), and no one would be the wiser. Except, of course, for Morley who was the lone individual who correctly identified the conspiracy after nearly sixty years of incessant speculation by less informed theorists.
But there are serious problems with both operations in Morley 2.0:
- First, there was no need to create a "legend" of Oswald as a "Marxist leader of the FPCC." Proof of Oswald's Marxist views starts in 1953 when he was thirteen. His support for Castro dates to late 1958 before the bearded leader had even assumed power.
- Morley's case for the "Oswald operation" rests on three key "facts" as expressed at the MFF presser in December 2022. The first is the CIA's "knowledge" of Oswald before the assassination which he believes was significant but was actually routine. The second is the "deception operations," including Operation Northwoods, that were supposedly employed. The third is his unproven allegation that the FPCC had been "targeted by the CIA for disruption and destruction."
- The evidence shows that Bringuier did what he did on his own without direction from the Miami DRE or the CIA.
- There is no proof that Oswald was a "patsy." In fact, the overwhelming evidence says that Oswald alone is guilty of the crime.
- Cuba was never invaded and Castro died an old man. Why would such a sophisticated and determined conspiracy fail to control LBJ and force the invasion since that was a primary goal of the conspirators?
- Morley relies on the theories of Rolf Mowatt-Larssen for a template that would explain certain aspects of conspiracy one. But Mowatt-Larssen's theories are not worthy of belief, at least as they relate to the JFK murder.
Was There a "Benign" Cover-up?
There is still another reasonable possibility at play. Although highly unlikely, there could have been an operation targeting Oswald that was ordered by the CIA. Under this scenario, both the CIA and DRE would have been doing what came naturally—embarrassing a pro-Castro supporter in New Orleans—which is the kind of propaganda operation that the JMWAVE station specialized in. This operation would have been exactly what it seemed to be and was not tied to an assassination plot. But if such an operation happened, the CIA would have sought to hide it because it could be said that one of Oswald's motives for the JFK murder was the humiliation inflicted by Bringuier. Thus, it could be said that a CIA operation indirectly led to JFK's death. But there would be no reason for the DRE men, including Bringuier who strongly denies an agency connection, to lie about the matter at this late date. They could simply come forward and admit that they had done the operation at the behest of the agency and make Langley shoulder the blame. But not one DRE man has said that the interaction with Oswald was ordered by the CIA.
In conclusion, both Morley 1.0 and Morley 2.0 are unworthy of belief.
0 comments:
Post a Comment