I never gave much thought to Antonio Veciana before 2017. I read Gaeton Fonzi’s book, The Last Investigation, back in the late nineties and thought it was an interesting history of the HSCA investigation. But like the HSCA, I didn’t find Veciana’s story to be very credible, mostly because he had no corroboration. It was around that time that I finished my own multi-year study of the assassination and concluded that Oswald did it—at least to my own satisfaction.
I ran a website from 1998 through 2004 and then got out of the JFK thing for a while. Around 2015, I drifted back into assassination research with a view toward debunking some things, especially the “Harvey & Lee” theory of John Armstrong. While I was working on that, I became aware that Veciana had reversed himself and was now claiming that David Atlee Phillips had been the mysterious Maurice Bishop all along. I wondered what new evidence Veciana would present to support his claims and made a mental note to check it out but procrastinated.
Then in 2017, Veciana released his autobiography Trained to Kill. That tome featured newly minted claims of suicide pills, disappearing ink, long black limousines and other spy novel clichés. Equally dubious was alleged CIA trainer Joe Melton’s metamorphosis into Dick Melton. I decided to finally get serious about verifying Veciana’s story.
One of the first red flags I found was a document that noted that Bishop’s first name might be “Morris, John or Jim.” But Veciana had maintained for years that Bishop’s first name was “Maurice.” Why the discrepancy? I took the question to the JFK forums where I assumed I would get an immediate answer. After all, someone must have investigated this since the document in question had been available since 1993. A few suggested that “Morris” was simply a mispronunciation of “Maurice.” But no one could explain “John” or “Jim” and my inquiry was mostly met with either silence or suggestions to look at the HSCA report or Fonzi’s book. But neither of those sources made any mention of the discrepancy. My debunker’s instincts told me I was on to something.
I wanted to go to the source —Fonzi’s original interview of Veciana. But for some reason, that document was unavailable. I ordered it from the National Archives but what I found really didn’t surprise me that much considering the anomalies in Veciana’s story that I was uncovering with increasing regularity. While Veciana was now claiming in his book that he and Bishop were full-fledged CIA operatives, he had originally told Fonzi in 1976 that, “from his personal point of view” he believed Bishop “was working for a private organization, not the government.”
I wrote a few articles including a review of Veciana’s book and a debunking of some of Fonzi’s claims. Then I eased off for some time thinking that I had made my point. But in 2019, John Newman released his book Into the Storm. In it, he presented a powerful case that Veciana had told essentially two different stories about how he had met Bishop. But neither story could be correct if Bishop was Phillips as he was now claiming. I was somewhat chagrined since I realized that I could have done what Newman did if I had stayed with the story. I was also disappointed to see that Newman was trying to weave Veciana into his own theory of the assassination rather than denounce him as a fraud.
So, I decided to write a book. One phrase that I repeated over and over to my wife until it became a running joke was, “I didn’t know what I was getting into.” And indeed, I didn’t. I am a researcher not a writer. I only started writing to document the results of my work and learned what little I know through trial and error. I have maintained since the beginning, and continue to do so, that the story of Veciana, Fonzi and Phillips should be told by someone more qualified to do so than I. That person should be in possession of a writing resume and, most importantly, a book contract with a monetary advance. Such an author could do the work necessary to really unravel this story. As a card-carrying member of the pajamas media, I had none of these things. But I hope what I have done will lay the groundwork for someone who might follow.
I expect this eBook will achieve a few ends. First, I show what Veciana was really doing between 1959 and 1965. And I demonstrate who was really running Alpha 66 during the years 1961-65 (partial spoiler—it wasn’t Maurice Bishop). Secondly, I prove that as a CIA-did-it believer Fonzi was not an unbiased investigator and was therefore susceptible to Veciana’s theories and in some instances almost certainly helped create them. Finally, through a partial biography of Phillips, I have tried to humanize the man. We have all heard the stories that he was something akin to a CIA android who could manipulate just about anyone to commit any dastardly act on behalf of the agency. What I found instead was an intelligent and thoughtful family man who believed in the United States of America. Phillips was convinced that a strong intelligence presence was necessary for the survival of the country although he was not above criticizing the agency in his speeches and writings.
I believe that David Phillips was wronged by Veciana, Fonzi and subsequent conspiracy authors who followed their lead. And I don’t subscribe to the Oliver Stone theory that one man can be sacrificed for the greater good. I think Phillips’ son Dave Jr. nailed it when he told author Jacob Carter that his father and other CIA officers wanted to “continue serving the United States, the way they had during World War II.” If Phillips and his comrades had a weakness, the younger Phillips maintained, it was their “quasi-military sense” to strictly adhere to orders even when working on projects that could be interpreted as morally ambiguous. Indeed Phillips, who was “appalled” by the accusations of people like Fonzi, expressed reservations about some of the things the agency asked him to do but insisted that there was a line that he would not cross. I believe him and see no credible evidence that he was a part of a plot to kill JFK.
I don’t believe there was a Maurice Bishop and I think that Veciana made up the story for his own reasons. We can never be sure with one hundred percent certainty what drove Veciana, but I speculate about his motives in the conclusion of this work. One thing is certain. Veciana’s story is riddled with discrepancies and provable falsehoods. This should give pause to even the most ardent Veciana supporters.
W. Tracy Parnell
February 2022
Note: I am going to enable conments for this eBook. However, I will not permit abusive language or superfluous remarks. Legitimate comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome.