What Did the CIA Know About LHO?

Introduction

Jefferson Morley maintains that the CIA's knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination is indicative of the agency's guilt in the assassination of JFK, at least in some form. In a 2017 interview with the Washingtonian, Morley said the following:

Whether Oswald killed the president or not, the fact that he was so well known to senior intelligence officers means that they were culpable in some way in the President’s death. Could you indict them on conspiracy charges and prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Could you say that the preponderance of evidence points to that they were responsible for the wrongful death of the president? I think so. No, there’s no smoking gun. But the picture of the wrongful death of the president, and the culpability of senior CIA officials, that’s coming into view now.

Morley's views have grown more radical since that interview was conducted. He now believes that there is indeed a "smoking gun" that proves the agency was running an "Oswald operation." Morley also now believes it is likely that the agency, possibly working with Pentagon operatives, killed JFK. But whether one is contemplating the "old" and more careful Morley or the "new" radical Morley, the fact remains that he believes the CIA's pre-assassination knowledge of the assassin makes them guilty of something.

So, what did the CIA know about Oswald before the assassination and does that knowledge point either to their culpability in the death of JFK or their negligence for failing to recognize Oswald as a threat to the president?

What was the level of the CIA's knowledge of Oswald before the assassination and was it significant?

The agency had a routine file on Oswald which was started because of his defection to Russia. During his Warren Commission appearance, CIA Director John McCone testified as follows regarding any agency connection to Oswald:

Oswald was not an agent, employee or informant of the Central Intelligence Agency. The agency never contacted him, interviewed him, talked with him, or received or solicited any reports or any information from him or communicated with him directly or in any other manner. The agency never furnished him with any funds or money or compensated him directly or indirectly in any fashion and Lee Harvey Oswald was never associated or connected directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with Agency.

The HSCA confirmed the Warren Commission findings writing, "The committee found no evidence of any relationship between Oswald and the CIA."

Note that some researchers believe Oswald was debriefed by the CIA's Domestic Contact Division after his return from the Soviet Union which would not jibe with McCone's assertion that no interviews were conducted. While this is possible, it has never been proven. And with over 99 percent of the JFK Collection documents now available it is unlikely that anything will be uncovered that will prove the assertion. However, if such an interview happened, it would have been routine and not necessarily indicative of any clandestine agency relationship with Oswald.

Morley frequently mentions that the agency knew of:

• Oswald’s defection to the Soviet Union
• his marriage to a Russian woman
• his disillusionment with life under communism
• his return to Texas
• Oswald’s employment at a defense contractor in Texas in the summer of 1962
• his arrest for fighting with CIA-funded Cubans In New Orleans in August 1963
• and his contacts with reputed Cuban and Soviet intelligence officers in Mexico City in October 1963.

But many of these items could be known by anyone with access to a newspaper. For example, Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union and his return to America with a Russian wife were covered by the press. And while certain facts on Morley's list seem impressive at first glance, they are really meaningless. For instance, one of the "Soviet Intelligence Officers" Morley refers to was Valeriy Kostikov who the CIA said worked for "Department Thirteen of the First Chief Directorate of the KGB" which was allegedly responsible for "sabotage and assassination." But Kostikov was working in the Soviet embassy under the cover of a consular officer. The fact is anyone who had normal business at the embassy might come into contact with him. So Oswald meeting him was not significant. Neither does Morley explain how a Soviet officer fits into his theory that the CIA killed Kennedy.

So when considering what of significance the CIA knew pre-assassination, we are really left with the their knowledge of Oswald's encounter with the DRE and Oswald's visit to Mexico City. The Oswald-DRE encounter is discussed elsewhere in this FAQ. And while theorists have devised various scenarios to explain Oswald's Mexico City sojourn, the truth is as simple as this: he was seeking a visa to travel to the Soviet Union and Cuba.

Helms' "False" Testimony?

However one chooses to characterize the CIA's pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald, Morley has frequently maintained that the agency told the Warren Commission that it was "minimal." For instance, in a 2023 Washington Post op-ed, Morley wrote "And then-Deputy Director Richard Helms testified, falsely, that the agency had only 'minimal information' about Oswald before Kennedy was killed.

Similarly, Morley told Danish journalist Flemming Rose in 2024:

But what they [documents in the CIA file] show is, everywhere Oswald went from November 1959 to November 1963, the CIA knew he was there; not the FBI, CIA, and a handful of officials at the top of the CIA. And they knew everything about him.  Contrary to Dick Helms' testimony to the Warren Commission, they did not have 'minimal information' about Oswald.  They had maximal information about him. They knew about his politics, his personal life, his foreign contacts, he beat his wife. They knew he'd been arrested for fighting with CIA-funded Cubans. They knew he'd been in contact with a KGB agent in Mexico City. They knew everything about him.

But researcher Paul Hoch points out that Morley is taking Helms' remarks "badly out of context." In a discussion on a private email group, Hoch noted "It is quite clear from the context that Helms was referring to what the CIA knew at an early point, around the time of Oswald’s defection. It was not about what the CIA had at the time of the assassination." Hoch adds, "That conclusion is reinforced by two earlier events."

Hoch notes that Helms' testimony was on May 14, 1964. But over two months earlier, Helms had sent the Commission a copy of the “official dossier” on Oswald, which became CD 692. There were 30 documents, plus a sanitized memo covering October and November. "So it makes no sense" Hoch concludes, "to suggest that Helms intended to deceive the commission by referring to “minimal” pre-assassination information." Additionally, Hoch points out that "when Helms testified the Commission staff already knew a lot about the most sensitive late information which was not included in CD 692." This included the Coleman-Slawson-Willens visit to Mexico, on April 8-13.

Is the CIA guilty of negligence in the death of JFK?

Morley has a contingency plan in the event that his grand theory of a CIA-authored plot to kill JFK falls through. He will argue that the agency was negligent in the death of JFK and their knowledge of Oswald should have somehow led them to warn the FBI or other agencies about the threat Oswald posed.

Such a claim by Morley would be at least reasonable which is more than can be said for his "Oswald operation" that is based on unseen documents. But Morley knows that there are holes even in this fall back position. In an informal debate with Vincent Bugliosi, Morley made the same argument circa 2005. According to the endnotes for his book, Bugliosi told Morley:

...if his negligence theory was correct, this may be why the agency doesn’t want to give him the documents he wants—it’s covering up its negligence. But I added that actually it was the FBI (not the CIA, whose charter only authorizes it to gather foreign intelligence), if anyone, that should have kept closer tabs on Oswald right up to the president’s visit to Dallas, and thereby possibly prevented the assassination [the bureau was always a step behind Oswald].

Is there any evidence that Morley's key CIA suspects participated in the assassination of JFK?

Morley's key CIA suspects are Richard Helms, James Angleton, William Harvey, David Phillips and George Joannides.

This FAQ and supporting documents make the case against Morley's Joannides-managed "Oswald operation" and any linkage of that to the assassination. So, there is no need to repeat that information here. But author Thomas Powers made a strong argument against perennial Morley suspect James Angleton's involvement in the crime. Part of Powers' quote is already on the main page of this FAQ but it bears repeating since this argument leaves a gaping hole in Morley's CIA-did-it assertions. Powers was responding to Morley's concerns with the former's review of The Ghost:

Jefferson Morley merits a good scolding. His offence wasn’t daring to ask ‘if Angleton was running Oswald as an agent’ but the words that follow. Here is Morley’s full thought on page 265 of his book: ‘Was Angleton running Oswald as an agent as part of a plot to assassinate President Kennedy?’ The problem with that sentence, so close to the end of his book, is that it offers no evidence of any kind that Angleton intended to kill the president or played a material role in organising or setting into motion the events that led to the killing of the president. Nobody else has such evidence either. 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.

And as mentioned elsewhere in this FAQ, Morley's assertions about David Phillips have been debunked and he largely seems to have abandoned them.

In conclusion, there is little reason to believe that the CIA's pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald was other than routine or that their knowledge proves they were culpable or negligent in JFK's death.