The capital’s paper of record only partially claws back a conspiracy monger’s baseless allegations of CIA "involvement" in the murder of President Kennedy.
I read the documents underlying the Post article and frankly don't see--from those documents-- any merit to the journalist's claim of CIA "connection" to Oswald. I long have respect for Jeff Morley and his books (I subscribe to JFK Facts and podcast) but here I think his public statements were not really supported by the documents; in such a case, it definitely was the responsibility of the WaPo to filter such statements. Clearly it did not, and SpyTalk is absolutely right to chastise the paper; thank you for your several commentaries.
I am left wondering what SpyTalk makes of last year's revelation from newly-declassified documents that the same Johnnides apparently was responsible for screening Oswald's mail, as a defector to Russia returned to America--and then Johnnides was appointed (without such disclosure) to serve as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation in the late 1970's, as Helms and others continued to deny that the CIA knew anything about Oswald?
Jeff Morley seizes upon that as evidence of CIA knowledge of Oswald (that it denied, and the Q is: why?). If I have my facts straight, does SpyTalk agree or disagree with Morley about such a connection? If you agree, then Morley and the WaPo are correct to say there was a connection-- they just made such a claim off the wrong batch of documents. As to: "does it matter?" I'd say yes, because we're not yet given any reason why the CIA would lie about a "connection" to Oswald. Thank you!
I have to disagree here. I have seen nothing that ties Joannides to opening Oswald's mail.
For over a decade the CIA opened 28 million pieces of mail. Joannides was not part of that operation. Oswald's pre-assassination mail file consisted of news clippings and a letter to his mother. Easily forgotten/ignored.
My understanding is that Joannides was the CIA's congressional liaison before the JFK investigation. Some give the impression that he was dispatched to the Hill to cover up a conspiracy.
Also, despite what some have extrapolated, there is no evidence that he knew anything about Oswald prior to November 22. So, nothing pertinent to cover up.
The Assassinations Record Review Board screened Joannides' entire file in the nineties and found it largely irrelevant. They released the few pages that touched on his work with Cuban exiles in Miami. There has been nothing remotely interesting released since (because there is nothing interesting to get --Oswald did it.)
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/jfk-fact-check-was-lee-harvey-oswald Thank you Gus and I stand corrected--not Joannides, but someone else at CIA was monitoring Oswald's mail! Above, Jeff Morley's response today to your WaPo "non-correction" piece, and his analysis of 5-6 CIA people clearly aware of Oswald. If so, isn't that a "connection"? Not in itself a "connection" showing awareness of impending assassination, but certainly a meaningful "connection" ? Thank you!
Peter, if you look at other samples of 201 files, you'll see that they were usually routed through a number of offices, so those exec's signatures are on the routing tickets. Ask folks at the Agency and they'll tell you that often the secretaries initialed files, just to show they were received. That is far from proof that their bosses were running the person in the file, or more importantly, THAT THEY EVEN LOOKED AT THE FILE. With all the tens of thousands of people generating files in the HTLINGUAL program, how could anyone be "aware" of every one of them? If they were flagged as critical, it would be a different story.
If Morley shows me Helms' name and Oswald's on the same piece of paper, that would mean something.
The only indication of CIA involvement with Oswald is the fact that all of the incoming non-CIA cables (e.g., from the American Consul in Moscow, from the Naval Attache in Moscow, and from the Dept. of the Navy) on his 10/30/59 defection to the USSR were routed to the office of probable KGB "mole" Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) in the mole-hunting Office of Security (where they disappeared into a "black hole" for at least six weeks, and the most explosive of which didn't resurface until after the assassination) rather than to where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division -- and that this rerouting had to be arranged in advance with the Office of Mail Logistics and the Records Integration Division. In other words, Solie knew that the former sharpshooting Marine U-2 radar operator would be "defecting."
As I wrote to Jeff last week, it gives no pleasure to me or Michael Isikoff to attack his (and by extension, your) work. Our friendships go back a long, long way. I have loved the company of you and Jeff since the day I met you (decades apart). I was a huge admirer of Jeff's work on Angleton, and I greatly respect your research capabilities. But we have to write the facts as we see them — and in our opinion there are serious distortions in Jeff's interpretation of the documents. All I can say today is I'm sorry it has come to this—really
You've been zombified by sixty-six years of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies.
Just another low for the Post. I gave up my long-time subscription months ago.
I read the documents underlying the Post article and frankly don't see--from those documents-- any merit to the journalist's claim of CIA "connection" to Oswald. I long have respect for Jeff Morley and his books (I subscribe to JFK Facts and podcast) but here I think his public statements were not really supported by the documents; in such a case, it definitely was the responsibility of the WaPo to filter such statements. Clearly it did not, and SpyTalk is absolutely right to chastise the paper; thank you for your several commentaries.
I am left wondering what SpyTalk makes of last year's revelation from newly-declassified documents that the same Johnnides apparently was responsible for screening Oswald's mail, as a defector to Russia returned to America--and then Johnnides was appointed (without such disclosure) to serve as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation in the late 1970's, as Helms and others continued to deny that the CIA knew anything about Oswald?
Jeff Morley seizes upon that as evidence of CIA knowledge of Oswald (that it denied, and the Q is: why?). If I have my facts straight, does SpyTalk agree or disagree with Morley about such a connection? If you agree, then Morley and the WaPo are correct to say there was a connection-- they just made such a claim off the wrong batch of documents. As to: "does it matter?" I'd say yes, because we're not yet given any reason why the CIA would lie about a "connection" to Oswald. Thank you!
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-claims-about-reuben-efron
Hi Peter,
I have to disagree here. I have seen nothing that ties Joannides to opening Oswald's mail.
For over a decade the CIA opened 28 million pieces of mail. Joannides was not part of that operation. Oswald's pre-assassination mail file consisted of news clippings and a letter to his mother. Easily forgotten/ignored.
My understanding is that Joannides was the CIA's congressional liaison before the JFK investigation. Some give the impression that he was dispatched to the Hill to cover up a conspiracy.
Also, despite what some have extrapolated, there is no evidence that he knew anything about Oswald prior to November 22. So, nothing pertinent to cover up.
The Assassinations Record Review Board screened Joannides' entire file in the nineties and found it largely irrelevant. They released the few pages that touched on his work with Cuban exiles in Miami. There has been nothing remotely interesting released since (because there is nothing interesting to get --Oswald did it.)
Thanks for your questions.
Gus
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/jfk-fact-check-was-lee-harvey-oswald Thank you Gus and I stand corrected--not Joannides, but someone else at CIA was monitoring Oswald's mail! Above, Jeff Morley's response today to your WaPo "non-correction" piece, and his analysis of 5-6 CIA people clearly aware of Oswald. If so, isn't that a "connection"? Not in itself a "connection" showing awareness of impending assassination, but certainly a meaningful "connection" ? Thank you!
Peter, if you look at other samples of 201 files, you'll see that they were usually routed through a number of offices, so those exec's signatures are on the routing tickets. Ask folks at the Agency and they'll tell you that often the secretaries initialed files, just to show they were received. That is far from proof that their bosses were running the person in the file, or more importantly, THAT THEY EVEN LOOKED AT THE FILE. With all the tens of thousands of people generating files in the HTLINGUAL program, how could anyone be "aware" of every one of them? If they were flagged as critical, it would be a different story.
If Morley shows me Helms' name and Oswald's on the same piece of paper, that would mean something.
The only indication of CIA involvement with Oswald is the fact that all of the incoming non-CIA cables (e.g., from the American Consul in Moscow, from the Naval Attache in Moscow, and from the Dept. of the Navy) on his 10/30/59 defection to the USSR were routed to the office of probable KGB "mole" Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) in the mole-hunting Office of Security (where they disappeared into a "black hole" for at least six weeks, and the most explosive of which didn't resurface until after the assassination) rather than to where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division -- and that this rerouting had to be arranged in advance with the Office of Mail Logistics and the Records Integration Division. In other words, Solie knew that the former sharpshooting Marine U-2 radar operator would be "defecting."
Cancelling my subscription to this trash. Your campaign against Jeff is reprehensible.
Dear Margot,
As I wrote to Jeff last week, it gives no pleasure to me or Michael Isikoff to attack his (and by extension, your) work. Our friendships go back a long, long way. I have loved the company of you and Jeff since the day I met you (decades apart). I was a huge admirer of Jeff's work on Angleton, and I greatly respect your research capabilities. But we have to write the facts as we see them — and in our opinion there are serious distortions in Jeff's interpretation of the documents. All I can say today is I'm sorry it has come to this—really
Sincerely, and with affection,
Jeff
You've been zombified by sixty-six years of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies.
Go ask Comrade Jeff why he thinks (sic) Yuri Nosenko was a true defector.
LOL!