Software Vault: The Gold Collection/Software Vault - The Gold Collection (American Databankers) (1993).ISO/cdr11/jfk123.zip/CHAP17

Text File | 1993-06-01 | 45KB | 726 lines

                 1985:  The House Select Committee (2)

                               Chapter 17
              THE FINAL COVER UP:  How The CIA Controlled
              The House Select Committee On Assassinations

                              Introduction

The final report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA),
issued in 1979, concluded that a conspiracy existed in the assassination
of  President  Kennedy.   This news should have  delighted  hundreds  of
researchers  who  had disagreed with the no-conspiracy  finding  of  the
Warren  Commission.   The  fact  that it did not, is  due  to  the  HSCA
conspiracy  being a simple one, with Lee Harvey Oswald still firing  all
but  one  of the shots from the sixth floor window of the  Texas  School
Book Depository Building.  The existence of another shooter and  another
shot,  from the grassy knoll, was "proved" by the HSCA, based  primarily
on acoustical evidence presented in the very last month of their  public
hearings.   Dr.  Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, chief  counsel  and
report  editor for the HSCA, co-authored, in 1981, a book, "The Plot  to
Kill  the  President,"  following the publication of  the  HSCA's  final
report.  The book claimed that the other shooter and Oswald were part of
a Mafia plot to kill JFK.

To over simplify the current (1985) situation, most JFK researchers feel
that  the  American  public  had been deceived  once  again.   The  HSCA
reaffirmed  all but one of the Warren Commission's  findings,  including
even the famed single bullet theory.  The simplified conspiracy  finding
is  now subject to review by the Justice Department and the FBI  because
it   is  based  on  very  questionable  acoustical  evidence.    Justice
commissioned  the so-called Ramsey Panel[1] to review this evidence,  in
1981, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences.  It  found
no evidence from the acoustics that a grassy knoll shot was fired.   So,
we  are back to no-conspiracy and Oswald being the lone  assassin.   And
even if there was a conspiracy, Blakey claims it involved the Mafia  and
not  the  CIA.   The  HSCA report and all of  its  volumes  of  evidence
omitting  any reference to CIA involvement, concluded that the  CIA  was
not  involved, and did not reveal any evidence that the HSCA  staff  had
collected  showing  that CIA people murdered JFK, and that the  CIA  has
been covering up that fact ever since.

Any  followers of CIA activities connected with the  JFK  assassination,
since 1963, must ask the question, how did they do it?  How did the  CIA
turn  things completely around from the 1976 days when  Henry  Gonzalez,
Thomas  Downing, Richard A. Sprague, Robert Tanenbaum, Cliff Fenton  and
others  were pursuing the truth about the assassination, to  essentially
the  same status as when the Warren Commission finished its  work?   How
did  they  produce  the  final cover-up?  The answer  is  that  the  CIA
controlled  the HSCA and its investigation and findings from  the  early
part of 1977, forward.  The methods they used were as clever and devious
as  any they had used previously to control the Warren  Commission,  the
Rockefeller  Commission, the Garrison Investigation, the  Schweiker/Hart
Committee[2] and the efforts of independent researchers.

                         The Situation in 1976

In  1976,  Henry Gonzalez, member of the House from  Texas,  and  Thomas
Downing  from  Virginia,  were  both  convinced  there  was  a   massive
conspiracy  in the JFK assassination.  They introduced a joint  bill  in
the  House  which  resulted  in  the  formation  of  the  HSCA  and   an
investigation  of  the JFK and King assassinations.   Gonzalez  believed
there were at least four conspiracies in the assassinations of JFK, MLK,
Robert Kennedy and in the attempted assassination of George Wallace.  He
introduced  an original bill to have the House investigate all four  and
the cover-ups and links among them.  Downing was primarily interested in
the  JFK  case and his original bill dealt only  with  that  conspiracy.
Mark  Lane and his committee members and supporters around  the  country
joined  forces  with Coretta King and the Black Caucus in the  House  to
pressure  Congressmen and Tip O'Neill to investigate the King  and  John
Kennedy  assassinations.  The net result was a merging of  the  Gonzalez
and  Downing bills into a Final HSCA bill dealing with only two  of  the
cases.

In the fall of 1976, with Downing as chairman, the HSCA selected Richard
A.  Sprague,  from the Philadelphia District Attorney's  office,  to  be
chief  counsel.   Sprague  hired  four  professional  investigators  and
criminal lawyers from New York City.  They were very good and completely
independent  of the CIA and FBI, having been trained by one of the  best
professionals in the business, D.A. Frank Hogan of New York.

Sprague  and his JFK team, headed by Bob Tanenbaum, attorney, and  Cliff
Fenton,  chief detective, were going after the real assassins and  their
bosses,  whether  this  led them to the CIA or  FBI  or  anywhere  else.
Sprague had already made it clear to the HSCA that he would  investigate
CIA   involvement,  and  subpoena  CIA  people,  documents   and   other
information,  whether classified or not.  He had also had meetings  with
several  researchers, including the author, and made it known  privately
that  he  was going to use the talent and knowledge  of  every  reliable
researcher on a consulting basis.  He had contacted Jim Garrison in  New
Orleans  and  informed  him  he would be following  up  on  all  of  his
information  and  leads.  He had initiated an investigation of  the  CIA
activities  in  Mexico  City  connected  with  the  JFK   assassination,
including information supplied to Sprague by the author.[3]

R.A.  Sprague  and Tanenbaum were aware of the CIA  connections  of  the
individuals involved in the JFK assassination in Dealey Plaza, in Mexico
City,  in  New Orleans and in the Florida Keys.  They had,  in  November
1976, exposed the entire HSCA staff to all of the photographic  evidence
showing these people in Dealey Plaza and elsewhere.  They were aware  of
the  assassination planning meetings held by CIA people in  Mexico  City
and  knew  who the higher level conspirators were.  They  had  initiated
searches  for  the  real assassins;  Frenchy,  William  Seymour,  Emilio
Santana, Jack Lawrence, Fred Lee Crisman, Jim Braden, Jim Hicks, et  al.
They  were  planning  to interview CIA  contract  agents,  Richard  Case
Nagell,  Harry Dean, Gordon Novel, Ronald Augustinovich, Mary  Hope  and
Guy  Gabaldin.   Cliff  Fenton  had been appointed head  of  a  team  of
investigators  to  follow up on the New Orleans part of  the  conspiracy
which had included CIA agents and people;  Clay Shaw, David Ferrie,  Guy
Banister, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Gordon Novel and
others.    They   were  going  to  contact  people  who   had   attended
assassination planning meetings in New Orleans.

From  the photographic evidence surrounding the sixth floor  window,  as
well as the grassy knoll, Sprague, Tanenbaum and most of the staff  knew
Oswald had not fired any shots, knew no shots came from the sixth  floor
window, and knew there had been shots from the Dal Tex Building and  the
knoll.  They knew the single bullet theory was not true, and knew  there
had  been  a  well-planned crossfire in Dealey  Plaza.   They  were  not
planning to waste a lot of time reviewing and rehashing the Dealey Plaza
evidence, except as it might lead to the real assassins.

They  had  set  up  an investigation in Florida and  the  Keys,  of  the
evidence  and leads developed in 1967 by Garrison.  Gaeton Fonzi was  in
charge of that part of Sprague's team.  They were going to check out the
people  in  the CIA that had been running and funding the  No  Name  Key
group  and  other Anti-Castro groups.  Seymour, Santana,  Manuel  Garcia
Gonzalez,  Jerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Lawrence  Howard,  Frenchy
and  Cubans Rolando Masferrer and Carlos Prio Socarras were to be  found
and interrogated.

Tanenbaum  and his research team had seen the photo collection  of  Dick
Billings  from  "Life  Magazine" which was, by 1976,  deposited  in  the
Georgetown  University Library's JFK assassination collection.   The  No
Name  Key  people  and others showing  up  in  Garrison's  investigation
appeared in these photos with high level CIA agents.

In 1977, Henry Gonzalez, who was far more supportive of a CIA conspiracy
idea than Tom Downing, was to become chairman of the HSCA.  Downing  did
not  run  for  re-election in 1976 and was  retiring.   At  that  point,
December  1976, Gonzalez and Sprague were of the same mind  and  getting
along  fine.   Researchers were very pleased with the  way  things  were
going and believed Sprague would expose the CIA's involvement in the JFK
cover up.

                           The CIA's problem

Given this background of the HSCA status in late 1976, it can easily  be
seen  that the CIA was up against much more serious opposition  than  it
ever  had been before in the JFK murder and cover-up.  They  had  ruined
Jim  Garrison's  reputation and curtailed his investigation  by  various
dirty  trick  means.   They  had been in solid  control  of  the  Warren
Commission  by the simple expedient of having four of the  Commissioners
belonging  to them;  Dulles, Ford, McCloy and Russell.  They  were  also
able  to kill enough people who knew the truth, to slow down any  truth-
seeking that might have taken place.  They also hid documents, destroyed
and  altered  evidence,  lied about other  evidence,  and  bald  facedly
(Dulles)  admitted  that  they  wouldn't  tell  the  President  or   the
Commission  if  Lee  Harvey Oswald had been a CIA agent  (which  he  had
been).   In the Rockefeller Commission situation they were  in  complete
control  of that attempt to reinforce the Warren Commission's  findings.
And   in   the  Church  Committee  investigation,   the   Schweiker/Hart
subcommittee  on  the JFK case was very limited and controlled  in  what
they could do.

But  in the new situation, in Richard A. Sprague and  his  professionals
with so much knowledge of the CIA's role in the murder and the cover-up,
they faced a crisis.  They knew they had to do several things to turn it
around  and to continue to keep the American public from realizing  what
was happening.  Here is what they had to do:


1.  Get rid of Richard A. Sprague.

2.  Get rid of Henry Gonzalez.

3.  Get rid of Sprague's key men or keep them away from CIA evidence  or
    keep them quiet.

4.  Install their own chief counsel to control the investigation.

5.  Elect  a  new  HSCA chairman who would go along,  or  who  could  be
    fooled.

6.  Cut  off all Sprague's investigations of CIA people. Make sure  none
    of the people were found or bury any testimony that had already been
    found, or murder CIA people who might talk.

7.  Keep  the  committee  members from knowing what  was  happening  and
    segregate the investigation from them.

8.  Create  a  new investigative environment whose purpose would  be  to
    confirm  all  of the findings of the Warren  Commission  and  divert
    attention away from the who-did-it-and-why approach.

9.  Control  the  committee staff in such a way as to keep any  of  them
    from revealing what they already knew about CIA involvement.

10. Control committee consultants in the same way, and staff members who
    might leave or who might be fired.

11. Continue to control the media in such a way as to reinforce all  of
    the above.

12. Continue to murder witnesses or assassins in emergency situations if
    necessary.

The  CIA  successfully did all twelve of these things.   The  techniques
they  used  were much more subtle and devious than those they  had  used
before,  although  they  did continue with  murders  of  potential  HSCA
witnesses and with media control.

                           How The CIA Did It

The first step taken by the CIA was to use the media they control, along
with  some members of Congress they control, and two planted  agents  on
the  staff  of and consulting for, Henry Gonzalez, to get  rid  of  both
Henry  and Richard A. Sprague.  In taking this step, they used  the  old
Roman  approach  of  divide and conquer.  They  made  Gonzalez  and  his
closest  staff  assistant, Gail Beagle, believe that Sprague was  a  CIA
agent  and that Gonzalez must get rid of him.  They also  made  Gonzalez
believe that some of his other associates, both in the HSCA and outside,
were  CIA  agents.   At the same time, they used  the  media  to  attack
Sprague  mercilessly.   The key people in doing this attack  on  Sprague
were  three CIA reporters, George Lardner of the "Washington Post,"  Mr.
Burnham of "The New York Times," and Jeremiah O'Leary of the "Washington
Star."   In  all  HSCA committee meetings and  in  Rules  Committee  and
Finance  Committee  meetings,  these three reporters sat  next  to  each
other,  passed  notes  back and forth, and  wrote  articles  continually
attacking  and  undermining both Sprague and Gonzalez, as  well  as  the
entire  committee.   The CIA had the support of top  management  in  all
three news organizations in doing this.

Gonzalez  eventually  tried  to  fire Sprague,  was  over-ruled  by  the
committee,  and  then resigned from the committee.   Sprague  eventually
resigned,  because it became obvious that the CIA controlled members  of
the Finance and Rules Committees and other CIA allies in the House, were
going  to  kill the committee unless he resigned.  There are  many  more
details to this story, which requires a book to describe.  Suffice it to
say, the CIA accomplished their first two goals by March 1977. The  next
steps  were  to  install a CIA-controlled chief counsel  and  to  get  a
chairman  elected who could be fooled or coerced into appointing such  a
counsel.   Lewis Stokes was a perfect choice for chairman.  He was,  and
probably  still  is,  a  good and honest man.   But  he  was  completely
bamboozled  by what the CIA did and is still doing.  The  selection  and
implementation  of  a  CIA man as chief counsel had to  be  done  in  an
extremely subtle manner.  It could not be obvious to anyone that he  was
a CIA man.  Stokes and the other committee members had to be fooled into
believing  *they*  had  made  the choice, and had  picked  a  good  man.
Professor Robert Blakey, an apparently scientifically oriented, academic
person, with a history of work against organized crime, was the  perfect
CIA choice.  Once Dr. Blakey took over as chief counsel, he accomplished
goals  numbered 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 very nicely.  The fourth and  fifth
goals  having  been achieved, Blakey set about the other  parts  of  his
assignment  very  rapidly after he arrived.  For Goal 3,  he  fired  Bob
Tanenbaum, Bob Lehner, and Donovan Gay, three loyal Sprague  supporters,
quickly.

                      The Nondisclosure Agreement

The  most important weapon used by the CIA and Blakey to pursue goals  9
and  10 was instituted within one week after Blakely arrived.  It is  by
far the most subtle and far reaching technique used by the CIA to  date.
It  is  called the "Nondisclosure Agreement" and it was  signed  by  all
members  of  the  committee, all staff  members  including  Blakey,  all
consultants  to the committee, and several independent  researchers  who
met  with  Blakey in 1977.  Signing the agreement was  a  condition  for
continued employment on the committee staff or for continuing consulting
on  a  contract  basis.  The choice was, sign or get  out.   The  author
signed the agreement in July 1977, without realizing its implications at
the  time,  in  order to continue as a  consultant.   The  agreement  is
reproduced  in  full in the Appendix and is labelled "Exhibit  A."   The
author's  consulting  help was never sought after that and  the  obvious
objective was to silence a consultant and not use his services.

This  CIA  weapon has several parts.  First, it binds the signer,  if  a
consultant,  to never reveal that he is working for the  committee  (see
paragraph  13).  Second, it prevents the signer from ever  revealing  to
anyone  in  perpetuity,  any  information  he  has  learned  about   the
committee's  work  as  a  result  of  working  for  the  committee  (see
paragraphs  2  and 12).  Third, it gives the committee  and  the  House,
after  the committee terminates, the power to take legal action  against
the  signer, *in a court named by the committee* or the House,  in  case
the  committee believes the signer has violated the agreement.   Fourth,
the signer agrees to pay the court costs for such a suit in the event he
loses the suit (see paragraphs 14 and 15).

These  four parts are enough to scare most researchers or staff  members
who  signed  it  into  silence forever about  what  they  learned.   The
agreement is insidious in that the signer is, in effect, giving away his
constitutional  rights.   Some  lawyers who  have  seen  the  agreement,
including  Richard  A.  Sprague, have expressed the  opinion  it  is  an
illegal   agreement  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  and   several
Constitutional  amendments.   Whether it is illegal or not,  most  staff
members  and all consultants who signed it *have* remained silent,  even
after  three and a half years beyond the life of the  committee.   There
are  only two exceptions, the author and Gaeton Fonzi, who  published  a
lengthy article about the HSCA cover-up in the "Washingtonian"  magazine
in 1981.

The most insidious parts of the agreement, however, are paragraphs 2,  3
and 7, which give the CIA very effective control over what the committee
could  and  could not do with so-called "classified"  information.   The
director  of  the CIA is given authority to determine, in  effect,  what
information shall remain classified and therefore unavailable to  nearly
everyone.  The signer of the agreement, and remember, this includes  all
of  the Congressman and women who were members of the committee,  agrees
not to reveal or discuss any information that the CIA decides he  should
not.  The chairman of the committee supposedly has the final say on what
information is included, but in practice, even an intelligent and  gutsy
chairman would not be likely to override the CIA.  Lewis Stokes did  not
attempt  any final decisions.  In fact, the CIA did not have to do  very
much  under these clauses.  The fact that Blakey was their man and  kept
nearly  all  of the CIA sensitive information, evidence,  and  witnesses
away  from  the committee members was all that  was  necessary.   Stokes
never  knew what he should have argued about with the CIA director.   It
is  this document which proves beyond doubt that the CIA controlled  the
HSCA.

The  author attempted to point out to Stokes in a letter dated  February
10,  1978, "Exhibit B," the type of control the agreement gives the  CIA
over the HSCA.  Stokes replied in a March 16, 1978 letter, "Exhibit  C,"
that he retained ultimate authority and was not bound by the opinion  of
the  Central Intelligence Director.  He also claimed that paragraphs  12
and  14,  on  extending  the agreement  in  perpetuity  and  giving  the
government  the right to file a civil suit in which the signer will  pay
all  costs, were legal.  He said in the letter that the purpose  of  the
agreement  was  to  give  the  HSCA control  over  the  conduct  of  the
investigation  including  *control  over  the  ultimate  disclosure   of
information to the American public*.  That is a key admission about what
has  actually  happened.  The only question is, who is  controlling  the
information  in the heads of the staff investigators who discovered  CIA
involvement?  Was Louis Stokes working for the public or for the CIA?

                        Examples of CIA-Control

Some  specific  examples  will  serve to illustrate  how  well  the  CIA
techniques have worked and are still working.

                Garrison Evidence and Witnesses Example

As mentioned earlier, when Blakey arrived, an investigating team  headed
by  Cliff Fenton, reporting to Bob Tanenbaum, had already been  hard  at
work  tracking  down  leads to the CIA  conspirators  generated  by  Jim
Garrison's investigation in New Orleans.  This team eventually had  four
investigators,  all  professionals, and their work led them  to  believe
that  the  CIA  people  in New Orleans had  been  involved  in  a  large
conspiracy  to  assassinate JFK.  As Garrison told Ted Gandolfo,  a  New
York  City researcher, the Fenton team went much further than  Garrison,
in  locating  witnesses  and other evidence  of  assassination  planning
meetings  held  in New Orleans, Mexico City and Dallas.  In  fact,  they
found  a  CIA man who attended those meetings, and who  was  willing  to
testify before the committee.  The evidence was far more convincing than
the  testimony presented at the trial of Clay Shaw.  In the Shaw  Trial,
CIA people were involved in meetings in addition to the one brought  out
in the trial.  Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, William Seymour and others  were
involved.   Fenton's team discovered a lot of other facts about how  the
CIA  people  planned and carried out the  assassination.   Their  report
about  the conspiracy was solid and convincing and they were  convinced.
The  CIA,  through Robert Blakey, buried the Fenton  report.   Committee
members  were not told about the team's findings.  The evidence was  not
included in the HSCA report, nor was it even referred to in the volumes.
The  witnesses  in  New  Orleans were never  called  to  testify.   That
included  the  CIA  man at the meetings.  Fenton  and  the  other  three
members  of  his team, having signed the nondisclosure  agreement,  were
legally sworn to secrecy, or at least they thought so.  To this day they
refuse to discuss anything with anybody.

There  may  also have been threats of physical  violence  against  them.
There  is no way to determine this.  However, Fenton and the others  are
well aware of the witnesses that the CIA murdered just before they  were
about to testify before the HSCA.  These included: William Sullivan, the
FBI  deputy under J. Edgar Hoover, who headed Division V,  the  domestic
intelligence division;  George de Mohrenschildt, Oswald's CIA contact in
Dallas;   John  Roselli,  the Mafia man involved in  the  CIA  plots  to
assassinate  Castro;  Regis Kennedy, the FBI agent who knew a lot  about
Clay  Shaw, alias Clay Bertrand, in New Orleans and who was one  of  Lee
Harvey  Oswald's FBI contacts;  Rolando Masferrer, an anti-Castro  Cuban
murdered  in  Miami;  and Carlos Prio Socarras,  former  Cuban  premier,
killed in his garage in Miami.

With the knowledge of these murders, Fenton and his team would not  have
required any more than a gentle hint, to keep quiet.

                            Frenchy Example

The "tramp," Frenchy, who appears in seven photos taken in Dealey Plaza,
is  one of the most important CIA individuals in the JFK  assassination.
Researcher  Bill Turner discovered that Frenchy had been in the  Florida
Keys working with CIA sponsored anti-Castro groups.  Richard A.  Sprague
and Bob Tanenbaum knew about his role, and intended to go after him when
the  HSCA restored its subpoena power and obtained enough  money.   They
were  aware of the evidence that Frenchy fired the fatal shot  from  the
grassy  knoll.   They had assigned a team of investigators to  follow  a
lead to Frenchy provided by the author in the early part of 1977.

Unfortunately,  the CIA managed to keep both the subpoena power and  the
funds  away  from  the  committee  until  after  they  had  forced   the
resignations  of Gonzalez, Sprague and Tanenbaum.  The power  and  funds
were  restored after Stokes was elected and after they  installed  their
own man, Blakey.  The investigative team remained, however, and they did
search  for  and find Frenchy.  But Blakey and the CIA  suppressed  that
fact, and suppressed anything they may have learned from Frenchy.  He is
not mentioned in the report and was not called as a witness.  The author
dares  not  reveal the source of the above information  because  of  the
danger to staff people from the nondisclosure agreement.

                 Nagell, Dean, Novel, and Augustinovich

The Garrison investigation and a subsequent series of investigations  by
the   author  and  other  members  of  the  Committee   to   Investigate
Assassinations  in  1967 to 1973, turned up several witnesses  who  were
willing to talk privately about the CIA assassination team that murdered
JFK.   Harry Dean and Richard Case Nagell had been Lee  Harvey  Oswald's
CIA  contacts while he was in Mexico City and knew  about  assassination
planning  meetings  held in Guy Gabaldin's apartment.  Dean  knew  about
William  Seymour, CIA contract agent, attending those meetings  and  how
Seymour  had  been pretending to be Oswald on  many  occasions.   Gordon
Novel knew how the CIA had covered up the truth about the  assassination
and  how  they  went to extreme lengths to ruin  Jim  Garrison  and  his
investigation.   Novel  had  been employed by the CIA  in  this  effort.
Ronald Augustinovich and his friend, Mary Hope, had attended some of the
Mexico City meetings.

Richard Russell and the author tracked down all four of these  witnesses
prior to the arrival of Robert Blakey at the HSCA.  Russell  interviewed
them  and knew they would be willing to talk, given protection and  some
form   of  immunity.   The  author  presented  their  names  and   their
involvement  to  Richard A. Sprague, Henry Gonzalez,  Lewis  Stokes  and
Robert  Tanenbaum  in the fall of 1976.  This was done as  part  of  the
author's  consulting  assignment  for the HSCA.  The  names  were  in  a
memorandum to Sprague, which outlined the overall JFK conspiracy and the
CIA's  role,  along  with  a recommendation of  the  sequence  in  which
witnesses  should  be  called.   The  idea  was  to  base  each  witness
interrogation  on  what  had been established  from  interviewing  prior
witnesses, working slowly from cooperative witnesses, to non-cooperative
witnesses,  to  actual assassins, to higher level  CIA  people.[4]   The
highest  level people, E. Howard Hunt and Richard Helms, would be  faced
with accusers.

As  indicated  earlier, Sprague and Tanenbaum could do nothing  and  did
nothing  up to the day they left.  By early 1978 it became obvious  that
Blakey  had done nothing about calling these CIA witnesses.  The  author
initiated a series of letter exchanges with Blakey and Stokes, reminding
them  of these witnesses, and the possibility that their lives could  be
in  danger prior to their being interviewed by HSCA.  Dick  Russell  had
obtained  an  agreement from Nagell to meet with the committee,  but  no
contact  had  been made up to April 5, 1978, the date  of  the  author's
first letter to Stokes on this subject, "Exhibit D."  Nagell was  hiding
in  fear  of his children's lives, not so much his own life.  He  was  a
real CIA agent and knew how they operated.  Russell was the only  person
who  knew where Nagell was.  In the April 5th letter,  a  recommendation
was  given to Stokes that the committee contact Nagell through  Russell,
and  contact the other witnesses on the original list.  Stokes wrote  on
May  15, 1978, "Exhibit E," that the Nagell matter had been referred  to
Blakey  for  follow-up.  Blakey never mentioned it by  telephone  or  by
letter.

By  September  1978, when the public hearings had begun,  there  was  no
indication that Blakey was going to call the CIA witnesses.  Nagell  was
standing by but had not been contacted.  The published, intended witness
list did not contain any of these CIA names.  The author wrote to Stokes
and Representative Yvonne Burke on September 22 and 23, 1978,  "Exhibits
F," expressing dissatisfaction with the committee's failure to call  the
CIA  witnesses, and suggesting that if they did not not,  history  would
eventually catch up with them.  The names were repeated in the letter to
Burke, and specific mention made that the committee had never  contacted
Richard Case Nagell.  Louis Stokes sent back a letter dated October  10,
1978,  "Exhibit  G."  It is what one might call  a  non-answer,  stating
"that  the committee will make every effort to tell the whole  story  to
the American people."  Seven years later (1985) it can be said that  the
committee  did not make an effort to call the most  important  witnesses
and  therefore did not tell the whole story.  Nor did their report  even
mention  these witnesses or any of the evidence exposed earlier  by  the
CTIA  or Jim Garrison.  Louis Stokes was either totally fooled or he  is
part of the CIA's cover-up.

The  author responded to Stokes' non-answer letter of October 10th  with
two  more  letters,  dated  October 30,  1978  and  November  24,  1978,
"Exhibits H & I."  Stokes finally answered them on December 4, 1978 with
another  non-answer letter, "Exhibit J."  He says the  committee  cannot
reveal the procedure of the investigation or the names of those  persons
who  will be called to testify before the committee.  This implies  they
were planning to call more witnesses in December 1978.  The  committee's
life ended on January 1, 1979.  The CIA witnesses were never called  nor
ever mentioned right up to the very end and the report was silent  about
them.

                            The Umbrella Man

One last example illustrates the way the CIA and Blakey worked  together
to cancel-out any evidence linking the CIA people and/or techniques used
in the JFK assassination.  For may years, various researchers, including
Josiah  Thompson[5] and the author, had speculated about the role  of  a
man appearing in the photographs in Dealey Plaza with an open  umbrella.
He  became  known  as "The Umbrella Man," or TUM  for  short.   Thompson
speculated that TUM had been giving the various shooters in Dealey Plaza
visual signals with the umbrella, and the author agreed this could  have
been true.

In  *1976*,  the Church committee took the public testimony  of  Charles
Senseney, a CIA contract weapons employee at the Army Chemical Center in
Ft. Detrick, MD.  Senseney described a system used by the CIA in Vietnam
and elsewhere, for killing or paralyzing people with poisons carried  in
self-propelled  Flechette  darts.  The darts  were  self-propelled  like
solid fuel rockets and launched silently and unobtrusively from a number
of  devices, including an umbrella.  A CIA catalog of  available  secret
weapons  shows a photograph of the umbrella launching device and  photos
of  the  Flechettes  which were self-propelled from one  of  the  hollow
spokes  of  the  umbrella.  They could even  be  launched  through  soda
straws.

Researcher  Robert Cutler, former Air Force Liason officer, L.  Fletcher
Prouty, and the author did some additional research on the  photographic
evidence and the weapon system, especially research on the movements  of
JFK  in the Zapruder film and various photos of TUM and a friend he  had
with him in Dealey Plaza.  The friend had a two-way radio device.  As  a
result of this research, an article was published in "Gallery"  magazine
in June, 1978.  The article presented the hypothesis that TUM  launched,
from  his umbrella, a poison Flechette at JFK, which struck him  in  the
throat  at Zapruder frame 189, causing complete paralysis of  his  upper
body,  hands, arms, shoulders and head, in less than two  seconds.   The
photos show this paralysis and the timing matches the testimony given by
Senseney  about  how fast the CIA poison works and what  its  paralyzing
effects look like.

Whether  one  agrees with this hypothesis or not is incidental  to  what
Blakey  and the HSCA did in reaction to it.  Until the summer  of  1977,
official  investigators  for the HSCA, or any of its  predecessors,  had
shown  no more than passing curious interest in TUM.  They just paid  no
attention and did not take the researcher's ideas seriously.  On  August
8,  1977, the author informed Robert Blakey, in a letter of  that  date,
about the TUM hypothesis.  The letter concerned a discussion the  author
and  Blakey  had  on July 21, 1977, two  days  after  the  nondisclosure
agreement  had  been  signed.   Blakey had said  that  if  there  was  a
conspiracy it would not have involved a very large number of people.  He
was  probably  already laying the foundation for a  small,  Mafia  type,
conspiracy  involving Oswald and a Mafia friend, backed by a  few  Mafia
Dons.

The August 8th letter maintained that the CIA had been involved and that
it  had been a massive intelligence operation, rather than a  conspiracy
in  the  sense Blakey was using the term.  The CIA  Flechette,  umbrella
launching weapons system, if indeed it had been used by TUM, the  letter
pointed  out, would be solid proof of high level CIA involvement,  since
that  system  would  not have been available to lower  level  agents  or
contract people.

Blakey did not respond right away to this letter and the author  decided
to  make the TUM hypothesis public by publishing it with Cutler  as  co-
author, in the spring of 1978, in "Gallery" magazine.  Contact was  also
made  with  Senator  Richard Schweiker who had been the  member  of  the
Church   Committee  responsible  for  interrogating  Charles   Senseney.
Schweiker agreed to try and find out from Senseney what had happened  to
the umbrella launchers he had constructed for the CIA;  that is, who  in
the CIA had had access to a launcher.

The  information to be published in "Gallery" had been generated by  Bob
Cutler and the author independently of any information obtained from the
HSCA,  but the safest approach seemed to be an application to  them  for
permission  to  print the article under the terms of  the  nondisclosure
agreement.  So, on January 9, 1978, the author submitted a draft of  the
"Gallery"  article  to Blakey and, on January 16, 1978,  he  wrote  back
stating  that publishing the article would not violate the terms of  the
nondisclosure agreement, "Exhibit K."  The article was published in  the
June  1978  issue  of "Gallery" which actually  appeared  in  May  1978.
Blakey knew in advance when it would appear.

On August 3, 1978, the author wrote to Blakey stating that  photographic
evidence  showed a high probability that TUM was actually Gordon  Novel,
the CIA contract agent from New Orleans, who had been hired to ruin  the
Garrison  investigation,  "Exhibit L."  The reason that some  new  photo
evidence  was  just  then coming to light was  that  the  committee  had
discovered a never-before seen film of TUM and had released a frame from
this  film to the press in July 1978.  Shortly after the TUM  photo  was
released by the HSCA, with an appeal to him to come forward, an  unknown
caller  contacted Penn Jones in Texas to tell him he knew who  TUM  was.
Penn visited Louis Witt, having been given his address, and upon  seeing
him,  jumped to the conclusion that he *was* TUM.  This led to Mr.  Witt
appearing  before the committee in their televised hearings  and  making
the  claim he was TUM.  He showed the umbrella on TV that he claimed  he
used.

It  was immediately obvious to Bob Cutler and the author that  Witt  was
not TUM.  He displayed the umbrella he said he had used in Dealey  Plaza
and  *it contained the wrong number of spokes*.  His height, weight  and
facial  appearance  did  not match TUM's, and  his  description  of  his
actions  did  not  match at all the actions TUM took, as  shown  in  the
photos.  On November 24, 1978, the author wrote to Stokes telling him he
had been fooled by a CIA plant, or by his own staff, planting Mr.  Witt,
and that he should call Gordon Novel as a witness because it was  likely
that Novel was TUM.  HSCA never did call Novel as a witness.  Novel  had
visited the HSCA during the days Richard A. Sprague was still there, but
he had not mentioned being in Dealey Plaza or that the CIA had hired him
to ruin Garrison.  Blakey and Stokes avoided contacting Novel.

Now,  the important thing to focus on, in this example, is the  sequence
of  events.  The HSCA had done nothing about TUM until they  were  faced
with the possibility of a public article linking TUM to the CIA  through
a CIA weapons system and through Gordon Novel.  They also found out that
Senator Schweiker was looking into the CIA end of it.  At about the time
the "Gallery" article was being widely read, the HSCA suddenly  released
to  the press a photo of TUM and asked that people identify him or  that
he  come forward.  The photo did not show his umbrella or where  he  was
sitting in Dealey Plaza, nor did the release mention the umbrella or the
theories about it.  Just his photo.  An earlier photo used by Cutler and
the author to identify Novel as TUM was not released.

In a surprisingly short time after the photo appeared, an unknown person
calls a well-known researcher and leads him to Louis Witt.  Witt in turn
lies  about who he was and where he was, by claiming to be TUM.   Blakey
and the committee put Witt on center stage as though it was a play,  and
eliminate  the TUM problem by pulling off a charade.  The fine  hand  of
the  CIA can be seen in this whole series of linked events.  Blakey  had
to  have known what was going on, and he knows today that Witt  was  not
TUM and the high probability that TUM was Gordon Novel, CIA agent.

The  extreme  lengths that the CIA and Blakey went to in  this  charade,
made  one believe that the umbrella probably *was* the Charles  Senseney
weapon.  Otherwise, why bother with TUM?

                           Goal Number Eight

What has been presented so far in this article represents direct actions
by the CIA to cover-up CIA involvement.  Blakey played another important
role  and  that was to achieve the eighth goal on the  list,  namely  to
change  the  public impression of HSCA's main effort.   Researchers  who
concentrated on attacking the Warren Commission's Dealey Plaza or Tippit
shooting  findings  had created a big problem.  If Oswald had  fired  no
shots,  then  he  must  have been framed.  If  Oswald  was  framed,  the
evidence  against  him was planted, and multiple gunmen  were  involved.
All  of this line of reasoning would point to a very well-organized  and
very   well-planned  conspiracy,  which  would  in  turn  point  to   an
intelligence style involvement.

So,  Blakey  set  out  from the beginning  to  create  an  investigative
environment and image that appeared to be based on a *highly scientific,
objective study of the Dealey Plaza evidence*.  The overall objective of
this  approach was to prove "scientifically" that the Warren  Commission
was  right,  and  that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the  shots  that  had
struck  John  Kennedy,  Governor Connally and  policeman  Tippit.   That
required  scientific  proof  of the single bullet  theory,  among  other
things.   Blakey  did  just  that.  Right up  to  the  moment  when  the
acoustical evidence on the Dallas police tape reared its ugly head, only
one  month from the end of the life of the committee, Blakey managed  to
control  and manipulate the Dealey Plaza evidence to back up the  Warren
Commission  completely.   The author described how Blakey  did  this  in
chapter 16.  One of his "magical" methods was to split up the scientific
work into subcommittees or panels of advisors, and various staff groups,
and  keep  them  all from communicating with each  other.   *Thus,  even
though the medical panel gave testimony showing an upward trajectory  of
the  single  bullet (399) shot*, the trajectory panel turned it  into  a
downward trajectory.  The photographic panel was so isolated they  never
did  see the most important evidence of the sixth floor  window,  inside
and outside.

The photo panel had a number of government and military people on it, as
did  all  of  the other panels.  Thus it was not  surprising  that  they
testified that the fake photos of Oswald holding a rifle were not fakes.
Blakey  rode roughshod over the evidence that these photos  were  fakes,
presenting  only one witness, Jack White, to show why they  were  fakes,
and giving him a very rough time.  Other researchers, like Fred  Newcomb
and the author, who had done a lot of work on the fake photos, were  not
called  and  not consulted by the photo panel or Blakey and  his  staff.
There  are many more examples of how Blakey managed this magic  show  on
public TV, too numerous to describe here.

One important result of this drastic change of investigative environment
compared  to  that existing under Richard A. Sprague, was  to  draw  the
attention  of the public during the hearings away from the evidence  and
the  witnesses  pointing  to the real assassins, and to  the  fact  that
Oswald  was  framed  and did not fire any shots.  It  thus  provided  an
additional shield for the CIA and in effect, completed the cover-up.

                                Summary

Now,  in the spring of 1985, the CIA appears to have under  control  the
final  cover-up  engineered by Robert Blakey with the support of  a  few
murders  of key witnesses and the existence of the  insidious,  illegal,
nondisclosure agreement silencing the HSCA staff, committee members, and
consultants.   The  situation  for the American  public  appears  to  be
hopeless.   The  CIA  effectively  controlled  all  three  branches   of
government  when  the  chips  were  down,  and  have  had  no   problems
controlling   the   fourth  estate,  the  media,  or   the   independent
researchers.   By  what  means could the  American  public  combat  this
awesome  power?   It is hard to see that there is any  means  available.
And  we have now reached and passed 1984.  Would an election  of  Edward
Kennedy to the presidency in 1988 change anything?  If he lived  through
a  presidency following an election campaign, it probably  would.   Most
Americans react to that by saying, "he would be assassinated."   Somehow
they  have  received  the messages about what has gone  wrong  with  the
United States.
____________________
[1] Chaired by Prof. Norman Ramsey of M.I.T.

[2] Senators Richard Schweiker of Penn. and Gary Hart of Colo. formed  a
    sub-committee of the Church Committee.

[3] The author became an advisor to Richard A. Sprague as soon as he was
    appointed counsel to the HSCA.

[4] The  names  of  the  witnesses  in  the  memo  were:     Cooperative
    Witnesses:  Louis Ivon (Jim Garrison's chief investigator),  Richard
    Case Nagell, Harry Dean, James Hosty, Carver Gaten, Warren du Bruys,
    Regis  Kennedy,  Victor  Marchetti,  Gordon  Novel,  Manuel   Garcia
    Gonzalez,  Harry  Williams, Jim Garrison, George  de  Mohrenschildt,
    Charles Senseney, Mary Hope and Jim Hicks.

    Non-Cooperative   Witnesses   or  Assassins  or   Planners:   Ronald
    Augustinovich,  Guy  Gabaldin,  Frenchy,  William  Seymour,   Emilio
    Santana,  Jack Lawrence, Jim Braden, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Fred  Lee
    Crisman, William Sullivan, Carlos Prio Socarras, Rolando  Masferrer,
    Major L.M. Bloomfield, E. Howard Hunt, and Richard Helms.

[5] In his book, "Six Seconds in Dallas," Thompson showed photos of TUM.

                          *  *  *  *  *  *  *

I  see  in  the near future a crisis approaching that  unnerves  me  and
causes  me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . .   Corporations
have  been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places  will  follow,
and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by
working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated
in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

     --- Abraham Lincoln (quoted in Jack London's "The Iron Heel").