Larry Hancock's Blog, page 2

Oswald Puzzle Questions

Over the last few weeks we have been involved in a growing number of interviews on The Oswald Puzzle, many of them in venues which were new to us. Much of the content we discussed (if not the general topic of conspiracy) was new to the shows as well. Beyond those sessions we have upcoming interviews scheduled with Jeff Morley, Alan Dale, Brent Holland, and Chuck Ochelli – as well as with our friends in the Dealey Plaza UK group.

The following questions will give you not only an example of topics discussed in detail in the book, but also a guide to the questions that come up in discussing our work on Lee Harvey Oswald:

How intelligent was Oswald?

How politically radical was Oswald?

Was Oswald a Socialist/Marxist/Communist?

What about Oswald and guns?

Was Oswald violent – or was he a ‘Drama Queen”?

Oswald and JFK – motive or not?

Oswald and the FBI – was he an FBI asset?

Was Oswald a witting CIA asset with intelligence missions?

Was Oswald unwittingly known to and used by the CIA?

Why would Oswald be in Mexico City in the fall of 1963?

Why was Oswald’s behavior the day of the assassination suspicious?

Those questions are addressed in the book itself, with extended detail supporting the views we present, but you can imagine the interviews can get pretty lively. Hopefully many of you will get the chance to listen to those interviews, which will be broadly available on the internet. When doing them we try to be as clear as possible regarding the factual history we present – as compared to the speculative scenario we offer as to how Oswald was manipulated (via his own personal agenda) and ultimately framed for the attack on President Kennedy. That includes a discussion on what Oswald really thought was going to occur on November 22, 1963. Something having nothing to do with the attack on the President.

As an added note, we researched and wrote The Oswald Puzzle as a work of history and as such we would like to see it in as many libraries as possible – so if you read it and thought it worthwhile we would appreciate your taking time to visit your local community/college/university) library and suggest that they put a copy on their shelves to make it as widely available as possible.

Oswald’s Russian Language skill

One of the controversial questions we explore in The Oswald Puzzle is the question of Oswald’s skill with the Russian language – based in documented information as to when he developed a serious interest in Russia and began to dive into its implementation of socialism/Marxism, its culture and well as its language.

As it turns out the record (based on Marines stationed with him in Japan and California) and his own voluntary Russian language test (with details of both his writing and speaking skills) shows a straight progression beginning with self study, reading and limited opportunities for verbal practice, on to his appearance in Russia itself. The language test shows him as not yet competent in Russian during his Marine service, but better in reading than speaking the language.

In Russia, a series of remarks from his tourist guides, language tutoring from his factory supervisor, and detailed information (over the better part of two years) from his close friend Ernst Titovets show a progression from basic tourist type language skill to the level required to function in his factory job and his social activities. Mastery of Russian technical and industrial terminology related to his factory work required special coaching, as did his interests in Russian culture (movies and ballet).

Oswald’s interest in Russian culture and its internal social practices fueled his omnivorous reading of Russian cultural and political magazines (including humor magazines) – those interests continued even after his return to the United States, with ongoing subscriptions to Russian publications.

In assessing his Russian language skills, first hand Russian observations of Oswald in Russia are always of value. In that regard readers should find the following interview useful in making their own judgement of his skills https://www.rferl.org/a/interview-transcript-oswald-shushkevich-belarus-soviet/25172632.html

The Estes Tape / Johnson and the JFK Assassination

Over some 4 years from about 1998 to 2002 I spent much of my time investigating Texas connections to the Kennedy assassination. During that period, I explored both the Estes and Baker scandals in regard to the possibility they had connected LBJ to a conspiracy against JFK. I received information and introductions to individuals who were tightly focused on Johnson’s guilt – including information which had come out from Billy Sol Estes as early as 1984, when his Grand Jury involvement had led to legal papers being filed maintaining that he could provide tapes implicating Johnson.

My own research ranged on from the Estes scandals and associated murders, to the Baker scandal and in particular to certain highly suspicious activities of Johnson. That included JFK’s Dallas appearance, in which Johnson’s associates Cliff Carter and Jack Puterbaugh had been involved in of logistics and political activities. Both men had been responsible for certain arrangements for JFK’s appearance in Dallas, and with his motorcade.

In reviewing Secret Service interviews (SA Lawson) of the Dallas trip planning, I was surprised to find that the Secret Service trip lead himself often referred to certain decisions having come from Puterbaugh (an Agriculture Department employee working as Democratic National Committee political liaison for the trip, reporting to Cliff Carter).  It seemed that Dallas officials, including law enforcement, had even felt that Puterbaugh was himself Secret Service.

Ultimately, in Someone Would Have Talked, I explored Carter and Puterbaugh’s activities in some detail and focused on a scenario as to how Johnson might have been given foreknowledge and recruited to cover any elements of conspiracy relating to an action against JFK.  I spend some three chapters exploring that in the book, including Johnson (and Cliff Carters) very active role in immediately suppressing any leads which did not solely involve Lee Harvey Oswald.

Because of that background, when word recently emerged about an Estes/Carter tape, which I had heard about from others as well as Estes himself, I immediately reached out to Estes’ grandson and he was good enough to join me on a show with Chuck Ochelli – even playing more of the tape than had previously been aired. 

I think most of  you will find the show of interest and you can listen to it here https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ochelli-effect-2-11-2025-larry-hancock-shane-stevens–64342112

RFK Records Release

In commenting on the new records release initiative – JFK/MLK/RFK – I did promise to offer some comments on what would be needed to make a broader range of RFK related documents and materials available to the public.

One of the major challenges with the RFK assassination investigation was that it was strictly local in nature, there was no official Federal investigation of the crime – even though the FBI did take leads and conducted some rather fragmentary interviews.

Still, some of the leads which were sent to the FBI, and some of the individuals interviewed, may have been potentially more far more significant than appreciated at the time – including potential connections between Sirhan, his family memebers, and foreign actors. Yet because the FBI was only marginally involved, interviews based on the leads were limited and there was also very limited background work done.

At best FBI interview leads and reports were sent to the LAPD and its Special Unit Senator, ending up in the files, but certainly not becoming of any major consideration to the unit’s investigation. Any serious release of new files would need to expand on that FBI work and include CIA and State Department documents related to the names that were generated to the FBI as potential suspects.

There is little doubt that SUS itself did only minimal investigation of potential foreign connections, and indeed had little in the way of resources to pursue leads of that nature. It is also clear that after its failure to locate the ‘Polka Dot Dress’ girl, it came under increasing pressure from the LA District Attorneys Office to close down the investigation and allow the prosecution of Sirhan Sirhan as the lone actor to move forward.

While we have seen LAPD files on the investigation, another area of interest – assuming anything was retained – would be the internal District Attorney’s own files on the crime and its prosecution, including any internal memos related to pressuring LAPD or even the Coroner’s office (as anecdotally reported by the Coroner himself during the trial.

I discuss these document related thoughts as well as my views on the overall criminal investigation in a recent interview which you might find interesting https://open.spotify.com/episode/3dgby6SSqEXTprh5gWAKWg?si=1N80Bj2_Sd6L_tTWRzln1w&nd=1&dlsi=679c41c0d2aa454c

In addition, for background, you might want to check out my extended monograph of the RFK assassination on the Mary Ferrell website https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Incomplete_Justice_Series_Complete.html

Records Release

With all the discussion of a new Executive Order for the JFK records release, it would be a mistake not to give some attention to the challenges and opportunities involved with the MLK and RFK assassination records – also covered in the new directive. My friend and co-author Stuart Wexler and I learned some things about the MLK documents in several years of work on the King assassination which may be useful in that aspect of the documents release effort.

The FBI and DOJ are unquestionably home to significant files concerning King’s assassination, especially given the massive manhunt that followed his murder. The scope of major departments who hold relevant MLK files extends even to the military and intelligences services, who surveilled King and other civil rights groups for fear his marches and protests would lead to revolutionary unrest in late 1960s America.

But while these agencies hold important files, they may not be the most important sources of information on King’s assassination. For that, attention needs to be paid to two other critical records repositories – the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

NARA holds the vast majority of the records related to King’s assassination, known as the MURKIN materials, including essential files from the FBI’s field offices that were crucial to the investigation. These records have never been completely processed, with documents related to key areas still unavailable for research – full transparency on NARA’s MLK holdings could finally provide the answers long sought questions regarding Dr. King’s murder. There is simply no reason to continue withholding the NARA King documents.

A less obvious, but potentially even more important document source, lies in the records compiled by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The HSCA conducted original and important investigations, also synthesizing preexisting material from other agencies. But while 95% of the HSCA material on the JFK murder was released to the public by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s, almost nothing was disclosed from the parallel HSCA inquiry into King’s death. Admittedly there are personal issues associated to some of the HSCA materials (originating in the FBI’s illegal personal surveillance of Dr. King) but that simply means the release of the HSCA MLK files will deserve some caution.

The answer to an effective release of the HSCA Congressional files related to MLK (now held by the Clerk of Congress) lies with Speaker Mike Johnson and his authority over the Clerk, as well as in the work of the recently formed Civil Rights Cold Case Records and Review Board.  The students from Hightstown High School who drafted the original Cold Case law – ultimately passed by Congress – relied on the text of the JFK Records and Collection Act (which created the ARRB).

The legislation ultimately passed should allow the Cold Case board to function exactly like the ARRB, receiving records directly and deciding their own redactions and postponements as they see fit. The Cold Case Review Board could itself release everything related not only to MLK’s murder, but also the other civil rights cold cases investigated by the HSCA. The tools now exist for full transparency in the King assassination, the question is whether the National Archives, the Speaker of the House, and the Cold Case Review Board will choose (and be allowed) to exercise those tools effectively.

More thoughts on this subject, and the RFK assassination records in a follow-on post…

Oswald’s Shooting Skills

In The Oswald Puzzle we point out issues such as his rapid deterioration in shooting skill tests while in the Marines, as well as his embarrassing performance after joining a factory shooting club while in Russia. We also note that the Department of Justice advisor to the Warren Commission actually encouraged them not to deal with his shooting abilities in the report; he felt it would be a weak point in the case against Oswald. What we were not aware of was an incident in Dallas during the fall of 1963 which raised further questions on his shooting skill – something actually reported to the FBI. I’ve asked researcher Greg Doudna to share his research on this story – the following is a synopsis he provided; I hope you find it as interesting as I did:

“It has been questioned whether Lee Harvey Oswald had the skill to have accurately fired the shots which killed Kennedy in the presidential limousine on Elm Street from the 6th floor window. There is no evidence Oswald was a good shot with a rifle and significant evidence he was not.

In addition to known and familiar accounts regarding Oswald’s poor marksmanship scores and reputation for being a poor shot among his fellow Marines, there is another item which has received no attention despite its potential significance. 

Laura Kittrell, a long-time counselor with the Texas Employment Commission [TEC] of Dallas, tried to tell that, in the course of her job duties when Oswald was referred to her office as part of his seeking employment in October 1963, she had had a General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) administered to Oswald at the Employment Commission, following which Kittrell counseled Oswald going over the results. 

Kittrell reported that whereas Oswald scored well in the parts of the GATB dealing with intelligence and verbal abilities, Oswald had received a poor, below-average score in the physical-motor coordination part of that test. 

In Kittrell’s experience with other men clients, poor scores in motor coordination, on the GATB, correlated with being a poor shot with a rifle. Kittrell believed there was a causal relationship between the two. 

In the course of discussing that poor test result with Oswald, Kittrell had told Oswald that, and Oswald had told Kittrell that it was true he was a poor shot with a rifle, and explained his marksmanship tests and ratings in the Marines for her. 

On December 26, 1963 Kittrell sent a letter with that information to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Attorney General Kennedy’s office forwarded the letter to the FBI. A few days later Kittrell received written acknowledgement from the FBI in the name of the Director confirming the FBI had her information. Then, she heard nothing further. 

Kittrell believed that because of her information and personal dealings with Oswald she would be contacted by the Warren Commission. But no one contacted her. 

In April 1964, upon learning Warren Commission staff were in Dallas interviewing witnesses, Kittrell visited U.S. Attorney Barefoot Sanders in his office in Dallas whom she knew. Kittrell asked Sanders to convey her information to the Warren Commission staff then in Dallas, with whom Sanders was in contact, before the Commission staff left to return to Washington, D.C. Sanders said he would do so and had Secret Service agents stop by Kittrell’s office to obtain Kittrell’s document and bring it to him. 

But the Warren Commission staff left Dallas and returned to D.C. and Kittrell was not contacted. When Kittrell inquired, U.S. Attorney Sanders told her he had mailed her document to the Warren Commission.

When the Warren Commission’s Final Report was published in September 1964, Kittrell was dismayed to see no hint of her information reflected in the Report, causing her to believe the Warren Commission either had ignored or had never received her information. 

On June 4, 1965, Kittrell sent another letter with her information, and detailing her earlier unsuccessful attempts to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities, to now-U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy in New York (pp. 10-11 of https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/sightings-of-lho-oct.-1963-laurel-kittral/687524?item=687539, and pp. 44-49 of https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/sightings-of-lho-oct.-1963-laurel-kittral/687524?item=687630). The office of Senator Kennedy forwarded Kittrell’s letter to the FBI and asked the FBI to investigate and report back to the Senator’s office. 

Internal FBI documents show FBI headquarters in D.C. suggesting to the Dallas FBI office that Kittrell was emotionally disturbed and suggesting a letterhead answer be prepared suitable for dissemination to Senator Kennedy’s office around those lines, which was done. 

In the Dallas FBI field office’s response forwarded to Senator Kennedy’s office, the Dallas FBI neither disputed what Kittrell reported of Oswald’s aptitude test nor did any investigation of its substance. 

Instead, the FBI informed Senator Kennedy’s office that the FBI found a blanket no “information of value” in Kittrell’s submission meriting investigation. Instead of investigating and determining the facts of the Oct 1963 GATB test results of Oswald told by Kittrell—the FBI did not do that, and today no paper documentation is known for that test—the FBI obtained and cited a derogatory comment concerning Kittrell’s emotional behavior from a male supervisor, who called the unmarried Kittrell a “frustrated old maid” who overdramatized, despite the supervisor acknowledging that long-time counselor Kittrell was “a good worker in many respects”, with no claim on any record that Kittrell had acted improperly on her job or had a medical diagnosis of anything amiss with her mental state. But the FBI reporting had the effect of discrediting Kittrell on a personal level. 

Kittrell’s story was complicated in that in her account Kittrell confused two distinct persons in her memory and account as if they were one, the one being her client, Oswald, the other being another TEC client served in her same office by a different, named, counselor whom Kittrell had also assisted, a client named Curtis Craford who went then by the name Larry Crafard. This does not appear to have been an impersonation of Oswald but rather a confusion by mistake in the two men’s identities on Kittrell’s part.

From the beginning Kittrell had expressed suspicion that two persons may have been involved in her recounted memories of Oswald, which in fact was correct, with one of the two men of her memories having been Oswald, and the other having been Craford mistakenly confused by Kittrell with Oswald. 

When the Warren Commission’s 26 volumes of documents and exhibits were published in November 1964, and Kittrell saw photos of Carousel Club handyman Curtis Craford therein, she recognized and positively identified Craford as the second man with whom she had dealt at the TEC offices, the other counselor’s client who was not Oswald. Kittrell then checked and found in her TEC office an inactive file for Craford, confirming that Craford had been physically in and out of that same office in addition to Oswald. 

The FBI deflected attention from, did not investigate, and, in the way it responded, buried the significant fact in Kittrell’s information of a claimed significantly-below-average Oct 1963 GATB test result of Oswald in motor coordination and the question of its possible bearing on Oswald’s self-confessed deficiency in shooting ability (FBI, 8/17/65, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60400#relPageId=194).

How might the public perception of the investigation of the JFK assassination have been affected if this story had become known to the press and reported at the time?”

Where is Larry?

Just wanted to let those interested know that with The Oswald Puzzle shipping this month I’m scheduled on about a dozen different podcasts and internet shows, so posting here will resume towards the end of the month.

David and I have been on Jeff Crudele’s Enduring Secrets podcast which has been published on the internet already and we will be talking with Rob Clark and Joe Borelli on The Lone Gunman show at the end of next week – the book should be actually shipping by then. We are in the process of scheduling shows with Brent Holland and Chuck Ochelli, but beyond those JFK community shows the rest are out there in the broader world of internet podcasting.

In respect for that variety I’m going to pass on posting individual links to shows, certainly you can find our appearances in a search and more are likely to be scheduled. When the book gets into general circulation my thought is to post some of the key issues it explores on this blog and offer that as a way to discuss them with the book’s readers.

For this month though, given that each show is normally one to two hours, just keeping that schedule is more than enough for me.

The Motivation (and Manipulation) of Lee Harvey Oswald

Actually that title is taken directly from an interview that David Boylan and I did today with Doug Campbell on his podcast The Dallas Action – an interview of some 2 hours length.

The Oswald Puzzle started arriving with our reviewers about a week ago so Doug had a chance to give it a pretty deep read and come up with a set of topics and questions covering the whole work, with a special focus on Oswald’s character and personality as well as with what was happening with he and Marina in 1963, and where things had gotten with Oswald’s personal agenda by the time he spent in New Orleans that summer.

One of the things that was especially important to us was the chance to spend a considerable time talking about the world from Oswald’s viewpoint, from his several years of speaking and writing about his own beliefs – not from what others chose to ‘overlay’ on him following the assassination of President Kennedy. That allows a baseline to develop in terms of the continuity of those views and of his behavior, something critical to any discussion Oswald at the time of the assassination.

You will find the show with Doug at this link, its our first chance to go deep with someone who has read the new book and I hope you find if of interest https://www.spreaker.com/episode/214-december-27-2024-the-motivation-and-manipulation-of-lee-harvey-oswald-with-authors-larry-hancock-david-boylan–63490603

Drones Drones Drones

Well given my UFO/UAP studies I’m getting questions about the Drone Wave of 2024 – which actually just the culmination of a series of drone events which started a few years ago with a massive drone swarm harassing a Navy task group off San Diego. That is much more concerning due to its total military focus and our total inability to deal with them then, or now.

In any event, my scattered thoughts on what is going on drone wise are in a lengthy interview with Brent Holland that I just did over the weekend so if you are interested here they are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql4AX_qjGw0&list=PLJlo7KgTNLomfxc3YL0sFAEImawMmN6zi&index=1&t=732s

Garrison Investigation Concerns – LBJ, DOJ, and CIA

Over the decades we have come to learn – and much has been written – about the CIA’s engagement with DA Garrison’s investigation of President Kennedy’s murder. Generally that writing has focused on the CIA, its Garrison Working Group (formed in September 1967) and the fact that Garrison’s ultimate target in his prosecution was Clay Shaw (who in the 1950s had been a source for the CIA, collecting information domestically and in international travel for the Trade Mart in New Orleans).

There has been much less attention to the full chronology and backstory to the CIA’s involvement. A story which began with the very early involvement of LBJ and the Justice Department. The backstory actually began in December, 1966 well before the first February, 1967 newspaper reports of Garrison’s effort. It began with an effort by Johnny Roselli to promote the story of a Cuban assassination team killing the president.

This backstory is examined in detail in Chapter 9 of Someone Would Have Talked (paperback edition, 2010) but, in brief, it all began well before the first media coverage of Garrison’s investigation. And it began with a sensational outreach by John Roselli, a participant in the CIA’s efforts to kill Fidel Castro, efforts which began in 1960 and extended into 1963.

Roselli funneled his conspiracy revelations though a former FBI agent, previously cleared by the CIA for operational activities, who had become a powerful DC lawyer, with excellent media contacts. Those contacts took the story to columnists Jack Anderson and his associate Drew Person. Pearson began developing his own story on a Castro plot but, as a close friend of Johnson, related Roselli’s information to the President on January 16, 1967.

The story was in circulation at high levels in D.C. when, on Monday, February 20th, Attorney General Clark called President Johnson, advising Johnson of the Garrison investigation and that alarming fact that Hale Boggs had related to Clark that Garrison was telling people Johnson had known about the assassination and a conspiracy. During that call the two men also discussed Roselli’s information about a Cuban plot.

Clark (and the DOJ) began following the both the Roselli story and the Garrison investigation, information Johnson on March 2, with Clark relating to the President that a radio station had a team inside Cuba following Roselli’s leads which linked Oswald to a team of Cuban exiles captured by Castro and turned on President Kennedy. By March the FBI was also reporting to Johnson on the CIA’s activities in organizing a plot using gangsters to assassination Fidel Castro – providing the motive for Roselli’s ‘blow back’ story. That led to a series of efforts by Johnson to pressure the CIA for information on that project – and serious push back from the CIA in providing any details.

By summer 1967, the Attorney General, the FBI an the CIA had all become focused on DA Garrison’s investigations, the President’s concerns about it and the fact that Garrison was opening the door to a great many things that nobody wanted public – including what Anderson had written about in March of that year as a ‘political H Bomb’ related to American assassination plots against a foreign nation’s leader.

By September, 1967, when the CIA convened its first Garrison Group meeting, not only had one of its own contacts (Clay Shaw) been charged by Garrison, but Shaw’s own lawyers had contacted the DOJ for assistance, requesting direct contact with the CIA.

Shaw’s lawyers had themselves provided a list of individuals they felt would be named in the trial – a list sufficient to provoke remarks during the meeting about how many individuals connected to the CIA in one fashion or the other were in play. The CIA’s Director of counter intelligence even stated his opinion that Garrison might be able to obtain a conviction in the New Orleans case, something that would have had extreme consequences for the Warren Commission’s (and Johnson’s credibility).

The rest of the meeting’s discussion, continued in successive meetings and actions to block access to individuals and information by Garrison’s investigation. There was also a stated concern that while the Agency had documented its own contacts with Cuban’s it had limited information on what might have been going on inside the Cuban exile groups.

Much has been made of the statement during the first CIA group meeting about a potential conviction of Shaw for conspiracy, with the assumption that it reveals the CIA had full knowledge of an actual conspiracy Shaw’s involvement. A counter argument might be made that the concern was coming from Shaw’s on attorney’s as part of their effort to pressure DOJ and the CIA for support. Certainly it would be strange for such an actual statement confirming CIA knowledge of conspiracy to show up in a document later approved for release by the Agency.

If you are interested in further discussion of all this, you might want to listen to the following radio interview: https://aarclibrary.org/larry-hancock-a- political-h-bomb/