Fact Checking Morley's Fact Check

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/fact-checking-morley-s-fact-check

Fact Checking Morley's Fact Check

Last week Jefferson Morley responded to Michael Isikoff's and Gus Russo's article in SpyTalk. Here is my response to Morley. No matter how you slice it, there is nothing in the George Joannides' personnel file to sustain his allegation that there was an Oswald operation.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Morley simply won't - or can't - believe that these anti-Castro Cubans could act on their own, that they would respond to Oswald independently, without guidance. He sees the guiding hand of the CIA all around this matter. This is the JFK conspiracy Left; now with MAGA helping them. But he also admits, in a sotto voce sort of voice, that the DRE were notoriously independent, hard to control. The CIA/DRE relationship seemed to be particularly difficult. But he doesn't see any independence here even though Bringuier himself says he acted on his own.

Questions: Wouldn't the other DRE members who were supposedly directed by GJ inform Bringuier of this? Explain why they were doing what they were? Tell him about GJ? And if they informed GJ after the assassination about what they did with Oswald wouldn't that mean he didn't direct them before? Why the need to tell him? He already knows it since he ordered it.

It seems to me that the more interesting person that could possibly point to some external direction would be Stuckey. He said after interviewing Oswald that he transcribed it and gave it and the tape to the FBI. That's an odd reaction for a journalist. He also said an unnamed source told him about Oswald's defection. I would guess that source was Butler. Instead of focusing on the DRE I think Stuckey/Butler and the FBI would be more likely if there was direction.

Interesting (to me) fact about the DRE: I just read recently that it was the DRE members who were still in Cuba that were among the first there to inform  the CIA about the Soviet missiles. The CIA agent Roger Crozier, who preceded Joannides as control agent, reportedly was frustrated that his reports about the missiles would go to Washington and disappear. The CIA simply didn't trust the DRE reports. So it seems that the CIA/DRE mistrust has a history.

[Jon Banks]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/fact-checking-morley-s-fact-check

Fact Checking Morley's Fact Check

Last week Jefferson Morley responded to Michael Isikoff's and Gus Russo's article in SpyTalk. Here is my response to Morley. No matter how you slice it, there is nothing in the George Joannides' personnel file to sustain his allegation that there was an Oswald operation.

It would be helpful if you can cite where Morley actually referred to the DRE/Joannides stuff as "an Oswald operation". Otherwise, I stand by my view that you're using deceptive and bad faith debate tactics.

From my POV, Morley's thesis is:

- The CIA lied about how much they knew about Oswald pre-11-22-63 and obstructed investigations into that question.

- Joannides and the DRE played a role in portraying Oswald in the news media post-11-22-63 as a pro-Castro extremist.

Both of Morley's arguments have been confirmed to be true. What am I missing?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Questions: Wouldn't the other DRE members who were supposedly directed by GJ inform Bringuier of this? Explain why they were doing what they were? Tell him about GJ? And if they informed GJ after the assassination about what they did with Oswald wouldn't that mean he didn't direct them before? Why the need to tell him? He already knows it since he ordered it.

All of your points here are excellent Steve. But what I quoted may be the key. Why the need to tell GJ the complete story about LHO and Bringuier if GJ was directing the whole thing? But that is just what Lanuza said happened. This point alone really defeats Morley's entire CT.

[Fred Litwin]

A very good point!

[Michael Capasse]

It would be helpful if you can cite where Morley actually referred to the DRE/Joannides stuff as "an Oswald operation". Otherwise, I stand by my view that you're using deceptive and bad faith debate tactics.

From my POV, Morley's thesis is:

- The CIA lied about how much they knew about Oswald pre-11-22-63 and obstructed investigations into that question.

- Joannides and the DRE played a role in portraying Oswald in the news media post-11-22-63 as a pro-Castro extremist.

Both of Morley's arguments have been confirmed to be true. What am I missing?

  Excellent point that calls out Litwin's deception in a single post.

[Fred Litwin]

None of that is true:

The CIA did not lie about what they knew about Oswald before November 22, 1963. But tell me the lies.

Joannides played NO role in how Oswald was portrayed in the media. The DRE went to the media before Joannides gave the approval.

[Jon Banks]

None of that is true:

The CIA did not lie about what they knew about Oswald before November 22, 1963. But tell me the lies.

Not only did the CIA lie to Congress about their interest in Oswald pre-assassination, their placement of Joannides on the HSCA as a liaison who filtered which files went to the committee should be viewed as obstruction.

Joannides played NO role in how Oswald was portrayed in the media. The DRE went to the media before Joannides gave the approval.

According to Jose Lanuza, Joannides advised the DRE to send their files on Oswald to the FBI and the Press:

"...when the news hit that Oswald had been arrested three months later, Lanuza and Rocha called Howard. Lanuza said Howard told them to call the FBI and provide the letter, and then alert the media to Oswald’s pro-Cuba leanings. The FBI came and took Oswald’s letter with a promise to return it, Lanuza said, but never did.

Lanuza then phoned his contacts in the news media, who promptly added Oswald’s political leanings to their coverage. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee soon imploded from its association with Oswald, a massive victory for the CIA — and for Howard."

Link - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/


Jose Lanuza is still alive and speaking to the Press. Maybe you should interview him...