AI, CIA and "Contract Source"

[Tom Graves]

TG--

Since I have not pawed through the 64 boxes of HSCA materials reviewed by the CIA historian and his staff (boxes which include an unknown number of reels of microfilm), I don't pretend to know the full reason the historian, in 1992, so prominently and unambiguously presented Shaw as a "highly paid contract source" of the CIA, until 1956.

I doubt the CIA historian made an error on such a high-profile topic.

No one else seems to have manually reviewed the 64 boxes of files either.

Fred Litwin claims to have seen the materials online somehow, but of course, there is no guarantee all the documents were copied and placed online, let alone the reels of microfilm.

I gather Litwin has done some word-searches online, hunting for the "Shaw," perhaps in combination with other words, and drew his conclusions from that. I have done similar word searches, and the results can be iffy.

It is curious that the CIA, or the CIA historian's office, has never issued a correction to their definition of Shaw.

A rather important clue, no?

Perhaps Fred Litwin can explain why the CIA has left the lie outstanding for more than 30 years.

If the CIA, or historian's office, issues a correction or clarification on the Shaw matter, I would easily and certainly accept that.

No biggie to me. Someone in the CIA was very interested in LHO---we know that from DeMohrenschildt and J. Walter Moore, and the unusual routing of mail/documents inside the CIA.

What would be interesting is if it was Bruce Solie who put Shaw onto LHO.

At bottom, I suspect the New Orleans stuff had little to do with the JFKA.

LHO took a potshot at General Walker in April 1963, and likely had accomplices. In Dallas!

LHO's Walker hunt accomplices---not New Orleans figures---strike me as LHO's likely companions on 11/22.

Caveat emptor, and draw your won conclusions.

High profile?

The Clay Shaw trial had concluded 23 years earlier.

But then again, maybe J. Kenneth had read a report on Shaw that Bruce Solie had written for Jim Garrison, and/or seen Oliver Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie, "JFK," and, gotten, like so many other gullible Americans, zombified by it.

George DeMohrenschildt, the guy whom in the early 1970s CIA counterintelligence analyst Clare Edward Petty determined, by reading some WW II VENONA decrypts, was very probably a long-term NKVD/KGB "illegal"?

That George Demohrenschildt?

[Fred Litwin]

Benjamin: I guess the CIA has better things to do.

Yes, the segregated collection is online and you can search for yourself.

No one has ever found substantiation in any underlying document. And no one has come up with a CIA document that uses the term "contract source."

As I  said in my blog post, Paul Hoch found another error in that document, and the CIA has not commented on that either.

fred

[Michael Capasse]

WC Executive Session | Jan. 27, 1964

Rep. Boggs. So I will ask you. Did you have agents about whom you had no record whatsoever?

Mr. Dulles. The record might not be on paper. But on paper would have hieroglyphics that only two
people knew what they meant, and nobody outside the agency else could say it meant another agent.

Rep. Boggs. Let's take a specific case, that fellow Powers was one of your men.
Mr. Dulles. Oh, yes, he was not an agent. He was an employee.

Rep. Boggs. There was no problem in proving he was employed by the CIA.
Mr. Dulles. No. We had a signed contract.

Rep. Boggs. Let's say Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA.
The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?

Mr. Dulles. Yes, but he wouldn't tell.

The Chairman. Wouldn't tell it under oath?
Mr. Dulles. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

The Chairman. Why?
Mr. Dulles. He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but he wouldn't tell it any other way.

Mr. McCloy. Wouldn't tell it to his own chief?
Mr. Dulles. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't.

[Tom Graves]

WC Executive Session | Jan. 27, 1964

Rep. Boggs. So I will ask you. Did you have agents about whom you had no record whatsoever?

Mr. Dulles. The record might not be on paper. But on paper would have hieroglyphics that only two
people knew what they meant, and nobody outside the agency else could say it meant another agent.

Rep. Boggs. Let's take a specific case, that fellow Powers was one of your men.
Mr. Dulles. Oh, yes, he was not an agent. He was an employee.

Rep. Boggs. There was no problem in proving he was employed by the CIA.
Mr. Dulles. No. We had a signed contract.

Rep. Boggs. Let's say Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA.
The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?

Mr. Dulles. Yes, but he wouldn't tell.

The Chairman. Wouldn't tell it under oath?
Mr. Dulles. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

The Chairman. Why?
Mr. Dulles. He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but he wouldn't tell it any other way.

Mr. McCloy. Wouldn't tell it to his own chief?
Mr. Dulles. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't.

Wowie zowie!

That proves it!

Clay Shaw was a "highly paid" CIA "contract source"!


Whatever that is.

[Benjamin Cole]

FL--

You seem to be a leading proponent of the theory that the CIA historian inaccurately defined Clay Shaw's role with the CIA in 1992, and then never issued a clarification or retraction of an obvious error. 

https://www.cia.gov/contact-cia/

The above is a connecting link to the CIA Public Affairs/Media Relation guys.

Go ahead and ask them if the CIA historian made a basic blunder.

If they say so, I will buy it.

You have done a word search on some online documents. That is not the same as reviewing the actual physical papers and items the CIA historian's well-staffed office did, including microfilmed documents, and other ephemera.

Good luck with the CIA public affairs staff.

[Tom Graves]

FL--

You seem to be a leading proponent of the theory that the CIA historian inaccurately defined Clay Shaw's role with the CIA in 1992, and then never issued a clarification or retraction of an obvious error. 

https://www.cia.gov/contact-cia/

The above is a connecting link to the CIA Public Affairs/Media Relation guys.

Go ahead and ask them if the CIA historian made a basic blunder.

If they say so, I will buy it.

You have done a word search on some online documents. That is not the same as reviewing the actual physical papers and items the CIA historian's well-staffed office did, including microfilmed documents, and other ephemera.

Good luck with the CIA public affairs staff.

Dear "BC,"

Maybe he was too embarrassed to admit it.

Or maybe Bruce Solie got to him.

Did he ever apologize for the huge mistake he or one of his assistants made in the same 1992 report regarding Gilberto Alvarado, Elena Garro de Paz and Lee Harvey Oswald?

No?

WHY NOT?


-- "TG"

[Benjamin Cole]

There is a possibility DeMohrenschildt was an Iron Curtain asset, or double agent.

All the more reason for Solie to have Moore contact DeM. and have him surveil LHO?