JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Oswald's Office of Security file

<< < (2/3) > >>

Denis Pointing:

--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on June 01, 2018, 09:56:22 PM --- Thanks for those Jerry I had seen a Google groups post that went into some statements about Angleton's ability to influence or blackmail  members of the U.S government via his control of extensive wiretapping and spying apparatuses under his control I can't seem to find anything on this on subsequent Google searches

Actually I?m not assuming anything. The CIA did know more about Oswald, as Jane Roman, one of the CIA?s officers who wrote the cable, told me in an interview. Roman acknowledged that the October 10 cable did not summarize what was in CIA files on Oswald at that time.

Roman, a career counterintelligence officer, was commenting candidly on the CIA?s own records. A CIA routing slip, declassified in 1993, showed that on October 4, 1963, just six days before the cable was written, she had received an FBI report about Oswald?s arrest in New Orleans in August 1963 for fighting with members of the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE), a CIA-funded anti-Castro organization. In the interview, Roman acknowledged reading the FBI report.

That meant that ?the latest headquarter infor? on Oswald wasn?t 17 months old, as the cable stated. It was less than a week old.

When this discrepancy was pointed out, Roman said, ?Yeh, I?m signing off on something that isn?t true.?

(I reported Roman?s comments in the Washington Post in 1995. Read the article here. The tape of the interview is part of the JFK Collection at the National Archives. Anyone who wants to check my reporting is free to do so.)

--- End quote ---

Am I misunderstanding you or are you seriously claiming to have interviewed Jane Roman?

Matt Grantham:

--- Quote from: Denis Pointing on June 09, 2018, 02:33:01 PM ---Am I misunderstanding you or are you seriously claiming to have interviewed Jane Roman?

--- End quote ---

 No Not me It is a weird post on my part though I mentioned it is from a google groups post, but will go back and make it clearer I was quoting from that post My bad  Here is an interview with Jane Roman which I could swear I could not find  that day


https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/JaneRomanTranscript.htm

Denis Pointing:

--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on June 09, 2018, 03:31:49 PM --- No Not me It is a weird post on my part though I mentioned it is from a google groups post, but will go back and make it clearer I was quoting from that post My bad  Here is an interview with Jane Roman which I could swear I could not find  that day


https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/JaneRomanTranscript.htm

--- End quote ---

OK Matt, thanks for clearing that up. My mistake. Apologies.
You may find the following (written by Jane Roman) of interest: 

--Quote-
At the interview which was tape recorded by both men, the Outlook editor
spoke hardly a word. The interview ws done by Mr. Newman who is writing a
book on "Oswald and The CIA". His approach can best be described as
belligerant and confrontational. I later told the editor that it appeared to
me that he had set up this interview in order that Mr. Newman could ask his
questions of me. The whole situation appeared to me to be making a monstrous
mountain out of a mole hill... [illegible] of an Oct 8, 1963 cable from our
Mexico Station [regarding the?] visit of a man and using his nameas Lee
Oswald to the Soviet Embassy and presumably requesting HQ traces. HQ replied
by sending background info funished and reports haad been received in early
October and had been initialled by me routinely.

In reply to Mr Newman's questions as to why this FBI info had been withheld
my statements have been seriously contorted, taken out of context, or at
best, misinterpreted. I asked for a copy of the statements made by me which
were to be used in the article prior to publication which understanding was
agreed upon. This was never done.

For the record: I have never heqrd or read that there was any CIA
relationship, direct or indirect, with Oswald. The Warren Commission, a body
of distinguished, honorable and knowledgeable men, reached this conclusion,
as did the three other government commissions or committees [Church,
Rockefeller, HSCA] set up in later years. The CIA contributed whole heartedly
in all these investigations.

I do not recall saying that the withholding of FBI information from CIA
Mexico Station was deliberate, nor do I believe it. My explanation would be
that the two FBI reports of Oct 1963, mentioned in the Outlook article as
ititialed by me, went through extensive routing and would not have reached
Oswald's dossier [201 file] in Central Registry and been available to the
desk officer [Charlotte Bustos] who prepared and drafted the reply to the
Mexican Station cable. I had nothing to do with the preparation or drafting,
I signed off on it as a matter of routine coordination and review. The FBI
reports in any case would not have added anything of significant value to the
situation in Mexico City and the cable was a summary of pertinent facts.
There was no particular reason for withholding [the two FBI cables] that I
can imagine.

The Outlook Article says: that one CIA explanation of the FBI reports not
being included states that the station request focussed only on the status of
Oswald's citizenship and therefore draws only from State Dept information. I
never saw the incoming cable from Mexico Station, so I was in no position to
verify it. Frankly I don't recall having been informed of this explanation in
this form. The quotation of my saying "This may or may not be true--" was
either taken out of context or contorted. I certainly would not have impugned
the veracity of another CIA official.

Naturally Oswald ws the subject of great interest to both the CIA and the FBI
even before the assassination. CIA would have exploited every available asset
abroad to extablish his motives and activities. Some of this [illegible] may
have been operationally sensitive and therefore held closely on a need-to-know
basis. I have absolutely no personal knowledge of this. The fact as publically
kown now, that Oswald was a big headache to the Soviets who finally placed him
as a metal worker in Minsk and were happy to return him to the States complete
with Siviet wife, a most unusual occurrance, as some Americans know to their
sorrow, speaks for itself. I my opinion he was a complete sociopath if not in
fact a psychopath.

The subheadline on the Outlook article, "Six Weeks Before JFK's Murder, The
CIA Didn't Tell All That It Knew," is sensationally misleading. The
information in the cable from Mexico Station was disseminated to State, the
FBI, INS and Navy (Oswald was an ex-Marine) and to their representatives in
Mexico City.

I apologize to all my former CIA colleagues and those preently concerned for
my much regretted involvement in this most flagrantly ridiculous incorrect
article.

-End Quote -

Steve M. Galbraith:

--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on June 01, 2018, 09:56:22 PM --- Thanks for those Jerry I had seen a Google groups post that went into some statements about Angleton's ability to influence or blackmail  members of the U.S government via his control of extensive wiretapping and spying apparatuses under his control I can't seem to find anything on this on subsequent Google searches

Actually I?m not assuming anything. The CIA did know more about Oswald, as Jane Roman, one of the CIA?s officers who wrote the cable, told me in an interview. Roman acknowledged that the October 10 cable did not summarize what was in CIA files on Oswald at that time.

Roman, a career counterintelligence officer, was commenting candidly on the CIA?s own records. A CIA routing slip, declassified in 1993, showed that on October 4, 1963, just six days before the cable was written, she had received an FBI report about Oswald?s arrest in New Orleans in August 1963 for fighting with members of the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE), a CIA-funded anti-Castro organization. In the interview, Roman acknowledged reading the FBI report.

That meant that ?the latest headquarter infor? on Oswald wasn?t 17 months old, as the cable stated. It was less than a week old.

When this discrepancy was pointed out, Roman said, ?Yeh, I?m signing off on something that isn?t true.?

(I reported Roman?s comments in the Washington Post in 1995. Read the article here. The tape of the interview is part of the JFK Collection at the National Archives. Anyone who wants to check my reporting is free to do so.)

--- End quote ---

Did you interview Jane Roman? Or are you Jefferson Morley, who did interview Roman for the Post, using an alias?

Or did you copy and paste something written by Mr. Morley and leave those comments in by mistake?

Or what? I'm confused.

Denis Pointing:

--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on June 10, 2018, 12:19:44 AM ---Did you interview Jane Roman? Or are you Jefferson Morley, who did interview Roman for the Post, using an alias?

Or did you copy and paste something written by Mr. Morley and leave those comments in by mistake?

Or what? I'm confused.

--- End quote ---

Hi Steve, read the previous 3 post's.  Thumb1:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page