JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on July 15, 2025, 12:15:40 PM
-
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-unbearable-lightness-of-being (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-unbearable-lightness-of-being)
Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being
Now that the entire personnel file of George Joannides has been released, Jefferson Morley has now published his unified theory of nothingness.
There is nothing there. The only thing we have found out in over twenty years is that Joannides used the alias of Howard Gebler.
-
From the Solving JFK Podcast on Twitter/X:
Top 10 revelations from todays WaPo story on George Joannides:
1) Domestic spying was illegal in 1963. CIA did it anyway.
2) CIA lied to Warren Commission and HSCA about the existence of Howard Gebler.
3) CIA lied to ARRB about the existence of Howard, saying in a memo that there were no records for Howard Gebler.
4) The Joannides/Howard Gebler file WAS NOT part of the JFK records collection, which means CIA never turned it over to ARRB in the first place.
5) CIA gave Joannides a medal for excellent career service and expressly noted his time overseeing DRE and as HSCA liaison. (No, it’s not the whole point of the medal. But, yes, it is noted.)
6) Big one: Joannides’ progress reports for 17 months when he was at JM Wave working with DRE are missing! This would have valuable operational info. To @FredLitwin’s point, we cannot say Oswald’s name is not in the file if we don’t have all the records!
7) Howard Gebler (Joannides) primarily dealt with Luis Fernandez Rocha, the head of DRE.
8) 35 CIA employees handled records related to Oswald from 1959-1963, including 6 who worked for Angleton and Helms.
9) Rocha sent a tape of Oswald’s radio debate with Carlos Bringuier to Howard Gebler!
10) After 11/22/63, Howard told DRE to call news media contacts to tell them about Oswald’s ties to FPCC.
https://x.com/SolvingJfk/status/1944797398150033505
Whole lotta "nothing" :D
-
As Fred points out above, the key figure here, the absolutely essential person (after Oswald himself) around this controversy without which none of this happens, is Carlos Bringuier. It was Bringuier who had the fight with Oswald, it was Bringuier who wrote the public letter warning about the danger Oswald posed, it was Bringuier who was critical in helping set up the radio debate and TV appearance with Oswald, e.g., informed Stuckey about Oswald, et cetera. Without Bringuier's actions there is *no* incident. It all goes away.
So what does Bringuier, who is still alive, say? Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own, he had no guidance from anyone, and in fact he never met Joannides. Never met him. Period. So where is the guiding hand of Joannides in this matter? There isn't evidence of one. How can this all happen with it all being directed by Joannides but without Bringuier as part of it? It can't.
How does Morley respond to this? By essentially ignoring it, mentioning it, at best, as a afterthought when it's actually essential for his theory to work. It's the conspiracy mindset, a world where people have no agency, don't act on his or her own but are guided by outside forces.
-
As Fred points out above, the key figure here, the absolutely essential person (after Oswald himself) around this controversy without which none of this happens, is Carlos Bringuier. It was Bringuier who had the fight with Oswald, it was Bringuier who wrote the public letter warning about the danger Oswald posed, it was Bringuier who essentially sent up the radio debate and TV appearance with Oswald. Without Bringuier's actions there is *no* incident. It all goes away.
So what does Bringuier, who is still alive, say? Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own, he had no guidance from anyone, and in fact he never met Joannides. Never met him. Period. So where is the guiding hand of Joannides in this matter? There isn't evidence of one. How can this all happen with it all being directed by Joannides but without Bringuier as part of it? It can't.
How does Morley respond to this? By essentially ignoring it. It's the conspiracy mindset, a world where people have no agency, don't act on his or her own but are guided by outside forces.
There are only two possibilities:
A - Bringuier could be 100% honest and credible and still manipulated as part of CIA psychological operations/propaganda ops. We now know as a historical fact that the DRE was being run by the CIA out of Miami in 1963. We also know that Joannides had a residence in New Orleans and likely was aware of Oswald.
B - Bringuier could be lying to protect himself and his CIA handlers. When it comes to the CIA or the Mob, it's better to lie under oath than to tell the truth. Things usually don't end well for intelligence whistleblowers and snitches.
The bottom-line is:
- The CIA lied and obstructed investigations into how much they knew about LHO prior to 11/22/63.
- They specifically went out of their way to cover up Joannides covert activities in 1963.
The remaining question is: "Why?"
Is there an innocent explanation for the CIA's conduct on this matter?
-
The CIA gave the Joannaides' personnel file to the ARRB and the ARRB knew that Joannides was the case officer for the DRE and had worked with the HSCA. They released about 12 pages and said the rest was irrelevant. They were right.
There is really nothing here at all. No Oswald Operation. No nothing.
-
Where's the evidence that Joannides directed or instructed any of his supposed "DRE agents" in this matter? I.e., Oswald in NO and the DRE contact? Who did he order? What did he tell them?
As I argued above, Bringuier would have to be a if not the key "agent" in any Oswald Operation. Without him there's no "operation." Not the one that supposedly took place with Joannides directing people to target Oswald. And he says he acted on his own and had no guidance.
So again, what does Morley say Joannides did here? His reasoning appears to be: "Joannides ran the DRE [but according to the evidence: not really, the DRE were uncontrollable], the CIA lied or covered up about him, he worked as a go-between on the HSCA and CIA and presto, there must be an Oswald Operation behind this all." It can't be incompetence, disarray, confusion, people with their own agency acting on their own; no there must a guiding hand behind it all. For the conspiracy Left it's the CIA. Again, this is textbook conspiracy thinking. Yes, sometimes it's correct but sometimes it's not.
-
Where's the evidence that Joannides directed or instructed any of his supposed "DRE agents" in this matter? I.e., Oswald in NO and the DRE contact? Who did he order? What did he tell them?
As I argued above, Bringuier would have to be a key "agent" in any Oswald Operation. Without him there's no "operation." Not the one that supposedly took place. And he says he acted on his own and had no guidance.
So again, what did Joannides do here? Morley's reasoning appears to be: "Joannides ran the DRE [but according to the evidence: not really, the DRE were uncontrollable], the CIA lied or covered up about him, he worked as a go-between on the HSCA and CIA and presto, there must be an Oswald Operation behind this all." It can't be incompetence, disarray, confusion, people with their own agency acting on their own; no there must a guiding hand behind it all. Again, this is textbook conspiracy thinking. Yes, sometimes it's correct but sometimes it's not.
Your faith in the integrity of CIA agents is something that I don't have.
I simply don't accept Bringuier's word as proof that Joannides wasn't involved.
The burden is on you and Fred to explain why the CIA went out of their way to lie and obstruct investigations into the matter.
-
Your faith in the integrity of CIA agents is something that I don't have.
I simply don't accept Bringuier's word as proof that Joannides wasn't involved.
The burden is on you and Fred to explain why the CIA went out of their way to lie and obstruct investigations into the matter.
Well, you reject the evidence and here we are. How do we disprove this? What would you accept? What did the other DRE people in New Orleans say? It's not just Bringuier. But if they say Joannides gave them no orders then you'd reject that too. You not only have the CIA behind it, you have private individuals involved.
The burden is on the people making a claim, Jon. Whether the claim is Oswald alone shot JFK or there was a conspiracy. It's up to the people making the argument to support it not others to disprove it.
-
The CIA gave the Joannaides' personnel file to the ARRB and the ARRB knew that Joannides was the case officer for the DRE and had worked with the HSCA. They released about 12 pages and said the rest was irrelevant. They were right.
There is really nothing here at all. No Oswald Operation. No nothing.
The CIA's rep for the ARRB admits that he was wrong about Joannides by the way. I can accept that he was misled by others.
From the Washington Post's article about the new docs:
Congress in 1994 created the Assassinations Records Review Board, which again tried to recover key documents from federal agencies, and again probed the CIA. The CIA responded with its memo about “Howard,” saying he didn’t exist.
“My memo was incorrect,” said J. Barry Harrelson, a former CIA official who wrote the memo. “But this wasn’t deliberate.” He said he wasn’t provided Joannides’s personnel file, but that it was provided to the review board. Morley said the review board received the file, but seeing no references to Oswald, didn’t realize its relevance. Harrelson said the release of the D.C. driver’s license notes was “the first time I’d seen it.”
----
Harrelson’s memo also noted that progress reports on Joannides’s Miami operation were missing for the 17 months he was there, which Morley said was another indicator that the anti-Castro program was secret even within the CIA.
The search for Howard began in the 1990s when Morley interviewed members of the Cuban group DRE, short for Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or Student Revolutionary Directorate. Among them was Jose Antonio Lanuza, now 86, who told The Post that “Howard” dealt only with the DRE’s leader, Luis Fernandez Rocha, and Rocha would pass on direction from “Howard.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
^The last sentence is for Steve :)
-
I simply don't accept Bringuier's word as proof that Joannides wasn't involved.
The burden is on you to prove that he was.
-
The burden is on you to prove that he was.
See the newly declassified documents. The CIA has confirmed that Joannides was the handler for the DRE.
It has been all over the mainstream news media. Where have you been?
-
See the newly declassified documents. The CIA has confirmed that Joannides was the handler for the DRE.
It has been all over the mainstream news media. Where have you been?
Sorry, but that just won't do. You're asking me to substantiate your claim.
As Steve Galbraith has pointed out, Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own and that he had no guidance from anyone. He says that he never met Joannides. So, where in the documents that you refer to does it say that Joannides had a guiding hand in the operation of DRE in New Orleans?
-
Sorry, but that just won't do. You're asking me to substantiate your claim.
As Steve Galbraith has pointed out, Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own and that he had no guidance from anyone. He says that he never met Joannides. So, where in the documents that you refer to does it say that Joannides had a guiding hand in the operation of DRE in New Orleans?
From the Washington Post:
“Howard” dealt only with the DRE’s leader, Luis Fernandez Rocha, and Rocha would pass on direction from “Howard.”
Joannides was "Howard"
It doesn't matter if Bringuier never met the DRE's CIA handler because Bringuier was not the person who called the shots in the organization. Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides.
-
From the Washington Post:
“Howard” dealt only with the DRE’s leader, Luis Fernandez Rocha, and Rocha would pass on direction from “Howard.”
Joannides was "Howard"
It doesn't matter if Bringuier never met the DRE's CIA handler because Bringuier was not the person who called the shots in the organization. Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides.
Where does the Washington Post get that Rocha would pass on direction from "Howard"?
Where do you get that Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides?
-
Where does the Washington Post get that Rocha would pass on direction from "Howard"?
Where do you get that Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides?
In the summer of 63' Carlos Bringuier notified the group's leaders in Miami about his confrontations with LHO. Rocha, the DRE's leader, reported to Howard/Joannides.
In the immediate aftermath of 11/22/63, Howard/Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the Press with details about Oswald's pro-Castro activism in New Orleans:
Lanuza, who was based in Miami at the time, said he gathered all the evidence he had about Oswald that Bringuier had forwarded to him (a Navy manual Oswald handed as proof of his credentials, the radio show recording and a handwritten letter by Oswald offering his services, which is now lost) to make the case to Luis Fernandez Rocha, the Directorate top secretary, that Oswald was an agent for Castro. Rocha, who is now deceased, contacted the organization’s CIA handler, a man named “Howard” whom researchers later identified as Joannides.
The CIA agent had one instruction: “Don’t give the press anything; wait an hour.”
“I did not wait for the hour. At exactly 50 minutes, I was sitting with two phones calling journalists,” Lanuza recalled.
“I left them a message saying: President John Kennedy was assassinated by a pro-Castro agent in the United States, a member of Fair Play for Cuba.
And I spent more than two hours on the phone.”
Other members of the Directorate repeated that message publicly at the time.
Morley has also advanced a version of this theory, but he told reporters last week that he believes Joannides may have used Oswald to undermine the work of Fair Play for Cuba. But whatever the nature of the CIA’s “operational interest in Oswald,” Morley said Thursday, “we don’t know. That’s why we need the documents.”
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article270075417.html#storylink=cpy
-
In the summer of 63' Carlos Bringuier notified the group's leaders in Miami about his confrontations with LHO. Rocha, the DRE's leader, reported to Howard/Joannides.
In the immediate aftermath of 11/22/63, Howard/Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the Press with details about Oswald's pro-Castro activism in New Orleans:
Your claim that Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the press is lacking any real support. Where does the claim about Rocha receiving instruction from Joannides come from? Lanuza? Doubtful. The writer of the piece seemed to be adding his own spin on things. He has Joannides as being DRE's CIA handler and giving the instruction to Roche.
-
Your claim that Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the press is lacking any real support.
Where does the claim about Rocha receiving instruction from Joannides come from? Lanuza? Doubtful. The writer of the piece seemed to be adding his own spin on things. He has Joannides as being DRE's CIA handler and giving the instruction to Roche.
From the Washington Post:
...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.
Morley and other researchers always suspected Howard was Joannides, who died in 1990, but it wasn’t confirmed until the driver’s license documents were released July 3.
“Why couldn’t they say that [before 2025]?” Morley asked. “I think the only reason is there’s something nefarious going on. If it’s something innocent, just say this is what happened.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
Lanuza, the press officer for the DRE at the time, is the source of the claim that "Howard" approved of their going to the Press with information about their run-ins with Oswald in New Orleans. He has been telling that story for years.
The newly declassified files on Joannides confirm that "Howard Gebler" was his alias.
During the ARRB, the CIA denied that "Howard" existed. We now know that "Howard" did in fact exist and he was Joannides.
This stuff isn't as complicated as you're making it seem.
-
From the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
Lanuza, the press officer for the DRE at the time, is the source of the claim that "Howard" approved of their going to the Press with information about their run-ins with Oswald in New Orleans. He has been telling that story for years.
The newly declassified files on Joannides confirm that "Howard Gebler" was his alias.
During the ARRB, the CIA denied that "Howard" existed. We now know that "Howard" did in fact exist and he was Joannides.
This stuff isn't as complicated as you're making it seem.
The problem that I'm having is with the assertion that Roche and Lanuza needed the approval of Howard (Joannides) before going to the Press with information about DREs run-ins with Oswald in New Orleans. I can't access the Post article. What is the real support for that assertion?
-
Lanusa went to the press before Joannides called back. He couldn't wait.
We have known that Joannides was the case officer for the DRE in 1963 since 1998. This is not news.
-
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-unbearable-lightness-of-being (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-unbearable-lightness-of-being)
Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being
Now that the entire personnel file of George Joannides has been released, Jefferson Morley has now published his unified theory of nothingness.
There is nothing there. The only thing we have found out in over twenty years is that Joannides used the alias of Howard Gebler.
This is both disappointing and simply wrong. I don't understand how you can make these statements given the information in the released files.
For decades, the CIA, along with WC apologists, insisted, swore up and down, that the CIA had no interest whatsoever in Oswald before the assassination. Now we know that the CIA had a very intense interest in Oswald, and that the CIA was even reading Oswald's mail in the weeks before the assassination. This is a sea-state change in our knowledge of the case and is hardly a "nothing burger."
We also now know that Joannides brazenly misled the HSCA and did all he could to sabotage the HSCA's investigation into Oswald, the CIA, and the anti-Castro Cubans. How you can describe this as a "nothing burger" is hard to understand.
Through CIA officer Barry Harrelson's memo, the CIA disavowed any knowledge of a CIA agent in Miami in 1963 who used the alias Howard. The CIA memo asserted that “knowledgeable sources” at the CIA concluded Howard was not a real person.
Morley knew this was false. He filed a Freedom of Information Act request, which turned into a lawsuit covered by the New York Times and Fox News, and which went on for 15 years until Brett Kavanaugh killed it. All that time, the CIA kept insisting they didn’t know anything about any CIA officer using the alias of Howard in Miami. Your camp uncritically took the CIA's word on that said claimed there was no reason to doubt the CIA's version of the events of 1963.
The release of the Joannides file, however, has exposed the CIA's denial as false. Harrelson now acknowledges that his 1998 memo, sent to a civilian review board tasked with declassifying JFK files, was false. People tell big lies for a reason. Agencies tell big lies for a reason.
The CIA has acknowledged, for the first time in six decades, that Joannides used the alias Howard Gebler and knew of his actions in late 1963, that he ran an illegal operation via his agents in the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE) to confront and denounce Oswald’s chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in August 1963, and that his agents had contact with Oswald--three months before JFK’s assassination.
This proves that Joannides sanctioned the Directorate’s public efforts in September 1963 to recruit assassins to kill Castro. The Directorate planted an article in a popular men’s magazine sold nationwide that offered a $10 million dollar reward “to person or persons who, with the help of the DRE, will assassinate Fidel Castro.” Joannides submitted an implausible denial for the file and the matter was forgotten, but now we know the truth.
Not only did Joannides run an off-the-books operation illegally targeting U.S. dissidents (the FPCC) for disruption, and not only did his agents have contact with Oswald, but the DRE, which he handled, planted an ad in a national publication to recruit assassins to kill Castro.
This information was unknown until the Joannides records were released earlier this month. It is hard to understand how you can call all of this a "nothing burger."
-
A few years ago Morley promoted the Antonio Veciana claim that Oswald was
controlled by seen with a mysterious figure named Maurice Bishop who was supposedly CIA agent David Atlee Phillips. This claim then (I think; it's conspiracy world the details don't matter) had Oswald as a CIA asset, manipulated to connect him with Castro (Mexico City et cetera), and then framed for the shooting. Before that Morley said Angleton should have been charged with criminal negligence for not informing the Secret Service about the threat/danger that Oswald posed (Morley gave the FBI a pass). This has Oswald as the assassin and apparently a true Marxist. More recently he's promoted the Gary Underhill allegation about rogue CIA agents in the Far East Division killing JFK because he - and apparently no one else? - discovered that they were running drugs and guns. Where Oswald fits into this theory is, I guess, TBD. Now he has this Joannides claim about some sort of "Oswald Operation". There's more from him but that should be enough.
None of this, of course, gets us to Dallas, to November 22, 1963 and Dealey Plaza. He's just jumping around from superficial claim to superficial claim, all of it disconnected and incoherent and contradictory and without substance.
Appropriate analogy. It's the lightness of Morley's conspiracy world. In fairness, there's a lot of lightness in JFK conspiracy world.
-
The CIA has finally vindicated Morley's research into George Joannides so now the cope from LN'ers is that its a "nothingburger".
Love to see it...
-
This is both disappointing and simply wrong. I don't understand how you can make these statements given the information in the released files.
For decades, the CIA, along with WC apologists, insisted, swore up and down, that the CIA had no interest whatsoever in Oswald before the assassination. Now we know that the CIA had a very intense interest in Oswald, and that the CIA was even reading Oswald's mail in the weeks before the assassination. This is a sea-state change in our knowledge of the case and is hardly a "nothing burger."
We also now know that Joannides brazenly misled the HSCA and did all he could to sabotage the HSCA's investigation into Oswald, the CIA, and the anti-Castro Cubans. How you can describe this as a "nothing burger" is hard to understand.
Through CIA officer Barry Harrelson's memo, the CIA disavowed any knowledge of a CIA agent in Miami in 1963 who used the alias Howard. The CIA memo asserted that “knowledgeable sources” at the CIA concluded Howard was not a real person.
Morley knew this was false. He filed a Freedom of Information Act request, which turned into a lawsuit covered by the New York Times and Fox News, and which went on for 15 years until Brett Kavanaugh killed it. All that time, the CIA kept insisting they didn’t know anything about any CIA officer using the alias of Howard in Miami. Your camp uncritically took the CIA's word on that said claimed there was no reason to doubt the CIA's version of the events of 1963.
The release of the Joannides file, however, has exposed the CIA's denial as false. Harrelson now acknowledges that his 1998 memo, sent to a civilian review board tasked with declassifying JFK files, was false. People tell big lies for a reason. Agencies tell big lies for a reason.
The CIA has acknowledged, for the first time in six decades, that Joannides used the alias Howard Gebler and knew of his actions in late 1963, that he ran an illegal operation via his agents in the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE) to confront and denounce Oswald’s chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in August 1963, and that his agents had contact with Oswald--three months before JFK’s assassination.
This proves that Joannides sanctioned the Directorate’s public efforts in September 1963 to recruit assassins to kill Castro. The Directorate planted an article in a popular men’s magazine sold nationwide that offered a $10 million dollar reward “to person or persons who, with the help of the DRE, will assassinate Fidel Castro.” Joannides submitted an implausible denial for the file and the matter was forgotten, but now we know the truth.
Not only did Joannides run an off-the-books operation illegally targeting U.S. dissidents (the FPCC) for disruption, and not only did his agents have contact with Oswald, but the DRE, which he handled, planted an ad in a national publication to recruit assassins to kill Castro.
This information was unknown until the Joannides records were released earlier this month. It is hard to understand how you can call all of this a "nothing burger."
Awesome summary. Thanks
-
From what I can see, all the conspiracy people here need to go back and re-read Fred's article carefully. They are not getting the facts right. Here's one major fact. It is not just Bringuier saying that he had nothing to do with Joannides. None of the DRE people are claiming or have ever claimed that Joannides told Bringuier what to do. Bringuier did what came naturally when he saw a pro-Castro supporter like LHO.
-
From what I can see, all the conspiracy people here need to go back and re-read Fred's article carefully. They are not getting the facts right. Here's one major fact. It is not just Bringuier saying that he had nothing to do with Joannides. None of the DRE people are claiming or have ever claimed that Joannides told Bringuier what to do. Bringuier did what came naturally when he saw a pro-Castro supporter like LHO.
That's not the point.
The point is, the DRE reported to a CIA officer named "Howard" who we now can confirm was Joannides.
Which means, Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination and advised the DRE on what to do with the information they had on Oswald after the assassination.
You guys act as if LN'ers didn't spend years accepting the CIA's denials that "Howard" existed. The CIA's rep for the ARRB has more integrity than you all because at least he admits that he was wrong.
-
That's not the point.
The point is, the DRE reported to a CIA officer named "Howard" who we now can confirm was Joannides.
Which means, Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination and advised the DRE on what to do with the information they had on Oswald after the assassination.
You guys act as if LN'ers didn't spend years accepting the CIA's denials that "Howard" existed. The CIA's rep for the ARRB has more integrity than you all because at least he admits that he was wrong.
We don't have proof that Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination-only after. One or two of the members said they told Joannides about Oswald. That is all the evidence we have on that. But even if they told him before, there is no evidence that he thought much about it or did anything about it. And nobody says that he did. That is why it is a nothingburger.
-
We don't have proof that Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination-only after.
Given that Oswald's confrontation with Bringuier made the local news (plus Oswald requested to speak to the FBI while in police custody) and they also had a radio show appearance together, the odds that Joannides had no knowledge of Oswald prior to 11/22/63 are very low.
Bringuer also noted that he reported everything that happened with Oswald to the DRE leaders in Miami who reported to "Howard".
Unless Joannides was bad at his job, we can assume he read Bringuer's reports and had heard of LHO before 11/22/63 via other information sources.
One or two of the members said they told Joannides about Oswald. That is all the evidence we have on that. But even if they told him before, there is no evidence that he thought much about it or did anything about it. And nobody says that he did. That is why it is a nothingburger.
We can agree that none of this information directly connects Joannides to JFK's assassination if that's what you mean. Even if LHO was wittingly or unwittingly part of the CIA's campaign against the "Fair Play for Cuba" organization, it doesn't prove the CIA was complicit in JFK's murder.
I'm fully aware of that and am not arguing that this is some sort of "Smoking Gun". I don't think Jeff Morley is suggesting that either.
But it does however raise questions about what else the CIA has lied about in the official records.
-
From what I can see, all the conspiracy people here need to go back and re-read Fred's article carefully. They are not getting the facts right. Here's one major fact. It is not just Bringuier saying that he had nothing to do with Joannides. None of the DRE people are claiming or have ever claimed that Joannides told Bringuier what to do. Bringuier did what came naturally when he saw a pro-Castro supporter like LHO.
We have to add the actions of Stuckey - who was almost as critical to any supposed operation as Bringuier - to the mix. It was Stuckey who met Oswald, was impressed enough to interview him on TV and then invite him to a debate. If Stuckey meets Oswald and thinks, "This is a nut, no thanks" then the whole matter fades away.
Multiple people involved here, directly or indirectly, with no evidence, from them or elsewhere, of being controlled or directed by Joannides. And it sure as heck isn't in the Joannides file.
Stuckey's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/stuckey.htm
-
We have to add the actions of Stuckey - who was almost as critical to any supposed operation as Bringuier - to the mix. It was Stuckey who met Oswald, was impressed enough to interview him on TV and then invite him to a debate. If Stuckey meets Oswald and thinks, "This is a nut, no thanks" then the whole matter fades away.
Multiple people involved here, directly or indirectly, with no evidence, from them or elsewhere, of being controlled or directed by Joannides. And it sure as heck isn't in the Joannides file.
Stuckey's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/stuckey.htm
Very good points Steve.
-
Given that Oswald's confrontation with Bringuier made the local news (plus Oswald requested to speak to the FBI while in police custody) and they also had a radio show appearance together, the odds that Joannides had no knowledge of Oswald prior to 11/22/63 are very low.
Bringuer also noted that he reported everything that happened with Oswald to the DRE leaders in Miami who reported to "Howard".
Unless Joannides was bad at his job, we can assume he read Bringuer's reports and had heard of LHO before 11/22/63 via other information sources.
We can agree that none of this information directly connects Joannides to JFK's assassination if that's what you mean. Even if LHO was wittingly or unwittingly part of the CIA's campaign against the "Fair Play for Cuba" organization, it doesn't prove the CIA was complicit in JFK's murder.
I'm fully aware of that and am not arguing that this is some sort of "Smoking Gun". I don't think Jeff Morley is suggesting that either.
But it does however raise questions about what else the CIA has lied about in the official records.
What you have to have is GJ's knowledge of LHO before the assassination AND GJ running Bringuier's interactions with LHO for a nefarious purpose. All you have is the possible knowledge of LHO by GJ who by all accounts did nothing with said knowledge BEFORE the assassination. Without all of these things you have a nothingburger.
BTW, Morley is right back to claiming there was an Oswald Operation. He is just not saying he has a smoking gun anymore because he doesn't and never did. But he is still claiming the same thing-there was a nefarious operation run by GJ that somehow involved LHO.
-
Multiple people involved here, directly or indirectly, with no evidence, from them or elsewhere, of being controlled or directed by Joannides. And it sure as heck isn't in the Joannides file.
Stuckey's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/stuckey.htm
The 17 months worth of information missing from Joannides' files overlaps with the summer of 1963. Therefore we can't say for certain what Joannides knew or wrote about Oswald:
"Harrelson’s memo also noted that progress reports on Joannides’s Miami operation were missing for the 17 months he was there"
All I can say is that some of you have too much pride to admit that you were lied to...
-
What you have to have is GJ's knowledge of LHO before the assassination AND GJ running Bringuier's interactions with LHO for a nefarious purpose.
I disagree. Read what Jose Lanuza told the Miami Herald in 2019:
Jose Antonio Lanuza, 83, a former member of the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or Revolutionary Student Directorate, a Cuban exile anti-Castro organization active in the 1960s, told the Herald he was hoping the remaining documents would confirm a long-held suspicion that he, and other Directorate members, were used by Joannides, the organization’s case handler in Miami, to create and later spread the fake narrative that Oswald was a pro-Castro sympathizer, providing a handy motive for the assassination.
“I think [the CIA] built this legend,” Lanuza said. “Why? Because when it became known that he had killed Kennedy, an idiot named José Antonio Lanuza, that’s me, suddenly his memory would tell him, hey, I know this guy, this is Castro sympathizer.”
Morley has also advanced a version of this theory, but he told reporters last week that he believes Joannides may have used Oswald to undermine the work of Fair Play for Cuba.
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article270075417.html#storylink=cpy
BTW, Morley is right back to claiming there was an Oswald Operation. He is just not saying he has a smoking gun anymore because he doesn't and never did. But he is still claiming the same thing-there was a nefarious operation run by GJ that somehow involved LHO.
GJ was into some pretty nefarious stuff including attempts to recruit assassins for anti-Castro operations.
Plus he ran a CIA operation in the US, which is illegal.
Joannides would NOT have been approved to be the CIA’s liaison for the HSCA had Congress known his background at that time.
-
I disagree. Read what Jose Lanuza told the Miami Herald in 2019:
Joannides would NOT have been approved to be the CIA’s liaison for the HSCA had Congress known his background at that time.
So, Lanuza believes some conspiracy stuff-fine. But notice he did not say "The DRE was running an Oswald Operation at the behest of GJ."
And GJ would not have been approved-so what? No evidence that he covered up anything, only that he didn't tell about his own operations likely because he didn't want to be interviewed by the committee. Also, the evidence that the HSCA was that interested in what the DRE and their 1963 case officer were doing is very slim. My article has already addressed Blakey and most everything said by Hardway is based off of him.
-
the evidence that the HSCA was that interested in what the DRE and their 1963 case officer were doing is very slim.
Only if you ignore what Robert Blakey and Dan Hardway have said about Joannides:
"According to Blakey, if he had known about Joannides's connection to the DRE, Joannides would have been called as a witness to be interrogated under oath, rather than serving as the liaison."
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/5-decades-later-some-jfk-probe-files-still-sealed/1922978/
Staff members for the committee have said they were making progress on unearthing documents from the CIA in 1978 until a new agency liaison was installed: Joannides, whom they had no idea was at the center of what they were trying to uncover.
“Joannides began to change the way file access was handled,” committee staff member Dan Hardway testified before Luna’s task force in May. “The obstruction of our efforts by Joannides escalated over the summer [of 1978]. … It was clear that CIA had begun to carefully review files before delivering them to us for review.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
Morley is over the target and you folks are either useful idiots or paid shills.
-
Only if you ignore what Robert Blakey and Dan Hardway have said about Joannides:
"According to Blakey, if he had known about Joannides's connection to the DRE, Joannides would have been called as a witness to be interrogated under oath, rather than serving as the liaison."
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/5-decades-later-some-jfk-probe-files-still-sealed/1922978/
Staff members for the committee have said they were making progress on unearthing documents from the CIA in 1978 until a new agency liaison was installed: Joannides, whom they had no idea was at the center of what they were trying to uncover.
“Joannides began to change the way file access was handled,” committee staff member Dan Hardway testified before Luna’s task force in May. “The obstruction of our efforts by Joannides escalated over the summer [of 1978]. … It was clear that CIA had begun to carefully review files before delivering them to us for review.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
Morley is over the target and you folks are either useful idiots or paid shills.
I wrote a rather lengthy piece of Blakey. As I said, Hardway's comments are based on Blakey. Some of Blakey's comments are based on Fonzi of all people.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/06/jfk-file-expert-skeptical-of-blakeys.html
When Morley can prove GJ was running an Oswald Operation of some type, he will have something. The problem is, Bringuier doesn't support it and the actual DRE guys in Miami don't support it even if they support CTs. In fact, nothing supports it. End of story.
-
I wrote a rather lengthy piece of Blakey. As I said, Hardway's comments are based on Blakey. Some of Blakey's comments are based on Fonzi of all people.
Don't try to get clicks for your blog. Defend the CIA here if that's your intention. Why can't you just give innocent explanations for the CIA's conduct here on this forum?
The CIA and Joannides should've disclosed their relationship with the DRE to the HSCA, period.
I haven't seen any good excuses for why that didn't happen but I'm all ears if you want to try to explain on this thread.
To a lay person like me it looks deceptive and looks like obstruction of the HSCA's investigation.
When Morley can prove GJ was running an Oswald Operation of some type, he will have something. The problem is, Bringuier doesn't support it and the actual DRE guys in Miami don't support it even if they support CTs. In fact, nothing supports it. End of story.
Again, you're being dishonest or intentionally misleading.
Morley, to my knowledge, hasn't argued that Oswald was 'the subject' of Joannides' or Bringuier's work with the DRE.
Morley has even speculated that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, not Oswald, was the subject of the CIA/Joannides' interest in 1963.
At worst, Morley has argued that the CIA lied about how much they knew about LHO prior to 11/22/63. And the documents which have been declassified since the ARRB 30 years ago have validated his thesis.
There's now a mountain of evidence confirming that the CIA knew plenty about LHO before the assassination.
I'm not going to play your game of building strawman arguments.
-
Don't try to get clicks for your blog.
Righty-Lefty Banksky,
Have you read Tracy's article?
-
Righty-Lefty Banksky,
Have you read Tracy's article?
It is obvious he has not read the relevant articles. No point in continuing.
-
Righty-Lefty Banksky,
Have you read Tracy's article?
Why should I when the guy posts on this forum and responds to my posts?
If Michael T Griffith is gracious enough to answer questions here, so too should other writers who participate on the forum.
Posting here only to try to direct people to their blogs seems like a sleezy form of marketing to me.
Engage in debate and answer some questions, THEN I may check out your blogs :)
I have no problem with engaging with people who have other points of view. I always encourage spirited debate.
-
Why should I?
That's right.
Remain ignorant.
-
Jon Banks,
I spent a week working on the Blakey article. The least you can do is read it and the ones Litwin has. Most of your questions/assertions would be answered.
-
Jon Banks,
I spent a week working on the Blakey article. The least you can do is read it and the ones Litwin has. Most of your questions/assertions would be answered.
No thanks. I don't need you to explain what Blakey meant when I can read/hear what he has said about Joannides on my own.
Here's Blakey's take again:
Blakey, the committee's chief counsel, recalled how the CIA brought in Joannides to act as a middleman to help fill requests for documents made by committee researchers. "He was put in a position to edit everything we were given before it was given to us," Blakey said.
But Blakey didn't learn about Joannides' past until Morley unearthed it in files declassified years later.
"If I'd known Joannides was the case officer for the DRE, he couldn't have been liaison; he would have been a witness," Blakey told The Associated Press.
Blakey added: "Do I think I was snookered, precisely like the Warren Commission was? Yes."
----
Blakey isn't optimistic about getting all of the documents from the intelligence agency.
"They held stuff back from the Warren Commission, they held stuff back from us, they held stuff back from the ARRB," he said. "That's three agencies that they were supposed to be fully candid with. And now they're taking the position that some of these documents can't be released even today.
"Why are they continuing to fight tooth and nail to avoid doing something they'd promised to do?"
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/5-decades-later-some-jfk-probe-files-still-sealed/1922978/
And in Jefferson Morley's defense, to my knowledge, he has never promoted the Joannides story as anything more than further proof (on top of the Angleton stuff) that the CIA hid the extent of their pre-November 1963 knowledge of Oswald. Which is widely accepted today even among LN researchers:
2013 -
Morley does not suggest the Joannides files point to agency involvement in the assassination itself, but more likely that their release would show the CIA trying to keep secret its own flawed performance before the assassination.
"The idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was some unknown quantity to CIA officers was false," Morley said. "There was this incredible high-level attention to Oswald on the eve of the assassination."
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/5-decades-later-some-jfk-probe-files-still-sealed/1922978/
2022 -
Morley has also advanced a version of this theory, but he told reporters last week that he believes Joannides may have used Oswald to undermine the work of Fair Play for Cuba. But whatever the nature of the CIA’s “operational interest in Oswald,” Morley said Thursday, “we don’t know. That’s why we need the documents.”
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article270075417.html#storylink=cpy
2025 -
Morley and some others who've written extensively about Kennedy's assassination believe rogue CIA agents might have been involved in the killing, but Morley's not ready to say Joannides was one of them.
Link - https://www.axios.com/2025/07/05/cia-agent-oswald-kennedy-assassination
Without directing me to your blog again, what specifically do you object to about Morley's take on Joannides?
-
Vanity Fair writer interviews Morley on the new Joannides docs:
Very informative interview where Morley explains in-depth the DRE, Joannides, and the Fair Play for Cuba.
-
"CIA Admits Shadowy Officer Monitored Oswald Before the JFK Assassination, New Records Show."
Righty-Lefty Banksky,
Even if true, what's wrong with monitoring a guy who had recently set up his own FPCC chapter, who, when he defected to the USSR in October of 1959, threatened to tell the Soviets everything he'd learned as a Marine radar operator stationed at a U-2 base, and whose best friend in Dallas was a probable long-term KGB "illegal"?