JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: W. Tracy Parnell on March 06, 2019, 08:38:52 PM
-
Part 1 of my review of Newman's Into the Storm as it relates to Antonio Veciana is online. There will be at least 2 parts and possibly 3.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/03/into-storm-part-1.html
-
Part 1 of my review of Newman's Into the Storm as it relates to Antonio Veciana is online. There will be at least 2 parts and possibly 3.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/03/into-storm-part-1.html
Nice summary, Tracy. It's a good read and well put together. As you know, Newman is throwing a lot of information out in these three volumes. It's a bit dizzying trying to follow things.
As a side comment: It does seem to me that the CIA would be very interested in Alpha 66's activities especially during the missile crisis and afterwards when the Kennedy Administration cracked down on exile activity. Newman quotes from several memos where JFK specifically expressed concerns (in his hand writing) about Alpha 66's attacks on Soviet and other foreign nationalities ships in Havana harbor.
So, the lack of documentation/evidence of this is a bit surprising to me. As you know, the US Army was interested in Alpha 66 especially for any intelligence they had on Soviet weapons/resources in Cuba.
Fonzi was, I think, a bit misleading in his Washingtonian magazine piece where he described Alpha 66 as one of the largest and best organized anti-Castro groups. That may or may not have been true later on but I'm pretty certain that in the 1960-63 period it was a small group known for its daring attacks. But it wasn't well funded - Veciana had enormous trouble getting funding from the exiles because of their mistrust of Menoyo - and splintered at least once over internal disputes.
In any case, as you suggest this is all a prelude to the big question of Veciana allegedly seeing Phillips with Oswald in Dallas. Otherwise, it's interesting history about Cold War intrigue between the US and Cuba and the Soviets. But that's about it.
-
Nice summary, Tracy. It's a good read and well put together. As you know, Newman is throwing a lot of information out in these three volumes. It's a bit dizzying trying to follow things.
As a side comment: It does seem to me that the CIA would be very interested in Alpha 66's activities especially during the missile crisis and afterwards when the Kennedy Administration cracked down on exile activity. Newman quotes from several memos where JFK specifically expressed concerns (in his hand writing) about Alpha 66's attacks on Soviet and other foreign nationalities ships in Havana harbor.
So, the lack of documentation/evidence of this is a bit surprising to me. As you know, the US Army was interested in Alpha 66 especially for any intelligence they had on Soviet weapons/resources in Cuba.
Fonzi was, I think, a bit misleading in his Washingtonian magazine piece where he described Alpha 66 as one of the largest and best organized anti-Castro groups. That may or may not have been true later on but I'm pretty certain that in the 1960-63 period it was a small group known for its daring attacks. But it wasn't well funded - Veciana had enormous trouble getting funding from the exiles because of their mistrust of Menoyo - and splintered at least once over internal disputes.
In any case, as you suggest this is all a prelude to the big question of Veciana allegedly seeing Phillips with Oswald in Dallas. Otherwise, it's interesting history about Cold War intrigue between the US and Cuba and the Soviets. But that's about it.
Thanks very much for your comments Steve. It is indeed not an easy story to follow. In part 2 I'll look at some areas where I think Newman went a little too far trying to makes certain "facts" fit his theories. But he has done a good job of filling in some of the blanks in general. It looks to me like he will eventually say Veciana did not see LHO with "Bishop" but I may be wrong.
-
Thanks very much for your comments Steve. It is indeed not an easy story to follow. In part 2 I'll look at some areas where I think Newman went a little too far trying to makes certain "facts" fit his theories. But he has done a good job of filling in some of the blanks in general. It looks to me like he will eventually say Veciana did not see LHO with "Bishop" but I may be wrong.
Do you know offhand whether Phillips mentioned any of this, e.g., he wasn't in Cuba at the time alleged, in his questioning by, I believe, either Fonzi or Robert Tanenbaum? Or if he was asked?
It always struck me as absurd that Phillips would be openly trying to recruit agents in Cuba at a time when Castro and his agents were aggressively shutting things down. And at Lobo's bank? C'mon.
-
Do you know offhand whether Phillips mentioned any of this, e.g., he wasn't in Cuba at the time alleged, in his questioning by, I believe, either Fonzi or Robert Tanenbaum? Or if he was asked?
It always struck me as absurd that Phillips would be openly trying to recruit agents in Cuba at a time when Castro and his agents were aggressively shutting things down. And at Lobo's bank? C'mon.
I went back and looked at his HSCA testimony and an HSCA interview and they never asked him about specific dates per Veciana. He did state that he was in Cuba in 1959-60 but nothing more specific. You are right of course that it is implausible in the extreme to think Phillips was recruiting agents at that time considering his security problems. In addition to all of the other evidence he provides, Newman says this:
"Phillips was a contract ?NOC??a non-official-cover CIA asset in Havana without diplomatic protection. His duties concerned Agency propaganda activities and, if he observed anything significant in the course of that work, to report it to the Havana station. Nothing more. His work precluded recruiting anti-Castro Cubans."
-
I went back and looked at his HSCA testimony and an HSCA interview and they never asked him about specific dates per Veciana. He did state that he was in Cuba in 1959-60 but nothing more specific. You are right of course that it is implausible in the extreme to think Phillips was recruiting agents at that time considering his security problems. In addition to all of the other evidence he provides, Newman says this:
"Phillips was a contract ?NOC??a non-official-cover CIA asset in Havana without diplomatic protection. His duties concerned Agency propaganda activities and, if he observed anything significant in the course of that work, to report it to the Havana station. Nothing more. His work precluded recruiting anti-Castro Cubans."
Thanks for all of this, Tracy.
That account of him meeting with the Cuban cattlemen appears to support this, i.e., he was a propaganda agent. From his and Newman's characterization it seemed he realized he was in over his head when they started talking about a guerilla war and shooting Castro and Guevara. He suggested maybe starting a opposition newspaper and they start talking about shooting people <g>.
-
Part two of my series takes a look at Newman's treatment of "Joe Melton" and "Fabiola."
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-2.html
-
Part 1 of my review of Newman's Into the Storm as it relates to Antonio Veciana is online. There will be at least 2 parts and possibly 3.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/03/into-storm-part-1.html
What "conspiracy theories" have you debunked?
-
What "conspiracy theories" have you debunked?
"Harvey & Lee" although I had quite a bit of help with that.
-
What "conspiracy theories" have you debunked?
Vs
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Benavidez021765DMN.jpg)
Or...?
??
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CaprioZanghettiGlassHouse.jpg)
-
"Harvey & Lee" although I had quite a bit of help with that.
What part of "Harvey & Lee"? The notion of two Oswalds goes back long before John Armstrong's research. Furthermore, you're claim was in the plural and this would be just one.
-
What part of "Harvey & Lee"? The notion of two Oswalds goes back long before John Armstrong's research. Furthermore, you're claim was in the plural and this would be just one.
The exhumation of LHO in 1981 debunked the 2 Oswald theory of Michael Eddowes. It also debunked H&L before it was even devised. I have over twenty articles that help to debunk minor theories associated with H&L. But you don't need to ask me about this here (unless you are just trying to start something), you can read the articles and judge my work for yourself. Thanks for your interest.
-
Part 3 of my review of Newman's book looks at Veciana's "lost" testimony, Veciana and the Army and Zabala's Revelation.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-3.html
-
Part 3 of my review of Newman's book looks at Veciana's "lost" testimony, Veciana and the Army and Zabala's Revelation.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-3.html
Well said, sir+
-
Well said, sir+
Thanks very much for your interest Mark.
-
Part 3 of my review of Newman's book looks at Veciana's "lost" testimony, Veciana and the Army and Zabala's Revelation.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-3.html
Another solid piece. Thanks Tracy.
As you pointed out, Newman shows that Veciana has been curiously reluctant to discuss his contacts/relationship with the US Army during this period in question. Except for that one mention in (I believe) Fonzi's book, he never discusses it. It's nowhere in his book. Very odd.
It seems pretty clear that Veciana simply didn't want to work with the CIA because he'd have to give up too much control over his group to the US. No more of those attacks on Soviet ships. And the CIA wasn't going to work with his group unless they had greater control over it. So the relationship was a no-go from the start. I think after the missile crisis in particular that the CIA simply wasn't going to let some of these groups have a free rein. Certainly not to allow them to attack foreign owned ships in Cuban harbors.
At this point, I think we can fundamentally dismiss anything Veciana says. His credibility is just shot.
-
Another solid piece. Thanks Tracy.
As you pointed out, Newman shows that Veciana has been curiously very reluctant to discuss his contacts/relationship with the US Army during this critical period. Except for that one mention in (I believe) Fonzi's book, he never discusses it. It's nowhere in his book. Very odd.
It seems pretty clear that Veciana simply didn't want to work with the CIA because he'd have to give up too much control over his group to the US. And the CIA wasn't going to work with his group unless they had greater control over it. So the relationship was a no-go from the start. I think after the missile crisis in particular that the CIA simply wasn't going to let some of these groups have a free rein.
At this point, I think we can fundamentally dismiss anything Veciana says. His credibility is just shot.
Thanks for reading and commenting Steve. Watch for my next piece which will discuss Veciana's possible motive assuming he made up the "Maurice Bishop" thing.
-
.....
Armstrong acolyte Joseph summed up his approach to discerning the weight of evidence. I'll post it after I find it.
I don't anticipate this is an exclusive approach, but it seems hypocritical, not to mention the integrity of the resulting research.:
The quote below was prompted by my presentation of this point, highlighted in black brackets:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/NagellCardUnknownOriginC.jpg)
David Josephs said:
07-15-2015 08:58 PM
.....I proceed under the assumption that as a conspiracy, EVERYTHING related to the incrimination of Oswald is suspect. The hiding of the real murder as well as the ancillary operations that needed hiding leads me to conclude that what we are offered as Evidence pertains more to the cover-up of info and was therefore "created/improved/altered" for that reason.
That the DoD card may have not been in Nagell's possessions means it was either added to the pile later to connect the men, or that the evidence to prove the connection (of which so many of these connections were severed once the Commie Conspiracy became the Lone Nut) was made to disappear so it would be harder to prove the Nagell/Oswald connection...
or it was done for reasons we simply cannot comprehend at this point.
Translation, (heads I win, tails...you guessed it...) the truth is what I discern it to be, impervious and unresponsive to all counter argument or any of its supporting evidence.
-
To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story....
Parnell says that Veciana has "exaggerated his place in history" by simply saying he met his intelligence case officer and the patsy in the assassination of the President in Dallas a few months before the assassination. What kind of place in history is that?
From... http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/11/veciana-identiies-phillips-as-bishop.html
There are a lot of related threads here ie- The CIA Was Involved and Was Oswald Really in Mexico? Now, if you say yes to the one and no to the other :-\ well shame on you. Always noteworthy is- Kennedy asked for Allen Dulles resignation ...think there was any tearful exCIA director at the JFK funeral? And why did Johnson really put him on the commission?
-
To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story.... From... http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/11/veciana-identiies-phillips-as-bishop.html
There are a lot of related threads here ie- The CIA Was Involved and Was Oswald Really in Mexico? Now, if you say yes to the one and no to the other :-\ well shame on you. Always noteworthy is- Kennedy asked for Allen Dulles resignation ...think there was any tearful exCIA director at the JFK funeral? And why did Johnson really put him on the commission?
If the reader follows Tracy's pieces he or she will see that he addresses some of these claims about CIA involvement in the assassination, i.e., "the other side" as presented by Veciana. He quotes directly from Veciana's testimony/depositions about the matter, e.g., who this Maurice Bishop person was, and shows how what Veciana claimed happened simply couldn't be true. Or at least the documentation for it simply isn't there. Tracy also cites John Newman's work; Newman is a conspiracy theorist. Newman too argues that Veciana's claims about a long term relationship with the CIA simply isn't supported by the evidence.
So the "other side" - at least as claimed by Veciana is addressed in great detail by Tracy (and Newman).
As to Dulles and the commission, I have no idea what that has to do with Veciana and his claims. Which is what Tracy is focused on.
-
If the reader follows Tracy's pieces he or she will see that he addresses some of these claims about CIA involvement in the assassination, i.e., "the other side" as presented by Veciana. He quotes directly from Veciana's testimony/depositions about the matter, e.g., who this Maurice Bishop person was, and shows how what Veciana claimed happened simply couldn't be true. Or at least the documentation for it simply isn't there. Tracy also cites John Newman's work; Newman is a conspiracy theorist. Newman too argues that Veciana's claims about a long term relationship with the CIA simply isn't supported by the evidence.
So the "other side" - at least as claimed by Veciana is addressed in great detail by Tracy (and Newman).
As to Dulles and the commission, I have no idea what that has to do with Veciana and his claims. Which is what Tracy is focused on.
Thanks again Steve. I will say this-if there was a Bishop (and I don't believe there was at this time) he wasn't as described by Veciana. Newman has successfully deconstructed both Veciana scenarios of how he allegedly met Bishop in Cuba. They simply didn't happen the way Veciana said they did. And there is no evidence that Veciana worked for the CIA. He was approved for use as a sabotage man with the MRP, but that never came off. He apparently did work with Army Intellegence however. The trick is figuring out why he was so adamant on being known as a CIA agent and I am working on that now. Anyway, it is not just LNs like me that are becoming skeptical of Veciana as Steve points out.
-
To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story.... From... http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/11/veciana-identiies-phillips-as-bishop.html
There are a lot of related threads here ie- The CIA Was Involved and Was Oswald Really in Mexico? Now, if you say yes to the one and no to the other :-\ well shame on you. Always noteworthy is- Kennedy asked for Allen Dulles resignation ...think there was any tearful exCIA director at the JFK funeral? And why did Johnson really put him on the commission?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/7yzt04KkXlw
On 30 Sep 2014 21:47:34 -0400, Jean Davison
wrote:
? show quoted text ?
I have the book at work, so I can find the citation.
There is a quote that buffs always use that has Willie Morris
reporting Dulles saying something negative about John Kennedy.
Of course, that?s not inconsistent with Bobby (or John) liking Dulles.
Does anybody here know anything about that?
.John
"That little Kennedy..." page 38: (Click on "Look Inside" at top left)
https://www.amazon.com/New-York-Days-Willie-Morris/dp/0316583987#reader_0316583987
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DullesWillieMorrisLittleKennedy.jpg)
-
The exhumation of LHO in 1981 debunked the 2 Oswald theory of Michael Eddowes. It also debunked H&L before it was even devised. I have over twenty articles that help to debunk minor theories associated with H&L. But you don't need to ask me about this here (unless you are just trying to start something), you can read the articles and judge my work for yourself. Thanks for your interest.
Beside yourself, who else thinks that you have debunked anything? Most people aren't going to read your articles so they won't know if you are telling the truth or not.
What did you supposedly debunk in regards to the H&L theory?
-
Beside yourself, who else thinks that you have debunked anything? Most people aren't going to read your articles so they won't know if you are telling the truth or not.
What did you supposedly debunk in regards to the H&L theory?
I have been thanked privately by members of the conspiracy community for my work. I wouldn't wish to violate a trust by revealing any names. Anyone can read my articles (or ignore them if they prefer) and decide for themselves if I have debunked anything or not. At this time, I personally consider the theory debunked and have moved to other areas of research. The most common attitude I have encountered among CTs is that they appreciate the work of Armstrong but do not necessarily agree with his thesis of two Oswalds. However, CTs such as Greg Parker, David Lifton and Jeremy Bojczuk have written extensively against the theory.
-
I have been thanked privately by members of the conspiracy community for my work. I wouldn't wish to violate a trust by revealing any names. Anyone can read my articles (or ignore them if they prefer) and decide for themselves if I have debunked anything or not. At this time, I personally consider the theory debunked and have moved to other areas of research. The most common attitude I have encountered among CTs is that they appreciate the work of Armstrong but do not necessarily agree with his thesis of two Oswalds. However, CTs such as Greg Parker, David Lifton and Jeremy Bojczuk have written extensively against the theory.
Not believing something is not the same as debunking something. I don't believe in Armstrong's theory as he presents it, but there is definitely something to the multiple Oswald sightings as there are just too many to ignore or debunk.
I don't endorse David Lifton's theory either. In fact, I don't endorse a lot of the conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean that I "debunked" them. Most theories, outside of the ridiculous official one, have something of value to offer whether you agree with it or not.
Until I see it I will assume you haven't really debunked anything. I have never understood why CTers attack peoples' theories as none of us know what happened that day since we were given a cover-up instead of an investigation. What harm is someone's theory going to do? The media, government and educational system mock all theories that don't align with the WC's anyway.
I was hoping since you made a claim that you would support it instead of me having to read article after article to find it. I guess not.
-
As to Dulles and the commission, I have no idea what that has to do with Veciana and his claims. Which is what Tracy is focused on.
Has everything to do with protecting the CIA. Even if Veciana was completely full of crap ..it doesn't exonerate the notion that rogue CIA operatives were behind offing JFK.
You can focus on Prancer and disavow his credibility as a flying reindeer and therefore smash the whole idea of a Santa and his sled. A silly analogy? That is what I think about Oswald's supposed trip to Mexico...all alone with no apparent funds or support.
At least two people came forward and said that he was in Dallas at that time. Either way, someone was handling him.
-
Has everything to do with protecting the CIA. Even if Veciana was completely full of crap ..it doesn't exonerate the notion that rogue CIA operatives were behind offing JFK.
You can focus on Prancer and disavow his credibility as a flying reindeer and therefore smash the whole idea of a Santa and his sled. A silly analogy? That is what I think about Oswald's supposed trip to Mexico...all alone with no apparent funds or support.
At least two people came forward and said that he was in Dallas at that time. Either way, someone was handling him.
Your anecdote has absolutely nothing - not a thing - to do with Tracy's work investigating Veciana's claims.
The topic is about Antonio Veciana. And his allegations that he worked for the CIA and that, most important, his control officer was David Atlee Phillips and that he, Veciana, saw Oswald with Phillips.
Tracy, along with Newman, have shown, to me, that Veciana's allegations simply cannot be true. Or to be more charitable, there is no evidence for them.
Nothing in Tracy's post/writings has anything to do with Dulles. Nowhere does he claim that his work on Veciana - and only Veciana - disproves your entire "the CIA did it" allegations. He's limited things to one specific claim.
-
The most common attitude I have encountered among CTs is that they appreciate the work of Armstrong but do not necessarily agree with his thesis of two Oswalds.
There are a few other items which is why most discussion now of Harvey and Lee don't really go anywhere these days.
Mr Armstrong points out some very strange events which he does footnote but then some wild and unsupported conclusions that he doesn't.
I strongly suspect that there was a character involved that impersonated LHO. One point that comes to mind right now is that one of the Davis ladies [at the Tippit scene] testified that the shooter walked casually by and smiled at her. I don't think that Oswald shot that cop anyway..but smiling? That was completely out of character for the established sullen, morose, and usually gloomy Lee.
Your anecdote has absolutely nothing - not a thing - to do with Tracy's work investigating Veciana's claims. The topic is about Antonio Veciana. And his allegations that he worked for the CIA and that, most important, his control officer was David Atlee Phillips and that he, Veciana, saw Oswald with Phillips. Tracy, along with Newman, have shown, to me, that Veciana's allegations simply cannot be true. Or to be more charitable, there is no evidence for them. Nothing in Tracy's post/writings has anything to do with Dulles. Nowhere does he claim that his work on Veciana - and only Veciana - disproves your entire "the CIA did it" allegations. He's limited things to one specific claim.
I believe that Steve is overly outspoken there-1. There is an abundance of threads here on the forum that have gone wildly off topic does he correct these? 2. Just because Mr Bishop wasn't Mr Atlee [and I don't believe that LHO was involved anyway] doesn't mean that a get rid of Kennedy- deep state rogue element of the government intelligence community didn't exist. The analogy is just silly. Look how crooked today's corrupt filled government can be.
-
Elsewhere, Earlier today:
W. Tracy Parnell - October, 22, 2019
The answer to all of Newman's questions is, of course, the Army. Some might argue about what agency could predict Alpha 66/SNFE operations though, as the FBI also had some very good informants inside those organizations-Godoy of the MRP being one. Why does it matter who Veciana worked for? One reason is that if he really was working for ("with" might be a better way to put it) the Army and not the CIA as he now maintains, what else has he lied about?
https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=cogswell%20and%20godoy
and
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38078&relPageId=2&search=cogswell_and%20godoy
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=165216&relPageId=1&search=cogswell_and%20del
No title, pg 1
Found in: FBI documents released on April 26, 2018
: r: tioned in ":' he details of the enclosed report, it should be noted that this individual has been interviewed on 2 or 3 occasions by the NY0 and COGSWELL
is closely associated with the Movimiento Revolucionario del Pueblo ( MRP ) and closely a ssoc 2. ted with JO. tf ':, UII.
COGSWELL used to reside in Cuba and was closely associated with individuals who eventually formed the MRP COGSWELL : has tried to interest people in New
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=155499&relPageId=103&search=antilles_and%20kail
...DEMOHRENSCHILDT, CIA & ARMY INTELLIGENCE MAY 7, 1963
1. On (Illegible) April 1963 Dorothe Matlack, Domestic Exploitation (Illegible) Army telephoned
to the effect that (deleted) had left Haiti six days earlier and had just arrived (deleted). A friend
of Charles, named Joseph Dryer, West Palm Beach, Florida, had written to General Delmar,
former (Illegible) Antilles Command recommending Charles as a man of great interest to the U.
S. Government in view of the (Illegible) in Haiti. Charles was described as President of the
Bank Commerciale, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, who is in President Duvalier's favor. Mrs. Matlack
mentioned that she had already alerted Col. Sam Kail in Miami to contact Dryer in order to
obtain more background information and an (Illegible) (deleted).
1. Our Man in Haiti: George de Mohrenschildt and the CIA in the Nightmare Republic, pg 96
http://books.google.com.... (https://books.google.com/books?id=d_0BBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT66&lpg=PT66&dq=Kail+conducted+debriefings+at+the+"+Caribbean+Admission+Center+:%27&source=bl&ots=StXl7WIHpJ&sig=ACfU3U0Tak4pndhDj08PGK_13PeRRjpIJQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj16Pmx7LDlAhXnV98KHTQJAjcQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Kail%20conducted%20debriefings%20at%20the%20"%20Caribbean%20Admission%20Center%20%3A'&f=false)
Kail now worked for Justin F.
Kail conducted debriefings at the " Caribbean Admission Center :' When Kail garnered a " live one ;' he would turn him over to CIA's Miami station, JMW
Once Fitch was on board, Major Major General Roland Haddaway Del Mar, formerly of the Antilles Command, and director of the Inter-American Defense College
I probably know as much about Cogswell as anybody.... I followed the money. "Who's zoomin' who?"
It seems the WC could be described as investigating itself, see McCloy and Dulles. W.B. Macomber was executive assistant to Foster Dulles after being a CIA agent
and then a key aide to WC's Sen. John Sherman Cooper, Bonesman '22, whose wife had been married to Robert McAdoo.
Lorraine Cooper, Wife of Senator, Dies - Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-02-07-me-5298-story.html
Feb 7, 1985 - John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky and a prominent Washington hostess, has ... She was first married to Robert McAdoo, son of William Gibbs McAdoo ...
George de Mohrenschildt - History Matters
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_deMohren.pdf
by N Congress - 1979
Appendix : Manuscript by George de Mohrenschildt, "I am a Patsy! I am a Patsy!"--. 69 ...... According to Cogswell, he ran into Joseph Dryer, who is a stockbroker.
After discovering that Tom Devine and Dryer's brother, Peter were classmates from K - 9 grades, I emailed
author Joan Mellen.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MellenDryer.jpg)
The China Diary of George H. W. Bush: The Making of a Global ...
https://books.google.com.... (https://books.google.com/books?id=jRvdwoKQOgQC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=bush+china+devine+lias+bemis&source=bl&ots=u8_pz-GE6C&sig=ACfU3U2aRzbs-D-2-pLBzNVNB3yT81-8Kw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6oOyT6rDlAhXBc98KHb7NC0MQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=bush%20china%20devine%20lias%20bemis&f=false)
Jeffrey A. Engel - 2011 - History
Bemis, Lias and Devine had a meeting regarding my political future—very thoughtful of them.5 All I know now is to do the best job one can here. There is no ...
Macomber was Devine's best man, Bemis is the guy Billy Joe Lord complained to President Carter about!
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DevineMacomberBestMan.jpg)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2087.msg56118.html#msg56118
WCer John McCloy, representing the Rockefeller family + Dean Mathey Empire Chrmn
« by Tom Scully on June 30, 2019, 08:55:44 PM »
...... .org/showDoc.html?docId=38109&relPageId=2&search=leslie_and%20cogswell A 1961 dated document.: Quote ............ ://paw.princeton.edu/memorial/charles-leslie-rice-jr-?41 Les Rice died Feb. 11, 1997, in Red
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1940.msg52663.html#msg52663
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellAuntVeciana1966.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellLeslieRiceGodoy1961.jpg)
George O. Walbridge, the best man in Cogswell's 1953 wedding to first cousin of Will Farish, III.
.......
In 1953, Cogswell, III marries for a second time, to Joan Farish, daughter of Stephen Power Farish, uncle of Bush friend, Will Farish III. Cogswell's best man was George O. Walbridge, 2d.
Walbridge turns up in a 1955 newspaper photo, standing in Havana, next to his boss, Lem Billings of Emerson Drug Co., and the former Cuban dictator Prio's former press secretary.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellBillingsWalbridge.jpg)
It turns out that both Lem Bilings and Walbridge are very close to, and employed by the grandson of the Emerson Drug Co. founder, who also is the nephew by the marriage of Nina McaDoo TO George DeM's late uncle, Ferdinand DeMohrenschildt.
Later reports, including by the HSCA, are that Cogswell, III worked for the CIA, raised money to finance at least one plot to assassinate Castro, knew and socialized with George DeM. and with DeM's other contact, Joseph F. Dryer, was a friend of AMRAZZ-1, aka Joaquin Godoy, and with Antonio Veciana, and had an only sister, Theodora, described in an HSCA report as being acquainted with "Livingston" aka Mitchell Werbell.
......