[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Larry Hancock Wrote:The Larry in question would be me, Larry Hancock. Actually in the book I add a bit of additional detail of the CBS investigation, led by Daniel Schorr, of the Minsk story. In his final report on the lead Schorr stated that the CIA had confirmed the asset - but that it an ex-Navy individual in a city other than Minsk. As might be expected they offered no proof and Schorr's informant - vetted as a former CIA employee - had been adamant from the beginning that the paperwork said Minsk and ex-Marine. One piece of CIA internal paperwork about Schorr's inquiry that later surfaced says it all though - it was a directive that measures had to be taken to "ensure Mr. Schorr does not learn anything that might cast the slightest doubt on the above account (ex-Navy, not Minsk) before he produces his program.

It's too bad Schorr never saw that particular piece of correspondence...

Hi Larry,

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I haven't read your book, unfortunately, but since you don't seem to object to the thread title or the wording of the opening post, I'll take the opportunity to direct my response to you. I occasionally find Ben's "liar, liar" rhetoric too tiresome."

And, once again, you've refused to refute my post.

Each time you're caught lying, the rules of this forum is simple - if a lie can be proven by citation to the evidence, then that particular charge can be made.

Despite the fact that it's generally classified as ad hominem.

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:But the CIA did cooperate,

This is such a blatant lie that I find it hard to believe that you thought you could say this without it being pointed out.

All I need say to prove you a liar is one name: George Joannides

And it took me all of 10 seconds to dig up this quote:

“The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation,” says G. Robert Blakey, the former general counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which issued its report in 1979.

Here's a more detailed statement by Blakey:

G. Robert Blakey Wrote:I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission's investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee's investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79.

Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency's DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

I don't believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

During the relevant period, the committee's chief contact with the Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but "happy." Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might "facilitate" the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would be of help to us.

I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.

That the Agency would put a "material witness" in as a "filter" between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.

The committee's researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.

They were certainly right about one question: the committee's researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency's integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.

For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp.

Any believer making the false claim you're making is nothing less than a liar. Feel free to cite if you actually believe that the CIA was honest and "cooperated" with the HSCA

A very common tactic seen all the time with WCR Supporters is to simply run away rather than address the proven lies they've told. I would contend that an honest man would instantly reply that they were wrong about CIA "cooperation" in light of the posted quote & evidence.