Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 6, 2023 20:43:10 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/davidatleephillips15.jpg
"Maurice Bishop" And David Atlee Phillips:
www.jfk-online.com/bishop.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was formed in 1976 to continue the look at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) that occurred on November 22, 1963. Those that defend the conclusion of the Warren Commission (WC) always say that the HSCA supported the WC's conclusion, but this isn't true as the HSCA said it was probably a conspiracy. The mere fact the HSCA was formed proves they did NOT support the WC's theory or there would have been NO reason to form in the first place.
A key person in the murky area of the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in 1963 was a CIA man and some believe that he met with Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) just months before the assassination. This post will look at this man.
The HSCA Says...David Atlee Phillips.
*****************************************************
On April 25, 1978, the HSCA held a secret session to take testimony from David Phillips. They did this repeatedly for all CIA and former CIA personnel. After World War II a secret program was set up whereby the newly formed CIA would merge with the media of the United States. They would use reporters and editors in all areas such as radio, books and newspapers to spread the gospel of the CIA. When television came along and began to be in a large number of American households this was added to Mockingbird as well. The reason I mention this is because this is how Phillips began his career with the CIA.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0009.gif
Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Phillips, are you a former employee of the CIA?
Mr. Phillips. Yes, I am.
Mr. Goldsmith. Would you give the committee a summary of the positions you held while you were at the agency?
Mr. Phillips. I was recruited by the CIA as a part time assistant in 1950 in Chile where I was a newspaperman. I continued in that capacity for some four years and I became a full time intelligence officer in 1954 when I was in Guatemala. In 1955 and 1956 I was in Cuba. In 1957 and 1958 I was in Lebanon. In 1959 and 1960 I was in Cuba again...In late 1961 I was assigned to Mexico City... (HSCA Secret Testimony of David Phillips, April 25, 1978, p. 3)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/html/phillips_0009.htm
Quote off
So, David Phillips was a newspaperman and a CIA operative for FOUR YEARS before he became a full-time CIA employee. How many others in the media were doing this same kind of work? Were their stories the truth or what the CIA wanted Americans to believe? Notice two that Phillips served in Cuba two different times and was there after the Fidel Castro "revolution" for some time. Why would Castro allow CIA personnel to stay in his country?
Phillips would also be tied to the CIA station in Mexico City, Mexico, for years and this of course was tied to the assassination by a supposed trip there by the alleged assassin, LHO, months before the deed. Phillips would retire from the CIA in 1975 and promptly go to the board of the Retired Intelligence Officers Association that he founded himself. Phillips would admit that CIA personnel would use pseudonyms.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0012.gif
Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Phillips, is it true that it is agency policy for case officers, for example, to have pseudonyms?
Mr. Phillips. Yes. Of course all case officers have a pseudonym.
Mr. Goldsmith. Will you explain to the committee what the purpose of that pseudonym would be?
Mr. Phillips. A pseudonym is used so that on records such as pay papers, all sorts of records that go back and forth in a pouch in cable traffic you can refer to a person without actually using his true name. It is a registered thing that a person keeps throughout his career unless for some reason it is blown, unless it becomes known publicly, in which case the pseudonym is changed. (Ibid. p. 6)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/html/phillips_0012.htm
Quote off
Phillips said that a pseudonym would be used throughout your career unless it was blown or had become known publicly, but the one tied to Phillips by many researchers didn't fall into those two categories. "Maurice Bishop" was never blown or became known publicly until many years later and possibly only after Phillips had already retired from the CIA. This is important because the CIA has never acknowledged that he used that pseudonym when they had to know for sure because Phillips said that "it was a registered thing" so the CIA had to have known for sure if "Maurice Bishop" and Phillips were one and the same. Why did they never come clean on this? Most likely because "Maurice Bishop" was tied to LHO.
Even Phillips did not admit if that was him as he gave two pseudonyms to the HSCA that he used -- Paul D. Langevin and Michael C. Choaden. (Ibid., p. 7) A pseudonym was different from an alias as the latter just went into a file and was not registered, therefore, this leaves the door open for the idea that Phillips used Bishop as an alias. He would say that the CIA did not keep a registered index of operational aliases and this of course would be a perfect excuse for not knowing that Phillips used Bishop at some point.
On the issue of tapes Phillips would state that his understanding was that they were usually kept for "a couple of weeks or so" and then they would be erased so they wouldn't "pile up." (Ibid. p. 17) This sounds odd to me. One would think they would have a good bit of room in which to store these tapes or that they could send them to Washington, D.C., and let them keep them for review and archiving. He will confirm that to the best of his knowledge the Mexico City CIA station did NOT have a tape that contained LHO's voice on it.
This explanation is quickly put to the test as the HSCA shows him a CIA cable sent on November 23, 1963, and it says in it, "...that the station is unable to compare voices because the first tape was erased before the receipt of the second call." The reason this is important is the tape in question should have been erased by mid-to-late October based on Phillips' testimony, but there had to be a version left to compare the voice to and the date of the cable was almost a month past the time the tapes should have been erased. (Ibid., p. 19) Phillips denies any tapes with LHO's voice on them after the assassination but this is no big deal since LHO was never there. That is why this stuff was deleted. IF they had LHO's voice do you think they really would have gotten rid of that evidence?
Further proof that it was NOT LHO's voice on the tape is that they didn't even wait the two weeks as the tape in question was erased in FOUR DAYS! Clearly they didn't want people to hear what was on it. (Ibid., p. 20) The HSCA went over other evidence that showed the normal waiting period for erasing tapes was two weeks and not four days.
Phillips would be caught in either a lie or just misremembering the issue about the October 9, 1963, cable that spelled LHO's name as "Lee Henry Oswald" as he said he was sure based on what he saw it did not go out that way, but the HSCA produced the cable from CIA HQ spelling it that way. (Ibid. p. 28) This forced Phillps to finally admit he made the mistake in misspelling LHO's middle name. (Ibid., p. 29) CIA Mexico City Station Chief Win Scott caught the mistake as he noted "sic" and yet, the cable went out with it. Why?
He is then shown a transcript from the Cuban Embassy where the caller spoke in Spanish from September 28, 1963, and Phillips finally admits that the caller was not linked to LHO until AFTER the assassination. (Ibid. pp. 34-35) Why couldn't they link this call to LHO before the assassination IF he was really him speaking? To me, this again shows how things were used to frame LHO once the assassination took place.
Phillips said he didn't even think LHO went to the Russian Embassy, but if he did he was not photographed because he went on a Friday and the cameras were not working. His excuse for his alleged Saturday visit not being photographed was that they did not operate cameras on the weekend. (Ibid., 44) Obviously, both of these excuses are lame and no one has bought them over the years including the HSCA. He was correct in the first thing that he said -- LHO was never at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City and that is why he wasn't photographed. Phillips even said, "I have always believed that no picture of him existed." (Ibid.) This proves LHO was never at the Russian Embassy or he was as invisible as his alleged bag was on November 22, 1963.
After claiming he was in Mexico City on October 8-9, 1963, he was shown a cable that stated from September 30 to October 9, 1963, he was at CIA HQ and then the Miami station returning to Mexico City on October 9. (Ibid., pp. 52-53) It is interesting that he stopped at the Miami station (JM/WAVE) as in my opinion the groups most likely involved in the assassination from the CIA would be the Far East group, the Miami group and the Mexico City group (along with key people at Langley and Dallas). Was Phillips coordinating things regarding this issue and possibly getting up to date information about the assassination in Miami?
The other point of importance is, how could Phillips send a cable on October 8 from Mexico City IF he was not in Mexico City? He couldn't of course, so this means he lied. Why would he lie about this? Phillips couldn't explain this for us, but who could blame him? I mean, he couldn't say he was off coordinating the frame of LHO in Mexico City and planning the assassination of JFK for goodness sake.
Instead he blamed it on his book and lecturing career saying that he was prone to "over-dramatize" his role in order to sell more books and get more lectures. (Ibid., p. 56) In other words, he admitted to lying. What else would he lie about? For one, he lied about pushing "Mr. 03" to send the October 8th cable as he wasn't there to push anyone. He then lied about reviewing the October 8th cable and signing off on it. Again, he wasn't there to do either.
Phillips said that he was involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion as the head of propaganda but did not take part in the Castro assassination plots. (Ibid., p. 85) He would deny ever working with Antonio Veciana in any way. (Ibid.) Here is what he testified to about the name Maurice Bishop.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0095.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0096.gif
Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Phillips. Definitely not.
Mr. Goldsmith. You are certain that you have never used the name Maurice Bishop?
Mr. Phillips. I have thought about that a lot since I have seen it in the public print, and I am sure that I have never used the name Morris or Maurice Bishop. (Ibid., pp. 89-90)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/html/phillips_0095.htm
Quote off
Phillips was then shown the famous sketch of the infamous Maurice Bishop and he admitted that it looked like him, but he felt it looked more like his brother. This was a nice deflection as his brother wasn't with the CIA and would have no reason to be meeting with Veciana most likely as he was an attorney in Fort Worth, Texas.
Phillips said that he had never met LHO either. (Ibid., p. 102) Here is what the HSCA wrote about Phillips and Maurice Bishop.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pages/HSCA_Vol10_0025b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pages/HSCA_Vol10_0026b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pages/HSCA_Vol10_0027a.gif
(171) It was Senator Schweiker who focused the committee's attention to David Atlee Phillips, former chief of the Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA Deputy Directorate of Operations, as perhaps having knowledge of Maurice Bishop. Immediately after receiving the Bishop sketch, Schweiker concluded that Phillips, who had earlier testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, bore a strong resemblance to the sketch.
(172) When Veciana was shown a photograph of David Phillips by Schweiker's investigator, he did not provide an absolutely conclusive response. For that reason, it was decided that Veciana be given the opportunity to observe Phillips in person...Following the encounter of Veciana and Phillips, Schweiker's investigator asked Veciana if David Phillips was Maurice Bishop. Veciana said he was not.
(177) When asked by the committee if he was familiar with anyone using the cover name of Bishop at the JM/WAVE station, (Ron) Cross said he was "almost positive" that David Phillips had used the cover name of Maurice Bishop.
(183) Phillips was shown the sketch of Maurice Bishop but could not identify it as anyone he knew. He said, however, "It looks like me."
(184) In sworn testimony before the committee in executive session on April 26, 1978, Antonio Veciana said that David Atlee Phillips is not the person he knew as Maurice Bishop. He said, however, that there was a "physical similarity." (HSCA X, pp. 46-49)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0025b.htm
Quote off
Unfortunately, there is no way to show that Phillips was "Maurice Bishop" although they do look a lot alike. The obvious thought is Veciana was afraid to identify Phillips as him for his own safety. The two men spoke in Spanish at the arranged meeting and unless the person with them spoke Spanish as well, who knows what Phillips could have said to him?
To me, Phillips is a highly suspicious person as he had ties to Mexico City, CIA HQ and the Miami station (JM/WAVE). He admitted to using about hundred aliases over his time with the CIA so Bishop could have been one of them. He had ties to the anti-Castro Cuban exile community and elements of that sector had to be involved in the assassination. He seems like a person who had a lot to hide. What do you think?
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/davidatleephillips15.jpg
"Maurice Bishop" And David Atlee Phillips:
www.jfk-online.com/bishop.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was formed in 1976 to continue the look at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) that occurred on November 22, 1963. Those that defend the conclusion of the Warren Commission (WC) always say that the HSCA supported the WC's conclusion, but this isn't true as the HSCA said it was probably a conspiracy. The mere fact the HSCA was formed proves they did NOT support the WC's theory or there would have been NO reason to form in the first place.
A key person in the murky area of the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in 1963 was a CIA man and some believe that he met with Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) just months before the assassination. This post will look at this man.
The HSCA Says...David Atlee Phillips.
*****************************************************
On April 25, 1978, the HSCA held a secret session to take testimony from David Phillips. They did this repeatedly for all CIA and former CIA personnel. After World War II a secret program was set up whereby the newly formed CIA would merge with the media of the United States. They would use reporters and editors in all areas such as radio, books and newspapers to spread the gospel of the CIA. When television came along and began to be in a large number of American households this was added to Mockingbird as well. The reason I mention this is because this is how Phillips began his career with the CIA.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0009.gif
Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Phillips, are you a former employee of the CIA?
Mr. Phillips. Yes, I am.
Mr. Goldsmith. Would you give the committee a summary of the positions you held while you were at the agency?
Mr. Phillips. I was recruited by the CIA as a part time assistant in 1950 in Chile where I was a newspaperman. I continued in that capacity for some four years and I became a full time intelligence officer in 1954 when I was in Guatemala. In 1955 and 1956 I was in Cuba. In 1957 and 1958 I was in Lebanon. In 1959 and 1960 I was in Cuba again...In late 1961 I was assigned to Mexico City... (HSCA Secret Testimony of David Phillips, April 25, 1978, p. 3)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/html/phillips_0009.htm
Quote off
So, David Phillips was a newspaperman and a CIA operative for FOUR YEARS before he became a full-time CIA employee. How many others in the media were doing this same kind of work? Were their stories the truth or what the CIA wanted Americans to believe? Notice two that Phillips served in Cuba two different times and was there after the Fidel Castro "revolution" for some time. Why would Castro allow CIA personnel to stay in his country?
Phillips would also be tied to the CIA station in Mexico City, Mexico, for years and this of course was tied to the assassination by a supposed trip there by the alleged assassin, LHO, months before the deed. Phillips would retire from the CIA in 1975 and promptly go to the board of the Retired Intelligence Officers Association that he founded himself. Phillips would admit that CIA personnel would use pseudonyms.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0012.gif
Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Phillips, is it true that it is agency policy for case officers, for example, to have pseudonyms?
Mr. Phillips. Yes. Of course all case officers have a pseudonym.
Mr. Goldsmith. Will you explain to the committee what the purpose of that pseudonym would be?
Mr. Phillips. A pseudonym is used so that on records such as pay papers, all sorts of records that go back and forth in a pouch in cable traffic you can refer to a person without actually using his true name. It is a registered thing that a person keeps throughout his career unless for some reason it is blown, unless it becomes known publicly, in which case the pseudonym is changed. (Ibid. p. 6)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/html/phillips_0012.htm
Quote off
Phillips said that a pseudonym would be used throughout your career unless it was blown or had become known publicly, but the one tied to Phillips by many researchers didn't fall into those two categories. "Maurice Bishop" was never blown or became known publicly until many years later and possibly only after Phillips had already retired from the CIA. This is important because the CIA has never acknowledged that he used that pseudonym when they had to know for sure because Phillips said that "it was a registered thing" so the CIA had to have known for sure if "Maurice Bishop" and Phillips were one and the same. Why did they never come clean on this? Most likely because "Maurice Bishop" was tied to LHO.
Even Phillips did not admit if that was him as he gave two pseudonyms to the HSCA that he used -- Paul D. Langevin and Michael C. Choaden. (Ibid., p. 7) A pseudonym was different from an alias as the latter just went into a file and was not registered, therefore, this leaves the door open for the idea that Phillips used Bishop as an alias. He would say that the CIA did not keep a registered index of operational aliases and this of course would be a perfect excuse for not knowing that Phillips used Bishop at some point.
On the issue of tapes Phillips would state that his understanding was that they were usually kept for "a couple of weeks or so" and then they would be erased so they wouldn't "pile up." (Ibid. p. 17) This sounds odd to me. One would think they would have a good bit of room in which to store these tapes or that they could send them to Washington, D.C., and let them keep them for review and archiving. He will confirm that to the best of his knowledge the Mexico City CIA station did NOT have a tape that contained LHO's voice on it.
This explanation is quickly put to the test as the HSCA shows him a CIA cable sent on November 23, 1963, and it says in it, "...that the station is unable to compare voices because the first tape was erased before the receipt of the second call." The reason this is important is the tape in question should have been erased by mid-to-late October based on Phillips' testimony, but there had to be a version left to compare the voice to and the date of the cable was almost a month past the time the tapes should have been erased. (Ibid., p. 19) Phillips denies any tapes with LHO's voice on them after the assassination but this is no big deal since LHO was never there. That is why this stuff was deleted. IF they had LHO's voice do you think they really would have gotten rid of that evidence?
Further proof that it was NOT LHO's voice on the tape is that they didn't even wait the two weeks as the tape in question was erased in FOUR DAYS! Clearly they didn't want people to hear what was on it. (Ibid., p. 20) The HSCA went over other evidence that showed the normal waiting period for erasing tapes was two weeks and not four days.
Phillips would be caught in either a lie or just misremembering the issue about the October 9, 1963, cable that spelled LHO's name as "Lee Henry Oswald" as he said he was sure based on what he saw it did not go out that way, but the HSCA produced the cable from CIA HQ spelling it that way. (Ibid. p. 28) This forced Phillps to finally admit he made the mistake in misspelling LHO's middle name. (Ibid., p. 29) CIA Mexico City Station Chief Win Scott caught the mistake as he noted "sic" and yet, the cable went out with it. Why?
He is then shown a transcript from the Cuban Embassy where the caller spoke in Spanish from September 28, 1963, and Phillips finally admits that the caller was not linked to LHO until AFTER the assassination. (Ibid. pp. 34-35) Why couldn't they link this call to LHO before the assassination IF he was really him speaking? To me, this again shows how things were used to frame LHO once the assassination took place.
Phillips said he didn't even think LHO went to the Russian Embassy, but if he did he was not photographed because he went on a Friday and the cameras were not working. His excuse for his alleged Saturday visit not being photographed was that they did not operate cameras on the weekend. (Ibid., 44) Obviously, both of these excuses are lame and no one has bought them over the years including the HSCA. He was correct in the first thing that he said -- LHO was never at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City and that is why he wasn't photographed. Phillips even said, "I have always believed that no picture of him existed." (Ibid.) This proves LHO was never at the Russian Embassy or he was as invisible as his alleged bag was on November 22, 1963.
After claiming he was in Mexico City on October 8-9, 1963, he was shown a cable that stated from September 30 to October 9, 1963, he was at CIA HQ and then the Miami station returning to Mexico City on October 9. (Ibid., pp. 52-53) It is interesting that he stopped at the Miami station (JM/WAVE) as in my opinion the groups most likely involved in the assassination from the CIA would be the Far East group, the Miami group and the Mexico City group (along with key people at Langley and Dallas). Was Phillips coordinating things regarding this issue and possibly getting up to date information about the assassination in Miami?
The other point of importance is, how could Phillips send a cable on October 8 from Mexico City IF he was not in Mexico City? He couldn't of course, so this means he lied. Why would he lie about this? Phillips couldn't explain this for us, but who could blame him? I mean, he couldn't say he was off coordinating the frame of LHO in Mexico City and planning the assassination of JFK for goodness sake.
Instead he blamed it on his book and lecturing career saying that he was prone to "over-dramatize" his role in order to sell more books and get more lectures. (Ibid., p. 56) In other words, he admitted to lying. What else would he lie about? For one, he lied about pushing "Mr. 03" to send the October 8th cable as he wasn't there to push anyone. He then lied about reviewing the October 8th cable and signing off on it. Again, he wasn't there to do either.
Phillips said that he was involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion as the head of propaganda but did not take part in the Castro assassination plots. (Ibid., p. 85) He would deny ever working with Antonio Veciana in any way. (Ibid.) Here is what he testified to about the name Maurice Bishop.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0095.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/pages/phillips_0096.gif
Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Phillips. Definitely not.
Mr. Goldsmith. You are certain that you have never used the name Maurice Bishop?
Mr. Phillips. I have thought about that a lot since I have seen it in the public print, and I am sure that I have never used the name Morris or Maurice Bishop. (Ibid., pp. 89-90)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/secclass/Phillips_4-25-78/html/phillips_0095.htm
Quote off
Phillips was then shown the famous sketch of the infamous Maurice Bishop and he admitted that it looked like him, but he felt it looked more like his brother. This was a nice deflection as his brother wasn't with the CIA and would have no reason to be meeting with Veciana most likely as he was an attorney in Fort Worth, Texas.
Phillips said that he had never met LHO either. (Ibid., p. 102) Here is what the HSCA wrote about Phillips and Maurice Bishop.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pages/HSCA_Vol10_0025b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pages/HSCA_Vol10_0026b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pages/HSCA_Vol10_0027a.gif
(171) It was Senator Schweiker who focused the committee's attention to David Atlee Phillips, former chief of the Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA Deputy Directorate of Operations, as perhaps having knowledge of Maurice Bishop. Immediately after receiving the Bishop sketch, Schweiker concluded that Phillips, who had earlier testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, bore a strong resemblance to the sketch.
(172) When Veciana was shown a photograph of David Phillips by Schweiker's investigator, he did not provide an absolutely conclusive response. For that reason, it was decided that Veciana be given the opportunity to observe Phillips in person...Following the encounter of Veciana and Phillips, Schweiker's investigator asked Veciana if David Phillips was Maurice Bishop. Veciana said he was not.
(177) When asked by the committee if he was familiar with anyone using the cover name of Bishop at the JM/WAVE station, (Ron) Cross said he was "almost positive" that David Phillips had used the cover name of Maurice Bishop.
(183) Phillips was shown the sketch of Maurice Bishop but could not identify it as anyone he knew. He said, however, "It looks like me."
(184) In sworn testimony before the committee in executive session on April 26, 1978, Antonio Veciana said that David Atlee Phillips is not the person he knew as Maurice Bishop. He said, however, that there was a "physical similarity." (HSCA X, pp. 46-49)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/html/HSCA_Vol10_0025b.htm
Quote off
Unfortunately, there is no way to show that Phillips was "Maurice Bishop" although they do look a lot alike. The obvious thought is Veciana was afraid to identify Phillips as him for his own safety. The two men spoke in Spanish at the arranged meeting and unless the person with them spoke Spanish as well, who knows what Phillips could have said to him?
To me, Phillips is a highly suspicious person as he had ties to Mexico City, CIA HQ and the Miami station (JM/WAVE). He admitted to using about hundred aliases over his time with the CIA so Bishop could have been one of them. He had ties to the anti-Castro Cuban exile community and elements of that sector had to be involved in the assassination. He seems like a person who had a lot to hide. What do you think?