Post by Rob Caprio on Dec 23, 2018 22:38:31 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Richard_M_Helms.jpg/260px-Richard_M_Helms.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would look into a man who was the Deputy Director of Plans at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1963. This man was also the liaison between the Warren Commission (WC) and the CIA during its investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). Understanding this man and his department’s activities could help us to better understand what may have transpired on November 22, 1963, and what led to the assassination of JFK.
The HSCA says…Richard Helms.
***************************************************
A possible key witness to what might have transpired on November 22, 1963, was in the custody of the CIA at the time of the WC investigation, but the WC decided not to call him and the CIA seemed to not understand his importance to the assassination. I am of course referring to Yuri Nosenko the former KGB officer who was seeking asylum in the United States in January 1964. Here is what the HSCA wrote about Nosenko’s role in the KGB.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0066a.gif
He claimed to have worked in the KGB Second Chief Directorate whose functions, in many respects, are similar to those of the FBI. According to Nosenko, while working in 1959 in a KGB department dealing with American tourists, he learned of a young American who sought to defect to the Soviet Union. The American was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Nosenko stated he had worked extensively on the Oswald case, and he provided the FBI and CIA with data pertaining to Oswald's request to defect and remain in the Soviet Union, the initial rejection of that request by the KGB, Oswald's suicide attempt and a subsequent decision to permit him to remain in Russia. Although the KGB, according to Nosenko, was well aware of Oswald, it made no attempt to debrief or interview him. Never was any consideration given by the KGB to enlist Oswald into the Soviet intelligence service.
The committee was most interested in Nosenko's claim that in 1963, after Oswald was arrested in the assassination, he had an opportunity to see the KGB file on the suspected assassin. As a result, Nosenko said, he was able to state categorically that Oswald was not a Soviet agent and that no officer of the KGB had ever interviewed or debriefed him. (HSCA Report, p. 101)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0066a.htm
Quote off
The problem for Nosenko is that some in the CIA did not believe he was really trying to defect and some did not believe that the Soviet’s had no hand in the assassination, thus, he would be locked up in solitary confinement between 1964-1968 by the CIA. The WC was also caught up in this issue as if he was telling the truth then that was great as it showed the Soviets had nothing to do with the murder of JFK, but if he was lying where could this lead to? This is why they decided to just ignore him as they did not want to take the chance on showing he could be lying and that the Soviets were involved in the murder of JFK as that could lead to the American people demanding retaliation and a very costly war.
During the four years in confinement Nosenko was asked very little about Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) and one has to wonder why? Why was the CIA constantly afraid to learn more about LHO if he was truly the lone assassin as they claimed? Could it be they already knew everything they needed to know? Or where they afraid where these investigations may lead?
Here is what the HSCA wrote about Richard Helms role in the Nosenko issue and the WC.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0066b.gif
While Richard Helms, then the CIA's Deputy Director for Plans, did tell Chief Justice Warren about Nosenko, the Agency's interest in him seemed to be largely limited to its own intelligence-gathering problem: did the KGB send Nosenko to the United States to deceive the CIA on many matters, only one of them perhaps related to the assassination? (Ibid., p. 102)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0066b.htm
Quote off
Clearly neither the CIA or the WC had any real interest in what Nosenko could tell them about LHO unless it confirmed their preconceived conclusion, but they couldn’t be sure of this so they just ignored him along with many other witnesses. The HSCA did look at some of the operations of the CIA and would focus on Helms’ role in them. The program “AMLASH” was headed by him and the purpose of this was to attack Fidel Catro’s Cuba. These operations would include the Mafia as well as they too wanted Castro gone from Cuba so they could reopen their casinos and other business operations. Helms would deny during his HSCA testimony that AMLASH contained an assassination plan however as he said the CIA was just interested in getting Castro out of power.
Mr. DODD - As you said in your earlier testimony, it is semantics that we are having trouble with.
Mr. HELMS - If you are the target there is a great deal of difference whether somebody is thinking of doing something to you 10 miles from here and actually doing something. I don't mean to indulge too much in semantics, but it is a question of whether anything happened or not.
Mr. DODD - That is not the question. We are talking about what was planned to happen.
Mr. HELMS - The AMLASH operation was designed to try and get a political action operation and a military operation to get rid of Castro. It was he who kept saying that the fastest way to do this is to kill the man. But this didn't mean that the Agency was interested in that aspect of the thing and the primary reason for being in touch with him was quite the opposite. We were trying to do various things to rein him in.
Mr. DODD - It was not suggested that there be a democratic election to unseat Castro?
Mr. HELMS - I should say not. But if you go through the records of those years, you will find it was the whole U.S. Government was behind this one.
Getting rid of Castro the democratic way, with elections, was not considered by the CIA it seems. That says a lot to me. Why would the CIA be the ones to “reign” Castro in? Why did the CIA think they had the right to meddle into other country’s political systems? Who was giving them this power? Also, who believes the CIA did not consider assassinating Castro? Any one? We know now that there were quite a few attempts to do just so, thus, Helms lied while under oath here.
What should we make of this comment by him?
Mr. DODD - Well, could you distinguish this one, then, from the other ones? You didn't want to characterize the other efforts as assassination plots or efforts to single out and get rid of Castro? This one you describe as more of a political operation. I am having a difficult time distinguishing the earlier ones if they are to be distinguished.
Mr. HELMS - Well, I think it goes back, Mr. Dodd, to what I was saying a few minutes ago where one government mounts operations to unseat another government, at what point does what word become what word. You are trying to unseat them and you are trying to unseat them by the means at your disposal. Some may be shooting with guns. Others will take off and go to the hills. Others might be that you could arrest them and put them in jail. You know this as well as I do. It is the history of the world. There are coups constantly going on. All I am trying to say is the U.S. Government had a policy for many months of trying to mount a coup against Fidel Castro.
What coup against Castro was the government behind for many months? I am not aware of one other than the one the authors Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartman have put forth that has never been shown to be accurate. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) was certainly not in favor of killing Castro and neither was JFK, but did they have a coup in place like what happened in South Vietnam? Furthermore, if they did have one in mind would they have gone through with it after what happened to the Diems during that coup? My thought would be no since the deaths of both Diem brothers shook them to the core so I doubt they would have allowed the CIA to lead any more coups for some time if ever again during JFK’s presidency. Finally, if this coup was being planned as Helms said, why was it never put into action after JFK’s assassination? All of these things make me doubt this claim by Helms very much, thus, why should we believe his claim about no assassination plot against Castro?
Mr. DODD - There you go; that is the proper one. Again, just to make sure I understood you, your testimony was that you didn't consider AMLASH to be an assassination plot? It was more of a political operation?
Mr. HELMS - That is right.
Mr. DODD - OK. Now let me read the section where you identified the document. I am reading what is underlined here, and I think for the purpose of the record it is important to note that the underlining was done by the Inspector General It was not done by the committee. It is likely that at the very moment President Kennedy was shot, a CIA officer was meeting with a Cuban agent in Paris and giving him an assassination device for use against Castro. Now, again, I am reading from the same report that we read from earlier. They are calling it an assassination device. Are we getting semantical here again?
Mr. HELMS - I believe it was a hypodermic syringe they had given him with something called Black Leaf-40 in it. This was in response to AMLASH request that he be provided with some sort of a device whereby he could kill Castro. He returned this device on the spot to the case officer. The case officer brought it back to Washington and that was the end of the plot.
Mr. DODD - OK, but for purposes of discussion, the officer gave this Cuban, this agent in Paris, a device with that material you described in it. I presume the material, if injected into a human being, would kill him; is that right?
Mr. HELMS - I would think so, yes.
Mr. DODD - So the officer gives the Cuban agent the device to kill somebody.
Mr. HELMS - I am sorry he didn't give him a pistol, because it would have made the whole thing a lot simpler and less exotic.
Mr. DODD - Well, whether it is a pistol or a needle, if AMLASH is a political plot to destabilize the government, what in the blazes are we giving an agent a device to kill Castro for if it is not an assassination plot?
Mr. HELMS - Well, if you want to have it that way, why don't you just have it that way.
This shows Helms was lying as of course the CIA was going to kill Castro if they could. Also, note the tone when he is shown to be lying about not wanting to kill Castro—doesn’t that remind you of the response you get from many official narrative defenders when you show they were not telling the truth? Have it that way? Isn’t that what the evidence shows us? I think so, therefore, why is he acting like a spoiled three-year old child here?
Senator Dodd gave it back to him as well.
Mr. DODD - It is not what I want.
Mr. HELMS - I think it is what you want.
Mr. DODD - I am reading to you from reports prepared at your request by the Inspector General. I'm not fabricating, I am quoting.
Mr. HELMS - I understand that.
Mr. DODD - Well, it is not a question of what I want. It is a question of what this committee would like to know and the committee is not satisfied, I don't believe, at this point as to exactly what the characterization of AMLASH was.
Mr. HELMS - Well, I have told you what I believe the characterization of AMLASH to be.
Mr. DODD - What does that have to do with this?
Mr. HELMS - Because we gave him a gun or hypodermic syringe or whatever the case may be at his request because he had aims on Castro. If that is your definition of an assassination plot, then have it that way. It is quite satisfactory with me.
We again see a silly comment as if you give someone anything that can kill of course that is an assassination plot of some kind. Otherwise, why are you giving this to the person in the first place? Also, we see in this statement by the HSCA shows the Kennedy brothers would have been right in not trusting the CIA with another coup as they did tell AMLASH that he could use assassination as part of the coup plan if he needed to.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0079b.gif
The CIA's files reflect that as early as August 1962, AMLASH spoke to his CIA case officer about being interested in the "***sabotage of an oil refinery and the execution of a top ranking, Castro subordinate, of the Soviet Ambassador and of Castro himself." The case officer, in his report, while stating he made no commitments to AMLASH, acknowledged that he did tell AMLASH "***schemes like he envisioned certainly had their place, but that a lot of coordination, planning, information-collection, et cetera, were necessary prerequisites to insure the value and success of such plans." Further, cables between the case officer and CIA headquarters reflected that the Agency decided not to give AMLASH a "physical elimination mission as requirement," but that it was something "he could or might try to carry out on his own initiative." Thus, the CIA's relationship with AMLASH at least left him free to employ assassination in the coup he was contemplating. That relationship could also have been viewed by Castro as one involving the CIA in his planned assassination.
Ultimately, the CIA also provided AMLASH with the means of assassination and assurances that the U.S. Government would back him in the event his coup was successful. (Ibid., p. 112)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0071b.htm
Quote off
This shows us that Helms was using semantics as the CIA was telling AMLASH he could kill Castro if he wanted to and then provided him with means to do so, thus, the CIA was employing assassination plans for Castro despite what Helms claimed. This is certainly how Castro saw it. This is cause for concern since Helms was in place to cover-up any Cuban involvement or complicity in the JFK assassination.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0079b.gif
With respect to the CIA's investigation of possible Cuban complicity, however, the committee found that the Agency's shortcomings were not attributable to any improper motive. The committee found that the CIA did generally gather and analyze the information that came to its attention regarding possible Cuban involvement, at least until the Warren Commission made its report in 1964. Indeed, the committee noted that the Agency acted not only out of dedication, but out of a specific motivation related to Cuba. The officers, agents and employees in the Cuba-related divisions had devoted their careers to the overthrow of Castro, and evidence of his participation in the assassination, if it had existed and could have been brought to light, would have vindicated their long-frustrated efforts, of not, in fact, led directly to a U.S. invasion of Cuba and destruction of the Castro regime.
That being said, the committee did not ignore the possibility that certain CIA officials who were aware that close scrutiny of U.S.-Cuban relations in the early 1960's could have inadvertently exposed the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro, might have attempted to prevent the CIA's assassination investigation or that of the Warren Commission from delving deeply into the question of Cuban complicity. The committee determined, however, that only CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms would have been in a position to have had both the requisite knowledge and the power to accomplish such a coverup, and it was satisfied, on the basis of its investigation, that it was highly unlikely he in fact did so. (Ibid., p. 128)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0079b.htm
Quote off
Highly unlikely that Helms would cover-up the Cuban complicity or involvement in the JFK assassination? What? He would have every reason to do so since this could have lead to their “Operation Mongoose” and AMLASH programs that included getting into bed with the Mafia. We just saw Helms was not honest when it came to the killing of Castro as a measure in getting rid of him, so why would the HSCA believe he not would cover-up things? Helms would corroborate the claim that LHO was NOT a CIA asset or employee too during his HSCA testimony.
Mr. DODD - Could I go back a minute. Counsel asked you some questions about this 201 file that existed on Lee Henry Oswald, believe.
Mr. HELMS - That is right.
Mr. DODD - There is some confusion I think in the committee's mind as to how that file was opened. What kind of file is it? What is a 201 file.
Mr. HELMS - It is nothing but a personality file. We might open a file--we get pieces of paper like this and if they refer to Christopher Dodd, we would open a file on Christopher Dodd. They just happen to be called a 201 file because we had a numbering category file of different kinds used in different parts of the Agency. There is no arcane significance at all; it is just a number. It might have been called 5-type files or X-type files.
Mr. DODD - You said it takes something to trigger it?
Mr. HELMS - Yes, it takes a form like this to be filled out.
Mr. DODD - I wanted to get clear in my own mind. Can you tell the committee what it was specifically that triggered the opening of the 201 file on Lee Henry Oswald?
Mr. HELMS - I don't know what happened, sir, I don't know how they got the name wrong. I have no idea anymore, if I ever knew. I don't know whether it was a clerical error, a mistake, or just what I recognize in 1978 when you look back 15 years, Lee Harvey Oswald was not a household name. It may have been somebody thought it was Henry and read it wrong and it was Harvey. But I think it got straightened out very quickly, at the time of the dissemination of reports to the Government when he visited the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City.
But, as we have seen already in this series, LHO NEVER visited the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City. That was an imposter and surely Helms had to know this. Helms would continue to claim that a 201 file did not mean that person was an employee or asset of the CIA.
Mr. DODD - Mr. Chairman, may I request that we suspend for a couple of minutes. I think I can get down to the bottom line very quickly. The mere existence of a 201 file does not suggest in any way, does it, that the person who is the subject of a 201 file is in any manner, shape or form an employee, agent, operative of the Agency?
Mr. HELMS - No, sir; it does not. It simply is a device for holding information. When an individual gets into special categories of relationships with the Agency, then the whole file business is changed.
Mr. DODD - So the existence of a 201 file on Lee Henry--or Lee Harvey Oswald in the Agency would in no way indicate that he is in fact a paid employee of the Agency?
Mr. HELMS - It means absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, there were files in the Agency on Congressmen and Senators, but they had newspaper clippings. If you are going to file a newspaper clipping, you have to put it someplace.
And a regular filing system could have handled this? Why use a 201 that is tied to employment according to people that have worked for the CIA? Also, what would the Senators and Congressmen be doing to garner the attention of the CIA who were supposed to have NO authority in the United States? The HSCA of course would agree with this assessment in their report.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0114a.gif
The results of this investigation confirmed the Warren Commission testimony of McCone and Helms. There was no indication in Oswald's CIA file that he had ever had contact with the Agency. Finally, taken in their entirety, the items of circumstantial evidence that the committee had selected for investigation as possibly indicative of an intelligence association did not support the allegation that Oswald had an intelligence agency relationship. (Ibid., p. 197)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0114a.htm
Quote off
I guess the thought of removing anything that would show LHO was linked to the CIA in the intervening 15 years never occurred to the HSCA, huh? Why would the CIA want a connection to be shown to the accused assassin of JFK? Helms ironically showed us LHO had to have had help in gaining access to the Soviet Union in such a quick manner.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0121b.gif
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0121a.gif
The CIA responded Rankin that the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki 1964. Helms wrote to Rankin that the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki was able to issue a transit visa (valid for 24 hours) to U.S. businessmen within 5 minutes, but if a longer stay were intended, at least 1 week was needed to process a visa application and arrange lodging through Soviet Intourist. A second communication from Helms to Rankin, dated September 14, 1964, added that during the 1964 tourist season, Soviet consulates in at least some Western European cities issued Soviet tourist visas in from 5 to 7 days. (Ibid., pp. 211-212)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0121b.htm
Quote off
And yet, LHO got his visa in 24 hours in all likelihood. How was this accomplished? Where did LHO get help from? The CIA? The State Department?
The main area of focus for the CIA in the whole JFK assassination saga was the alleged visit of Mexico City by LHO, but as we have seen already in this series (and my other series “Statements That Sink The WC’s Conclusions”) LHO was never in Mexico City based on the evidence given to us by the WC. Therefore, what where they investigating? It certainly was not the statements of witnesses Elena Garro de Paz, Eusebio Azcue and Oscar Contreras who all showed an imposter was claiming to be LHO. Here is what the HSCA wrote about Helms’ role with the WC regarding this issue and others.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0142a.gif
An examination of the functioning of the Warren Commission indicated to the committee that its staff assumed the CIA would expeditiously provide it with all relevant information rather than merely furnish data in response to specific requests. An analysis by the committee showed that the Warren Commission’s view was not shared by certain high-ranking officials of the agency, including Deputy Director Richard Helms. In fact, the CIA did not always respond to the Commission’s broad request for all relevant material. In testimony to the committee, Helms said the CIA’s general position was that it should forward information to the Commission only in response to specific requests. Helms indicated that he did not inform the Warren Commission of the anti-Castro plots because he was never “asked to testify before the Warren Commission about ***[CIA] operations.” This attitude caused, in view of the Senate committee, an interpretation of the Warren Commission investigation that was to narrow in scope. (Ibid., p. 253)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0142a.htm
Quote off
This is why I find it funny that the HSCA would see no reason for Helms to cover-up Cuban complicity or involvement in the JFK assassination when he was not honest about trying to assassinate Castro or the about these attempts to the WC. Clearly, he would not tell the truth if it protected his CIA as that was what he swore to. He was really no different from the Mafia chieftains in that regard. We see that RFK was told on May 7, 1962, that the plots against Castro had stopped, but of course this too was not true.
Mr. DODD - Is this the same Lawrence Houston who on May 7, 1962, along with Sheffield Edwards, also of the CIA, briefed Attorney General Robert Kennedy about the pre-Bay of Pigs CIA Mafia plots?
Mr. HELMS - I believe it was the same Mr. Houston. He was General Counsel of the Agency for many years.
Mr. DODD - I am looking here at the report from the Intelligence Committee on page 131, the bottom paragraph: "Briefing of the Attorney General on May 7, 1962." An entry in Attorney General Kennedy's calendar for May 7, 1962, states, "1 o'clock Richard Helms. At 4 o'clock the Attorney General met with Houston and Edwards to be briefed on the CIA operation involving Maheu, Rosselli, and Giancana."
Mr. HELMS - That would be the meeting.
Mr. DODD - That satisfies your recollection?
Mr. HELMS - That satisfies my recollection. I have been questioned about that calendar on many occasions. That appointment that I had with the Attorney General that day at 1 o'clock apparently was canceled, so I was never there. But I believe Edwards and Houston did keep their appointment.
Mr. DODD - Isn't it true that at that meeting both Mr. Houston and Mr. Edwards told the Attorney General--on May 17, 1962-that the CIA-Mafia plots no longer were in any existence, were terminated?
Mr. HELMS - That is my understanding of what they told him, Mr. Dodd. I believe--wasn't that contained in a memorandum for the record written after their meeting? Was it written by Colonel Edwards? I don't recall; someone wrote it.
Mr. DODD - I will quote for you the bottom paragraph, bb, on page 132 of this report. It says, "And that Kennedy was told the activity had been terminated as of that time."
Mr. HELMS - I assume that is what they told him.
Mr. DODD - In fact, I will read a direct quote here I have on page 133 of this same report, footnote 4 referring to the italicized paragraph at the top of page 133: The Attorney General was not told that the gambling syndicate operation had already been reactivated, nor as Jar as we know was he ever told that CIA had a continuing involvement with U.S. gangster elements. That is from the Inspector General's report, page 65. That is where the italicized words come from. And then the fourth footnote referring to this general line of questioning, it says, footnote 4: Houston testified that Kennedy insisted "There was not to be any contact of the Mafia without prior consultation with him." Isn't it also true to your knowledge that in 1967 the CIA Inspector General's report concluded that Sheffield Edwards had, in fact, lied when they and Houston had told the Attorney General that these plots no longer existed?
Mr. HELMS - Does it appear in the Inspector General's report that Edwards lied?
Mr. DODD - On page 134 of this same report, I am reading from the first full paragraph at the top of page 134, which reads as follows. As concluded by the CIA itself and the Inspector General's report. Edwards' statement that he was not aware of these developments is implausible. Do you have any disagreement with that statement?
Mr. HELMS - I don't know how to judge it one way or the other. I did not recall the statement as I was sitting here, and I am just unable to help with it. If the Inspector General thought it was implausible, I guess he thought it was, but I don't think any final judgment was made about it. It was part of a very long report which was directed at some other things as well, and I don't recall this ever became an issue that anybody had attempted to define, or refine, let me put it that way.
Anyone that has followed this case knows that this was a lie as the attempts to overthrow Castro were continuing long after May 7, 1962, in fact, we saw AMLASH was meeting with Desmond Fitzgerald of the CIA on the very day JFK was assassinated to discuss methods to get rid of Castro. Of course Helms saw things differently as he said only the Mafia attempts were real assassination attempts.
Mr. DODD - Alright, I would like to proceed, if I could, for the next few minutes and ask you to respond to questions surrounding the so-called assassination plots that were ongoing during the period from 1961 on. And so I would like to have you focus your attention on that particular aspect of your inquiry here today. My first question is, to your knowledge, was any member of the Warren Commission, or its staff, ever informed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the CIA's anti-Castro assassination plots?
Mr. HELMS - I assume that you are referring to the one that is most frequently characterized as an assassination plot which involved the Mafia? Because the other assassination plots I don't accept as assassination plots. And so again we have a definitional problem.
Isn’t trying to kill a leader of a country an assassination? I think so, so what was Helms having a problem with? Did it matter who was trying to do it in the long run? I don’t think Castro would have cared as he would have been dead either way. He would admit he never informed the WC of the Castro plots either.
Mr. DODD - Let's start off and ask whether the Warren Commission was ever informed of any of these attempts on the Cuban regime whether on the person of Fidel Castro or an effort to overthrow his government, or an effort to knock him off personally-whatever they fall into. In any of those to areas your knowledge was the Warren Commission, members or their staff, ever informed of these efforts?
Mr. HELMS - I don't know what the Warren Commission knew Mr. Dodd as I didn't inform them of these things, but they had among them as members Mr. Allen Dulles, who was certainly aware of what had been going on with respect to Cuba; Senator Russell of Georgia, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, who was also aware of what was going on with respect to Cuba; Mr. McCone who was director at the time, also knew what was happening. What the Commission knew from those gentlemen I don't know. I never spoke to them myself about it.
Mr. DODD - But you never did personally?
Mr. HELMS - I never did.
This is very important issue as I have read comments by former WC staff members say if they knew about this one thing it could have changed their whole approach to the case. Clearly these attempts could have made Castro angry and looking for revenge. They also would have shown the CIA and Mafia were in bed on trying to kill Castro so the obvious question could have been asked about using this setup on JFK instead. I personally don’t think Castro had anything to do with JFK’s murder, but the other part of it cannot be ruled out. Did Dulles, Russell and McCone say anything to the rest of the WC or did they keep this quiet? This is a huge question that should be answered.
Especially when we see that major Kennedy hater William K. Harvey was involved in working with the Mafia in the pursuit of killing Castro.
Mr. DODD - I do recognize that you have made a public apology and I preface my questions to you with that in mind. But could you tell this committee who the individuals were that you happened to be involved with on the second set of circumstances involving Mafia chieftains or organized crime figures?
Mr. HELMS - As far as I am aware in that particular situation it was William K. Harvey who was in touch with John Rosselli, and it was Harvey and Rosselli who were attempting to find, if I understood it correctly, some channel from Florida into Havana. I also understand that there was a question of poison pills which were supposed to be transported to Havana. There was never any evidence they were ever transported there or ever left the United States. There was never any evidence that this plot ever left the Florida mainland. If it was indeed an assassination plot, it was mis advertised to me, because I had understood it was an effort to see if a connection could be made between the Mafia in Florida and the Mafia in Havana. To the best of my knowledge, the connection never was made.
Despite Helms’ supposed lack of knowledge of this situation it can safely be assumed it was more involved than he claimed. It can also be safely assumed that Harvey would probably not have needed much prodding to use this setup on JFK if he as asked to. Harvey was said to have exclaimed, “This was bound to happen, and it’s probably good that it did”, when he was told of JFK’s death. Harvey would also report to his superiors that he thought LHO was a Castro agent. Harvey was demoted for trying to kill Castro with poison after he was told to stop, thus, his hatred for the Kennedy brothers was very high. According to E. Howard Hunt in his memoirs, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond, Harvey was ““a ruthless man who was not satisfied with his position in the CIA and its government salary,” and “He definitely had dreams of becoming [CIA director] and LBJ could do that for him if he were president...[LBJ] would have used Harvey because he was available and corrupt.” Harvey also had ties to David Atlee Phillips, rabid anti-Castro Cuban Antonio Veciana, Mafia chieftains Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana. Clearly, he had the connections and means to have been involved in this case if he was given a chance.
Helms would claim that Director John McCone could have found out anything he wanted to know going on in the CIA, but McCone would say he did not know about the Castro assassination plots. Helms would say he did not brief him on these too.
Mr. HELMS - …But let me just explain as Director of the agency Mr. McCone had every opportunity to find out anything in the agency that he wanted to find out. He had an inspection staff, he had executive assistants, he had all kinds of people around him. So what he knew and what he didn't know on a given date I can't possibly attest to, but I do want to make the point that nobody was stopping him from finding out anything he wanted to find out.
Mr. DODD - In the Church committee report which 1 have marked here as JFK exhibit F-539, reading at the bottom: Mr. McCone testified that he was not aware of the plots to assassinate Castro which took place during the years in which he was DCI, Director of Central Intelligence and that he did not authorize those plots. He testified that he was not briefed about the assassination plots by Dulles, Bissel, Helms, or anyone else when he succeeded Dulles as Director in November 1961. Do you take issue with that?
Mr. HELMS - No, I am not going to take issue with it. I would simply end up in a lengthy hassle between me and Mr. McCone. I have better ways to spend my time.
Mr. DODD - So you would agree with Mr. McCone's testimony that he was not briefed?
Mr. HELMS. I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing Mr. Dodd.
Mr. DODD - When you became Deputy Director of Planning in 1962, can you think of any reason why you would not have told Mr. McCone?
Mr. HELMS - The episode, the pre-Bay of Pigs episode, I did talk to him about one day, I know.
Mr. DODD - So you did inform him of the pre-Bay of Pigs effort?
Mr. HELMS - Yes. That was not when he came in 1961; it was after that, so I guess if you parse the statement, the statement is accurate.
But the correct statement is all the attempts the CIA were planning and trying were not discussed with McCone, their director, after the Bay of Pigs (BOP) event. Why NOT? Clearly because he was an outside man who was appointed by JFK and they were doing things they were ordered not to do is the answer IMO. What do you think?
Now, keep in mind he was the CIA liaison with the WC and yet he never told them about all these attempts either!
Mr. DODD - Did you ever talk with the Warren Commission or anyone on the Warren Commission staff about these efforts to get rid of Castro?
Mr. HELMS - No, sir. I might point out in fairness to all concerned that that was not my function in those days. If anybody was going to be briefing the Warren Commission about ongoing operations of any kind in the CIA, it would have been the Director or with the Director's authority.
Mr. DODD - In other words, you talked about these plots to no one who had any connection whatsoever with the Warren Commission?
Mr. HELMS - Not that I know of; no.
Can we say, “Pass the buck?” He was the liaison with the WC so I’m sure if he wanted to he could have let them know about these attempts and their partnership with the Mafia, but obviously these were things they did NOT what the WC to know about. He would pass the buck to a whole lot of people too.
Mr. DODD - In light of all-of that knowledge, in light of the obvious interest and emphasis that the entire U.S. Government had on the possible activities of the Cuban Government, and in light of the fact that you knew that Lee Harvey Oswald had engaged in these activities, why didn't you tell the Warren Commission about the efforts to get rid of Fidel Castro or to overthrow the Cuban Government?
Mr. HELMS - Mr. Dodd, you are singling me out as to why I didn't march up and tell the Warren Commission when these operations against Cuba were known to the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the President of the United States himself although he at that point was dead. All kinds of people knew about these operations high up in the Government. Why am I singled out as the fellow who should have gone up and identified a Government operation to get rid of Castro? It was a Government wide operation, supported by the Defense Department, supported by the National Security Council, supported by almost everybody in a high position in the Government.
Well, he was the CIA liaison to the WC for starters and those groups weren’t, but it is a good question nonetheless. Why did no one in the know tell the WC about these attempts on Castro? To me the answer is obvious—it would have lead them away from their easy, pat preconceived conclusion of a lone nut doing it all by himself is why. What do you think?
Senator Dodd did not let this go and made some valid points to Helms regarding his attempt to pass the buck.
Mr. DODD - But my point is this, according to your testimony, Mr. McCone was not aware of the post-Bay of Pigs efforts and attempts. Robert Kennedy, the then Attorney General, asked that all activities such as that be stopped. Mr. McCone is not aware. I can't ask you why others who had knowledge of this, did not communicate it to the Warren Commission. But as I read your executive committee testimony, you felt you had, not the link with the Warren Commission but had a very active role in communicating with the Warren Commission. That doesn't help me in trying to understand why you would not have made that information available and known to the Warren Commission.
Mr. HELMS - Well, I am sorry, I didn't.
Mr. DODD - In retrospect, do you think it was relevant?
Mr. HELMS - In retrospect, Mr. Dodd, I would have done a lot of things very differently… How would it have altered the outcome of the Warren Commission proceeding?
Mr. DODD - Wasn't that really for the Warren Commission to determine?
Mr. HELMS - I think that is absolutely correct, but they did not have that chance apparently.
Mr. DODD - That is right.
Mr. HELMS - I don't want to take the sole blame for the fact that they didn't have that chance.
It would appear all those years later Helms’ sole worry was “taking all the blame himself” instead of arriving at the truth. Just because no one else told the WC about this issue does not excuse him from not having done so since he was the CIA liaison to them. This would imply he had continual exchanges with them regarding a myriad of issues, but at no time did he feel the need to inform them of the CIA attempts to try and assassinate Castro. Obviously to me this was meant to mislead the WC and keep the focus on LHO instead. What do you think?
I guess we can all sleep okay though since he was “sorry” for not telling them. What do you think Helms’ role in all of this was? Do you think Nosenko had more information about LHO than he was asked to give? What do you think William K. Harvey’s role in all of this might have been?
Helms shows us that the CIA cannot be trusted to tell us the truth as they feel they are above the people of this country and many parts of the government as well. If what he said is true than that is scary as America is supposed to be the beacon of light to the world for independence and freedom and NOT the country deciding who should remain in office in another country. And yet, we see the CIA did this on a regular basis in various parts of the world. Who gave them this authority? The President? The National Security Council? Someone else? From what I have read over the years in the case of Castro it did not come from JFK as he was not for assassination as a political tool.
Do you think if the WC was told about these attempts by the CIA and the Mafia it would have made a difference in their conclusion? Sadly, we will never know for sure, but I have the feeling it would not have changed much since the preconceived conclusion said LHO acted alone.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Richard_M_Helms.jpg/260px-Richard_M_Helms.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would look into a man who was the Deputy Director of Plans at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1963. This man was also the liaison between the Warren Commission (WC) and the CIA during its investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). Understanding this man and his department’s activities could help us to better understand what may have transpired on November 22, 1963, and what led to the assassination of JFK.
The HSCA says…Richard Helms.
***************************************************
A possible key witness to what might have transpired on November 22, 1963, was in the custody of the CIA at the time of the WC investigation, but the WC decided not to call him and the CIA seemed to not understand his importance to the assassination. I am of course referring to Yuri Nosenko the former KGB officer who was seeking asylum in the United States in January 1964. Here is what the HSCA wrote about Nosenko’s role in the KGB.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0066a.gif
He claimed to have worked in the KGB Second Chief Directorate whose functions, in many respects, are similar to those of the FBI. According to Nosenko, while working in 1959 in a KGB department dealing with American tourists, he learned of a young American who sought to defect to the Soviet Union. The American was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Nosenko stated he had worked extensively on the Oswald case, and he provided the FBI and CIA with data pertaining to Oswald's request to defect and remain in the Soviet Union, the initial rejection of that request by the KGB, Oswald's suicide attempt and a subsequent decision to permit him to remain in Russia. Although the KGB, according to Nosenko, was well aware of Oswald, it made no attempt to debrief or interview him. Never was any consideration given by the KGB to enlist Oswald into the Soviet intelligence service.
The committee was most interested in Nosenko's claim that in 1963, after Oswald was arrested in the assassination, he had an opportunity to see the KGB file on the suspected assassin. As a result, Nosenko said, he was able to state categorically that Oswald was not a Soviet agent and that no officer of the KGB had ever interviewed or debriefed him. (HSCA Report, p. 101)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0066a.htm
Quote off
The problem for Nosenko is that some in the CIA did not believe he was really trying to defect and some did not believe that the Soviet’s had no hand in the assassination, thus, he would be locked up in solitary confinement between 1964-1968 by the CIA. The WC was also caught up in this issue as if he was telling the truth then that was great as it showed the Soviets had nothing to do with the murder of JFK, but if he was lying where could this lead to? This is why they decided to just ignore him as they did not want to take the chance on showing he could be lying and that the Soviets were involved in the murder of JFK as that could lead to the American people demanding retaliation and a very costly war.
During the four years in confinement Nosenko was asked very little about Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) and one has to wonder why? Why was the CIA constantly afraid to learn more about LHO if he was truly the lone assassin as they claimed? Could it be they already knew everything they needed to know? Or where they afraid where these investigations may lead?
Here is what the HSCA wrote about Richard Helms role in the Nosenko issue and the WC.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0066b.gif
While Richard Helms, then the CIA's Deputy Director for Plans, did tell Chief Justice Warren about Nosenko, the Agency's interest in him seemed to be largely limited to its own intelligence-gathering problem: did the KGB send Nosenko to the United States to deceive the CIA on many matters, only one of them perhaps related to the assassination? (Ibid., p. 102)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0066b.htm
Quote off
Clearly neither the CIA or the WC had any real interest in what Nosenko could tell them about LHO unless it confirmed their preconceived conclusion, but they couldn’t be sure of this so they just ignored him along with many other witnesses. The HSCA did look at some of the operations of the CIA and would focus on Helms’ role in them. The program “AMLASH” was headed by him and the purpose of this was to attack Fidel Catro’s Cuba. These operations would include the Mafia as well as they too wanted Castro gone from Cuba so they could reopen their casinos and other business operations. Helms would deny during his HSCA testimony that AMLASH contained an assassination plan however as he said the CIA was just interested in getting Castro out of power.
Mr. DODD - As you said in your earlier testimony, it is semantics that we are having trouble with.
Mr. HELMS - If you are the target there is a great deal of difference whether somebody is thinking of doing something to you 10 miles from here and actually doing something. I don't mean to indulge too much in semantics, but it is a question of whether anything happened or not.
Mr. DODD - That is not the question. We are talking about what was planned to happen.
Mr. HELMS - The AMLASH operation was designed to try and get a political action operation and a military operation to get rid of Castro. It was he who kept saying that the fastest way to do this is to kill the man. But this didn't mean that the Agency was interested in that aspect of the thing and the primary reason for being in touch with him was quite the opposite. We were trying to do various things to rein him in.
Mr. DODD - It was not suggested that there be a democratic election to unseat Castro?
Mr. HELMS - I should say not. But if you go through the records of those years, you will find it was the whole U.S. Government was behind this one.
Getting rid of Castro the democratic way, with elections, was not considered by the CIA it seems. That says a lot to me. Why would the CIA be the ones to “reign” Castro in? Why did the CIA think they had the right to meddle into other country’s political systems? Who was giving them this power? Also, who believes the CIA did not consider assassinating Castro? Any one? We know now that there were quite a few attempts to do just so, thus, Helms lied while under oath here.
What should we make of this comment by him?
Mr. DODD - Well, could you distinguish this one, then, from the other ones? You didn't want to characterize the other efforts as assassination plots or efforts to single out and get rid of Castro? This one you describe as more of a political operation. I am having a difficult time distinguishing the earlier ones if they are to be distinguished.
Mr. HELMS - Well, I think it goes back, Mr. Dodd, to what I was saying a few minutes ago where one government mounts operations to unseat another government, at what point does what word become what word. You are trying to unseat them and you are trying to unseat them by the means at your disposal. Some may be shooting with guns. Others will take off and go to the hills. Others might be that you could arrest them and put them in jail. You know this as well as I do. It is the history of the world. There are coups constantly going on. All I am trying to say is the U.S. Government had a policy for many months of trying to mount a coup against Fidel Castro.
What coup against Castro was the government behind for many months? I am not aware of one other than the one the authors Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartman have put forth that has never been shown to be accurate. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) was certainly not in favor of killing Castro and neither was JFK, but did they have a coup in place like what happened in South Vietnam? Furthermore, if they did have one in mind would they have gone through with it after what happened to the Diems during that coup? My thought would be no since the deaths of both Diem brothers shook them to the core so I doubt they would have allowed the CIA to lead any more coups for some time if ever again during JFK’s presidency. Finally, if this coup was being planned as Helms said, why was it never put into action after JFK’s assassination? All of these things make me doubt this claim by Helms very much, thus, why should we believe his claim about no assassination plot against Castro?
Mr. DODD - There you go; that is the proper one. Again, just to make sure I understood you, your testimony was that you didn't consider AMLASH to be an assassination plot? It was more of a political operation?
Mr. HELMS - That is right.
Mr. DODD - OK. Now let me read the section where you identified the document. I am reading what is underlined here, and I think for the purpose of the record it is important to note that the underlining was done by the Inspector General It was not done by the committee. It is likely that at the very moment President Kennedy was shot, a CIA officer was meeting with a Cuban agent in Paris and giving him an assassination device for use against Castro. Now, again, I am reading from the same report that we read from earlier. They are calling it an assassination device. Are we getting semantical here again?
Mr. HELMS - I believe it was a hypodermic syringe they had given him with something called Black Leaf-40 in it. This was in response to AMLASH request that he be provided with some sort of a device whereby he could kill Castro. He returned this device on the spot to the case officer. The case officer brought it back to Washington and that was the end of the plot.
Mr. DODD - OK, but for purposes of discussion, the officer gave this Cuban, this agent in Paris, a device with that material you described in it. I presume the material, if injected into a human being, would kill him; is that right?
Mr. HELMS - I would think so, yes.
Mr. DODD - So the officer gives the Cuban agent the device to kill somebody.
Mr. HELMS - I am sorry he didn't give him a pistol, because it would have made the whole thing a lot simpler and less exotic.
Mr. DODD - Well, whether it is a pistol or a needle, if AMLASH is a political plot to destabilize the government, what in the blazes are we giving an agent a device to kill Castro for if it is not an assassination plot?
Mr. HELMS - Well, if you want to have it that way, why don't you just have it that way.
This shows Helms was lying as of course the CIA was going to kill Castro if they could. Also, note the tone when he is shown to be lying about not wanting to kill Castro—doesn’t that remind you of the response you get from many official narrative defenders when you show they were not telling the truth? Have it that way? Isn’t that what the evidence shows us? I think so, therefore, why is he acting like a spoiled three-year old child here?
Senator Dodd gave it back to him as well.
Mr. DODD - It is not what I want.
Mr. HELMS - I think it is what you want.
Mr. DODD - I am reading to you from reports prepared at your request by the Inspector General. I'm not fabricating, I am quoting.
Mr. HELMS - I understand that.
Mr. DODD - Well, it is not a question of what I want. It is a question of what this committee would like to know and the committee is not satisfied, I don't believe, at this point as to exactly what the characterization of AMLASH was.
Mr. HELMS - Well, I have told you what I believe the characterization of AMLASH to be.
Mr. DODD - What does that have to do with this?
Mr. HELMS - Because we gave him a gun or hypodermic syringe or whatever the case may be at his request because he had aims on Castro. If that is your definition of an assassination plot, then have it that way. It is quite satisfactory with me.
We again see a silly comment as if you give someone anything that can kill of course that is an assassination plot of some kind. Otherwise, why are you giving this to the person in the first place? Also, we see in this statement by the HSCA shows the Kennedy brothers would have been right in not trusting the CIA with another coup as they did tell AMLASH that he could use assassination as part of the coup plan if he needed to.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0079b.gif
The CIA's files reflect that as early as August 1962, AMLASH spoke to his CIA case officer about being interested in the "***sabotage of an oil refinery and the execution of a top ranking, Castro subordinate, of the Soviet Ambassador and of Castro himself." The case officer, in his report, while stating he made no commitments to AMLASH, acknowledged that he did tell AMLASH "***schemes like he envisioned certainly had their place, but that a lot of coordination, planning, information-collection, et cetera, were necessary prerequisites to insure the value and success of such plans." Further, cables between the case officer and CIA headquarters reflected that the Agency decided not to give AMLASH a "physical elimination mission as requirement," but that it was something "he could or might try to carry out on his own initiative." Thus, the CIA's relationship with AMLASH at least left him free to employ assassination in the coup he was contemplating. That relationship could also have been viewed by Castro as one involving the CIA in his planned assassination.
Ultimately, the CIA also provided AMLASH with the means of assassination and assurances that the U.S. Government would back him in the event his coup was successful. (Ibid., p. 112)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0071b.htm
Quote off
This shows us that Helms was using semantics as the CIA was telling AMLASH he could kill Castro if he wanted to and then provided him with means to do so, thus, the CIA was employing assassination plans for Castro despite what Helms claimed. This is certainly how Castro saw it. This is cause for concern since Helms was in place to cover-up any Cuban involvement or complicity in the JFK assassination.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0079b.gif
With respect to the CIA's investigation of possible Cuban complicity, however, the committee found that the Agency's shortcomings were not attributable to any improper motive. The committee found that the CIA did generally gather and analyze the information that came to its attention regarding possible Cuban involvement, at least until the Warren Commission made its report in 1964. Indeed, the committee noted that the Agency acted not only out of dedication, but out of a specific motivation related to Cuba. The officers, agents and employees in the Cuba-related divisions had devoted their careers to the overthrow of Castro, and evidence of his participation in the assassination, if it had existed and could have been brought to light, would have vindicated their long-frustrated efforts, of not, in fact, led directly to a U.S. invasion of Cuba and destruction of the Castro regime.
That being said, the committee did not ignore the possibility that certain CIA officials who were aware that close scrutiny of U.S.-Cuban relations in the early 1960's could have inadvertently exposed the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro, might have attempted to prevent the CIA's assassination investigation or that of the Warren Commission from delving deeply into the question of Cuban complicity. The committee determined, however, that only CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms would have been in a position to have had both the requisite knowledge and the power to accomplish such a coverup, and it was satisfied, on the basis of its investigation, that it was highly unlikely he in fact did so. (Ibid., p. 128)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0079b.htm
Quote off
Highly unlikely that Helms would cover-up the Cuban complicity or involvement in the JFK assassination? What? He would have every reason to do so since this could have lead to their “Operation Mongoose” and AMLASH programs that included getting into bed with the Mafia. We just saw Helms was not honest when it came to the killing of Castro as a measure in getting rid of him, so why would the HSCA believe he not would cover-up things? Helms would corroborate the claim that LHO was NOT a CIA asset or employee too during his HSCA testimony.
Mr. DODD - Could I go back a minute. Counsel asked you some questions about this 201 file that existed on Lee Henry Oswald, believe.
Mr. HELMS - That is right.
Mr. DODD - There is some confusion I think in the committee's mind as to how that file was opened. What kind of file is it? What is a 201 file.
Mr. HELMS - It is nothing but a personality file. We might open a file--we get pieces of paper like this and if they refer to Christopher Dodd, we would open a file on Christopher Dodd. They just happen to be called a 201 file because we had a numbering category file of different kinds used in different parts of the Agency. There is no arcane significance at all; it is just a number. It might have been called 5-type files or X-type files.
Mr. DODD - You said it takes something to trigger it?
Mr. HELMS - Yes, it takes a form like this to be filled out.
Mr. DODD - I wanted to get clear in my own mind. Can you tell the committee what it was specifically that triggered the opening of the 201 file on Lee Henry Oswald?
Mr. HELMS - I don't know what happened, sir, I don't know how they got the name wrong. I have no idea anymore, if I ever knew. I don't know whether it was a clerical error, a mistake, or just what I recognize in 1978 when you look back 15 years, Lee Harvey Oswald was not a household name. It may have been somebody thought it was Henry and read it wrong and it was Harvey. But I think it got straightened out very quickly, at the time of the dissemination of reports to the Government when he visited the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City.
But, as we have seen already in this series, LHO NEVER visited the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City. That was an imposter and surely Helms had to know this. Helms would continue to claim that a 201 file did not mean that person was an employee or asset of the CIA.
Mr. DODD - Mr. Chairman, may I request that we suspend for a couple of minutes. I think I can get down to the bottom line very quickly. The mere existence of a 201 file does not suggest in any way, does it, that the person who is the subject of a 201 file is in any manner, shape or form an employee, agent, operative of the Agency?
Mr. HELMS - No, sir; it does not. It simply is a device for holding information. When an individual gets into special categories of relationships with the Agency, then the whole file business is changed.
Mr. DODD - So the existence of a 201 file on Lee Henry--or Lee Harvey Oswald in the Agency would in no way indicate that he is in fact a paid employee of the Agency?
Mr. HELMS - It means absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, there were files in the Agency on Congressmen and Senators, but they had newspaper clippings. If you are going to file a newspaper clipping, you have to put it someplace.
And a regular filing system could have handled this? Why use a 201 that is tied to employment according to people that have worked for the CIA? Also, what would the Senators and Congressmen be doing to garner the attention of the CIA who were supposed to have NO authority in the United States? The HSCA of course would agree with this assessment in their report.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0114a.gif
The results of this investigation confirmed the Warren Commission testimony of McCone and Helms. There was no indication in Oswald's CIA file that he had ever had contact with the Agency. Finally, taken in their entirety, the items of circumstantial evidence that the committee had selected for investigation as possibly indicative of an intelligence association did not support the allegation that Oswald had an intelligence agency relationship. (Ibid., p. 197)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0114a.htm
Quote off
I guess the thought of removing anything that would show LHO was linked to the CIA in the intervening 15 years never occurred to the HSCA, huh? Why would the CIA want a connection to be shown to the accused assassin of JFK? Helms ironically showed us LHO had to have had help in gaining access to the Soviet Union in such a quick manner.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0121b.gif
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0121a.gif
The CIA responded Rankin that the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki 1964. Helms wrote to Rankin that the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki was able to issue a transit visa (valid for 24 hours) to U.S. businessmen within 5 minutes, but if a longer stay were intended, at least 1 week was needed to process a visa application and arrange lodging through Soviet Intourist. A second communication from Helms to Rankin, dated September 14, 1964, added that during the 1964 tourist season, Soviet consulates in at least some Western European cities issued Soviet tourist visas in from 5 to 7 days. (Ibid., pp. 211-212)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0121b.htm
Quote off
And yet, LHO got his visa in 24 hours in all likelihood. How was this accomplished? Where did LHO get help from? The CIA? The State Department?
The main area of focus for the CIA in the whole JFK assassination saga was the alleged visit of Mexico City by LHO, but as we have seen already in this series (and my other series “Statements That Sink The WC’s Conclusions”) LHO was never in Mexico City based on the evidence given to us by the WC. Therefore, what where they investigating? It certainly was not the statements of witnesses Elena Garro de Paz, Eusebio Azcue and Oscar Contreras who all showed an imposter was claiming to be LHO. Here is what the HSCA wrote about Helms’ role with the WC regarding this issue and others.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0142a.gif
An examination of the functioning of the Warren Commission indicated to the committee that its staff assumed the CIA would expeditiously provide it with all relevant information rather than merely furnish data in response to specific requests. An analysis by the committee showed that the Warren Commission’s view was not shared by certain high-ranking officials of the agency, including Deputy Director Richard Helms. In fact, the CIA did not always respond to the Commission’s broad request for all relevant material. In testimony to the committee, Helms said the CIA’s general position was that it should forward information to the Commission only in response to specific requests. Helms indicated that he did not inform the Warren Commission of the anti-Castro plots because he was never “asked to testify before the Warren Commission about ***[CIA] operations.” This attitude caused, in view of the Senate committee, an interpretation of the Warren Commission investigation that was to narrow in scope. (Ibid., p. 253)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0142a.htm
Quote off
This is why I find it funny that the HSCA would see no reason for Helms to cover-up Cuban complicity or involvement in the JFK assassination when he was not honest about trying to assassinate Castro or the about these attempts to the WC. Clearly, he would not tell the truth if it protected his CIA as that was what he swore to. He was really no different from the Mafia chieftains in that regard. We see that RFK was told on May 7, 1962, that the plots against Castro had stopped, but of course this too was not true.
Mr. DODD - Is this the same Lawrence Houston who on May 7, 1962, along with Sheffield Edwards, also of the CIA, briefed Attorney General Robert Kennedy about the pre-Bay of Pigs CIA Mafia plots?
Mr. HELMS - I believe it was the same Mr. Houston. He was General Counsel of the Agency for many years.
Mr. DODD - I am looking here at the report from the Intelligence Committee on page 131, the bottom paragraph: "Briefing of the Attorney General on May 7, 1962." An entry in Attorney General Kennedy's calendar for May 7, 1962, states, "1 o'clock Richard Helms. At 4 o'clock the Attorney General met with Houston and Edwards to be briefed on the CIA operation involving Maheu, Rosselli, and Giancana."
Mr. HELMS - That would be the meeting.
Mr. DODD - That satisfies your recollection?
Mr. HELMS - That satisfies my recollection. I have been questioned about that calendar on many occasions. That appointment that I had with the Attorney General that day at 1 o'clock apparently was canceled, so I was never there. But I believe Edwards and Houston did keep their appointment.
Mr. DODD - Isn't it true that at that meeting both Mr. Houston and Mr. Edwards told the Attorney General--on May 17, 1962-that the CIA-Mafia plots no longer were in any existence, were terminated?
Mr. HELMS - That is my understanding of what they told him, Mr. Dodd. I believe--wasn't that contained in a memorandum for the record written after their meeting? Was it written by Colonel Edwards? I don't recall; someone wrote it.
Mr. DODD - I will quote for you the bottom paragraph, bb, on page 132 of this report. It says, "And that Kennedy was told the activity had been terminated as of that time."
Mr. HELMS - I assume that is what they told him.
Mr. DODD - In fact, I will read a direct quote here I have on page 133 of this same report, footnote 4 referring to the italicized paragraph at the top of page 133: The Attorney General was not told that the gambling syndicate operation had already been reactivated, nor as Jar as we know was he ever told that CIA had a continuing involvement with U.S. gangster elements. That is from the Inspector General's report, page 65. That is where the italicized words come from. And then the fourth footnote referring to this general line of questioning, it says, footnote 4: Houston testified that Kennedy insisted "There was not to be any contact of the Mafia without prior consultation with him." Isn't it also true to your knowledge that in 1967 the CIA Inspector General's report concluded that Sheffield Edwards had, in fact, lied when they and Houston had told the Attorney General that these plots no longer existed?
Mr. HELMS - Does it appear in the Inspector General's report that Edwards lied?
Mr. DODD - On page 134 of this same report, I am reading from the first full paragraph at the top of page 134, which reads as follows. As concluded by the CIA itself and the Inspector General's report. Edwards' statement that he was not aware of these developments is implausible. Do you have any disagreement with that statement?
Mr. HELMS - I don't know how to judge it one way or the other. I did not recall the statement as I was sitting here, and I am just unable to help with it. If the Inspector General thought it was implausible, I guess he thought it was, but I don't think any final judgment was made about it. It was part of a very long report which was directed at some other things as well, and I don't recall this ever became an issue that anybody had attempted to define, or refine, let me put it that way.
Anyone that has followed this case knows that this was a lie as the attempts to overthrow Castro were continuing long after May 7, 1962, in fact, we saw AMLASH was meeting with Desmond Fitzgerald of the CIA on the very day JFK was assassinated to discuss methods to get rid of Castro. Of course Helms saw things differently as he said only the Mafia attempts were real assassination attempts.
Mr. DODD - Alright, I would like to proceed, if I could, for the next few minutes and ask you to respond to questions surrounding the so-called assassination plots that were ongoing during the period from 1961 on. And so I would like to have you focus your attention on that particular aspect of your inquiry here today. My first question is, to your knowledge, was any member of the Warren Commission, or its staff, ever informed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the CIA's anti-Castro assassination plots?
Mr. HELMS - I assume that you are referring to the one that is most frequently characterized as an assassination plot which involved the Mafia? Because the other assassination plots I don't accept as assassination plots. And so again we have a definitional problem.
Isn’t trying to kill a leader of a country an assassination? I think so, so what was Helms having a problem with? Did it matter who was trying to do it in the long run? I don’t think Castro would have cared as he would have been dead either way. He would admit he never informed the WC of the Castro plots either.
Mr. DODD - Let's start off and ask whether the Warren Commission was ever informed of any of these attempts on the Cuban regime whether on the person of Fidel Castro or an effort to overthrow his government, or an effort to knock him off personally-whatever they fall into. In any of those to areas your knowledge was the Warren Commission, members or their staff, ever informed of these efforts?
Mr. HELMS - I don't know what the Warren Commission knew Mr. Dodd as I didn't inform them of these things, but they had among them as members Mr. Allen Dulles, who was certainly aware of what had been going on with respect to Cuba; Senator Russell of Georgia, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, who was also aware of what was going on with respect to Cuba; Mr. McCone who was director at the time, also knew what was happening. What the Commission knew from those gentlemen I don't know. I never spoke to them myself about it.
Mr. DODD - But you never did personally?
Mr. HELMS - I never did.
This is very important issue as I have read comments by former WC staff members say if they knew about this one thing it could have changed their whole approach to the case. Clearly these attempts could have made Castro angry and looking for revenge. They also would have shown the CIA and Mafia were in bed on trying to kill Castro so the obvious question could have been asked about using this setup on JFK instead. I personally don’t think Castro had anything to do with JFK’s murder, but the other part of it cannot be ruled out. Did Dulles, Russell and McCone say anything to the rest of the WC or did they keep this quiet? This is a huge question that should be answered.
Especially when we see that major Kennedy hater William K. Harvey was involved in working with the Mafia in the pursuit of killing Castro.
Mr. DODD - I do recognize that you have made a public apology and I preface my questions to you with that in mind. But could you tell this committee who the individuals were that you happened to be involved with on the second set of circumstances involving Mafia chieftains or organized crime figures?
Mr. HELMS - As far as I am aware in that particular situation it was William K. Harvey who was in touch with John Rosselli, and it was Harvey and Rosselli who were attempting to find, if I understood it correctly, some channel from Florida into Havana. I also understand that there was a question of poison pills which were supposed to be transported to Havana. There was never any evidence they were ever transported there or ever left the United States. There was never any evidence that this plot ever left the Florida mainland. If it was indeed an assassination plot, it was mis advertised to me, because I had understood it was an effort to see if a connection could be made between the Mafia in Florida and the Mafia in Havana. To the best of my knowledge, the connection never was made.
Despite Helms’ supposed lack of knowledge of this situation it can safely be assumed it was more involved than he claimed. It can also be safely assumed that Harvey would probably not have needed much prodding to use this setup on JFK if he as asked to. Harvey was said to have exclaimed, “This was bound to happen, and it’s probably good that it did”, when he was told of JFK’s death. Harvey would also report to his superiors that he thought LHO was a Castro agent. Harvey was demoted for trying to kill Castro with poison after he was told to stop, thus, his hatred for the Kennedy brothers was very high. According to E. Howard Hunt in his memoirs, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond, Harvey was ““a ruthless man who was not satisfied with his position in the CIA and its government salary,” and “He definitely had dreams of becoming [CIA director] and LBJ could do that for him if he were president...[LBJ] would have used Harvey because he was available and corrupt.” Harvey also had ties to David Atlee Phillips, rabid anti-Castro Cuban Antonio Veciana, Mafia chieftains Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana. Clearly, he had the connections and means to have been involved in this case if he was given a chance.
Helms would claim that Director John McCone could have found out anything he wanted to know going on in the CIA, but McCone would say he did not know about the Castro assassination plots. Helms would say he did not brief him on these too.
Mr. HELMS - …But let me just explain as Director of the agency Mr. McCone had every opportunity to find out anything in the agency that he wanted to find out. He had an inspection staff, he had executive assistants, he had all kinds of people around him. So what he knew and what he didn't know on a given date I can't possibly attest to, but I do want to make the point that nobody was stopping him from finding out anything he wanted to find out.
Mr. DODD - In the Church committee report which 1 have marked here as JFK exhibit F-539, reading at the bottom: Mr. McCone testified that he was not aware of the plots to assassinate Castro which took place during the years in which he was DCI, Director of Central Intelligence and that he did not authorize those plots. He testified that he was not briefed about the assassination plots by Dulles, Bissel, Helms, or anyone else when he succeeded Dulles as Director in November 1961. Do you take issue with that?
Mr. HELMS - No, I am not going to take issue with it. I would simply end up in a lengthy hassle between me and Mr. McCone. I have better ways to spend my time.
Mr. DODD - So you would agree with Mr. McCone's testimony that he was not briefed?
Mr. HELMS. I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing Mr. Dodd.
Mr. DODD - When you became Deputy Director of Planning in 1962, can you think of any reason why you would not have told Mr. McCone?
Mr. HELMS - The episode, the pre-Bay of Pigs episode, I did talk to him about one day, I know.
Mr. DODD - So you did inform him of the pre-Bay of Pigs effort?
Mr. HELMS - Yes. That was not when he came in 1961; it was after that, so I guess if you parse the statement, the statement is accurate.
But the correct statement is all the attempts the CIA were planning and trying were not discussed with McCone, their director, after the Bay of Pigs (BOP) event. Why NOT? Clearly because he was an outside man who was appointed by JFK and they were doing things they were ordered not to do is the answer IMO. What do you think?
Now, keep in mind he was the CIA liaison with the WC and yet he never told them about all these attempts either!
Mr. DODD - Did you ever talk with the Warren Commission or anyone on the Warren Commission staff about these efforts to get rid of Castro?
Mr. HELMS - No, sir. I might point out in fairness to all concerned that that was not my function in those days. If anybody was going to be briefing the Warren Commission about ongoing operations of any kind in the CIA, it would have been the Director or with the Director's authority.
Mr. DODD - In other words, you talked about these plots to no one who had any connection whatsoever with the Warren Commission?
Mr. HELMS - Not that I know of; no.
Can we say, “Pass the buck?” He was the liaison with the WC so I’m sure if he wanted to he could have let them know about these attempts and their partnership with the Mafia, but obviously these were things they did NOT what the WC to know about. He would pass the buck to a whole lot of people too.
Mr. DODD - In light of all-of that knowledge, in light of the obvious interest and emphasis that the entire U.S. Government had on the possible activities of the Cuban Government, and in light of the fact that you knew that Lee Harvey Oswald had engaged in these activities, why didn't you tell the Warren Commission about the efforts to get rid of Fidel Castro or to overthrow the Cuban Government?
Mr. HELMS - Mr. Dodd, you are singling me out as to why I didn't march up and tell the Warren Commission when these operations against Cuba were known to the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the President of the United States himself although he at that point was dead. All kinds of people knew about these operations high up in the Government. Why am I singled out as the fellow who should have gone up and identified a Government operation to get rid of Castro? It was a Government wide operation, supported by the Defense Department, supported by the National Security Council, supported by almost everybody in a high position in the Government.
Well, he was the CIA liaison to the WC for starters and those groups weren’t, but it is a good question nonetheless. Why did no one in the know tell the WC about these attempts on Castro? To me the answer is obvious—it would have lead them away from their easy, pat preconceived conclusion of a lone nut doing it all by himself is why. What do you think?
Senator Dodd did not let this go and made some valid points to Helms regarding his attempt to pass the buck.
Mr. DODD - But my point is this, according to your testimony, Mr. McCone was not aware of the post-Bay of Pigs efforts and attempts. Robert Kennedy, the then Attorney General, asked that all activities such as that be stopped. Mr. McCone is not aware. I can't ask you why others who had knowledge of this, did not communicate it to the Warren Commission. But as I read your executive committee testimony, you felt you had, not the link with the Warren Commission but had a very active role in communicating with the Warren Commission. That doesn't help me in trying to understand why you would not have made that information available and known to the Warren Commission.
Mr. HELMS - Well, I am sorry, I didn't.
Mr. DODD - In retrospect, do you think it was relevant?
Mr. HELMS - In retrospect, Mr. Dodd, I would have done a lot of things very differently… How would it have altered the outcome of the Warren Commission proceeding?
Mr. DODD - Wasn't that really for the Warren Commission to determine?
Mr. HELMS - I think that is absolutely correct, but they did not have that chance apparently.
Mr. DODD - That is right.
Mr. HELMS - I don't want to take the sole blame for the fact that they didn't have that chance.
It would appear all those years later Helms’ sole worry was “taking all the blame himself” instead of arriving at the truth. Just because no one else told the WC about this issue does not excuse him from not having done so since he was the CIA liaison to them. This would imply he had continual exchanges with them regarding a myriad of issues, but at no time did he feel the need to inform them of the CIA attempts to try and assassinate Castro. Obviously to me this was meant to mislead the WC and keep the focus on LHO instead. What do you think?
I guess we can all sleep okay though since he was “sorry” for not telling them. What do you think Helms’ role in all of this was? Do you think Nosenko had more information about LHO than he was asked to give? What do you think William K. Harvey’s role in all of this might have been?
Helms shows us that the CIA cannot be trusted to tell us the truth as they feel they are above the people of this country and many parts of the government as well. If what he said is true than that is scary as America is supposed to be the beacon of light to the world for independence and freedom and NOT the country deciding who should remain in office in another country. And yet, we see the CIA did this on a regular basis in various parts of the world. Who gave them this authority? The President? The National Security Council? Someone else? From what I have read over the years in the case of Castro it did not come from JFK as he was not for assassination as a political tool.
Do you think if the WC was told about these attempts by the CIA and the Mafia it would have made a difference in their conclusion? Sadly, we will never know for sure, but I have the feeling it would not have changed much since the preconceived conclusion said LHO acted alone.