ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES

AND RESEARCH CENTER

  • Founder’s Page
  • AARC PRESIDENT DAN ALCORN
  • About the AARC
  • NEW AARC Lecture Series – 2024/2025
  • AARC 2014 Conference Videos
  • Analysis and Opinion
  • BILL SIMPICH ARCHIVE
  • COLD WAR CONTEXT
  • CURRENT FOIA LITIGATION
  • Dan Hardway Blog: Sapere Aude
  • Destroyed Files
  • DOCUMENTS AND DOSSIERS
  • FBI Cuba 109 Files
  • FBI ELSUR
  • Gallery
  • JFK Assassination Records – 2025 Documents Release
  • Joe Backes: ARRB Document Release Summaries, July 1995-April 1996
  • JOHN SIMKIN ARCHIVE
  • The Malcolm Blunt Archives
  • MISSING RECORDS
  • News and Views
  • Publication Spotlight
  • Public Library
  • SELECT CIA PSEUDONYMS
  • SELECT FBI CRYPTONYMS
  • CIA Records Search Tool (CREST)
  • AARC Catalog
  • AARC Board of Directors
  • AARC Membership
  • In Memoriam
  • JFK Commemoration Lecture Series – 2024

Copyright AARC

Rep. Walter Jones to offer resolution calling for full JFK disclosure

September 22, 2017| jeffmorley

Two senior Capitol Hill Republicans plan to introduce a congressional resolution calling for full disclosure of all U.S. government’s records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Ia.) will introduce their JFK resolution before the end of the month, according to Jones.

Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina

“I want to make sure that the information that is owed the American people is made available,” the veteran North Carolina conservative said in an exclusive interview with AlterNet.  “The American people are sick and tired of not being given the truth. “

The JFK Records Act of 1992 mandated full disclosure of all government records related to the assassination within 25 years. Some four million pages of records were released in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Another 100,000 pages of assassination-related material from a dozen government agencies must be made public by public by the statutory deadline of October 26, 2017.

Under the law, the CIA, FBI and other government agencies can postpone release of still-secret JFK records after October 26–but only with the written permission of the president.

“We going to take a very positive approach and thank the agencies that have the information and are making it public,” Jones said. “At the same time we want to put some pressure on the agencies to release all the information they have.”

CIA Hedges

The CIA declined to say if it plans to seek postponement of the release of the Agency’s remaining JFK records.

CIA HQ

CIA headquarters, Langley, Va.

“CIA continues to engage in the process to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to any previously-unreleased CIA information,” said spokesperson Nicole de Haay in a written statement released Thursday.

The unreleased records include CIA files on two senior officers involved in assassinations and four Watergate burglars, as well as the secret congressional testimony of numerous JFK witnesses.

“I hope they will not request any postponement,” Jones said in the telephone interview. “We’re talking about something that happened fifty four years ago.”

While JFK scholars and journalists have called on Trump to “give us the full story of the JFK assassination,” Jones and Grassley are the first elected officials to lend their clout to the cause.

Jones stressed that the JFK Records Act was approved by a vote of 435-0 in October 1992.

“The first President Bush signed this law and everybody in Congress, Republican and Democrat, voted for it,” Jones said.

Jones said he and Grassley plan to thank Bush and enlist the support of all the members of the House and Senate who voted for the JFK Records Act in 1992, including House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

CONTINUE READING AT JFK FACTS

Filed Under: News and Views Tagged With: 2017, Charles Grassley, CIA, JFK ACT, Kennedy assassination, October 26, REp. Walter Jones

Incomplete

I finally got the “Castro Cuban JFK” story right – I have a chrono, here’s the short form…

The story about Aldo Margolles, allegedly the son of the head of the Cuban national police and apparently the actual director himself – planning to kill JFK in Dec 1961 allegedly emanated from the Secret Service Miami office where Ernest Aragon worked.

Then Emilio Aragones, the head of Castro’s militia and his alleged “right hand man“, is tied to the Margolles story that went to Al Cox.
Then Raul Arguelles, the “head of Castro’s political police“, is alleged to be in “complete charge” of whatever Margolles is about to do.
Then why does Raul Arguelles “report to CIA from Havana“?
Jerry Shinley passed this on to me some time back, and it puts a few things together for me.

Raul Diaz Arguelles, a high-ranking Cuban police official who was described as someone who “reported to CIA from Havana” in CIA review documents of the 1970s…and who allegedly led the Castro Cuban JFK assassination plot of 61-62…was described by Antonio Veciana as present in a Dealey Plaza photo of 11/22.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Shell Games by Malcolm Blunt

Shell Games

29 August, 2017 © 2017 – Malcolm Blunt

Both the Church Committee* and the House Select Committee on Assassinations gained access to the CIA Office of Security files of Lee Harvey Oswald. In 1993, despite a directive from CIA Director Robert Gates seeking an all-encompassing search of ALL CIA components for ANY material/records relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy, the Oswald OS files remained hidden. This huge search by CIA did not surface Oswald’s security files and the Assassination Records Review Board remained uninformed about their existence. Not until 1997 when an ARRB staffer stumbled across evidence that two previous congressional investigations had access to these files did CIA “discover” them. CIA told the ARRB that the reason the Oswald security files were not previously located was because those records were not at the Agency Archival Record Center in Alexandria, VA; they were in fact at CIA HQS in Langley within Office of Security Archival Holdings. How were they missed in the Gates search of 1993?

Right click and choose ‘view image’ to expand.

In 1998 CIA handed over LHO’s Security files to the ARRB. Upon delivery staffers there discovered that of the 7 volume set, one volume, Volume 5, was missing. Prior to sending over the files to the ARRB the CIA’s Historical Review Group, now “consolidated” (disbanded) and reformed as part of IMS (IMG) Information Management Services (Group), also spotted this curious anomaly and had sought to try and work out some sort of explanation for the disappearance. Internal HRG memos show that they first thought that there never was a volume 5, it was simply a case of miss-numbering by clerical staff. Another thought came to mind within CIA/HRG: perhaps the absence of Volume 5 of the Oswald security file might be explained by “consolidation” of those records. In other words, Volume 5 could have been consolidated within Volume 4 and/or Volume 6.

Right click and choose ‘view image’ to expand.

We can detect that some concern was generated within the Agency for obvious reasons; CIA might receive much criticism and subject itself to accusations of “foul play” with regard to the missing volume. CIA eventually decided to go with the following: “Volume 5 of Oswald’s Security file may never have existed.” — Clearly the Historical Review Group, which was responsible for the release of all JFK related CIA material, found itself in an acutely embarrassing predicament. It does seem that there was genuine puzzlement within the HRG about this as they struggled to find an explanation. Some partial explanation may reside in the files of Scott Breckinridge and the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) who acted as liaison between CIA and the HSCA in the seventies. One Breckinridge note describes the OS volumes to which Betsy Wolf, the HSCA researcher tasked with reading Oswald’s security files, had access. In this typewritten note Scott Breckinridge specifically mentions Wolf’s access to Volume 5.

In fact, HSCA records indicate that she reviewed approximately half of the materials within Vol. 5.

So what are we to make of this? In response to official requests from the US Government and despite specific directives from CIA Directors Gates and Tenet, which were acted upon by HRG Chief John Pereira in 1993 and J. Barry Harrelson in 1997, the Oswald Security files seem to have been turned inside out and outside in. Volume 5 existed during the tenure of the HSCA as confirmed by the Chief Counsel of OLC, Scott Breckinridge and the handwritten notes of Betsy Wolf. Sometime between the HSCA closure in 1979 and the late surfacing of those files in 1997, one volume, Vol. 5 disappeared. This beggars the question; for what possible reason? The intact files were previously given to both the SSCIA and the HSCA, so why did the CIA “not find them” until a direct, specific request from the ARRB in 1997? And then, why turn them over minus volume 5? How were the files missed during the Gates search of 1993 and the Tenet search of 1997? The two DCI orders were to search ALL CIA components.

In 1977, while overseeing the process whereby CIA OGC (Office of General Counsel) received the Office of Security Oswald files, Russ Holmes documents in his inventory all 7 OS volumes on Lee Harvey Oswald. Seven volumes in — seven volumes out. As of that accounting, all volumes were present and nothing was missing.

MB

RELATED: Important CIA comments on HSCA draft reports: Scott Breckinridge (CIA OLC) to G. Robert Blakey DOWNLOAD

RELATED: 19 March, 1998: STATEMENT CONCERNING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION ACT OF 1992 DOWNLOAD

RELATED: OFFICE OF SECURITY DOCUMENTS PULLED FROM OS OSWALD FILES PRIOR TO REVIEW BY CHURCH COMMITTEE DOWNLOAD

RELATED: CIA and OPENNESS: Speech by Dr. Robert M. Gates, Director of Central Intelligence, Oklahoma Press Association, 21 February, 1992 DOWNLOAD

________________________________

* An eight-binder index of the Church Committee is still withheld in full. Access to that material may shed light on the issues addressed within this article.

Alan Dale’s conversations with Malcolm Blunt may be heard HERE and HERE.

Right click and choose ‘view image’ to expand images.

 

 

7 JULY 1998 ARRB GUNN TO HARRELSON RE CIA RECORDS SEARCH Pg 1

7 JULY 1998 ARRB GUNN TO HARRELSON RE CIA RECORDS SEARCH Pg 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

A CIA Tutorial: How to Avoid Providing Files

13 SEPTEMBER, 2017 © 2017 – Bill Simpich

With the October releases coming up, we should keep in mind what the ARRB has already told us we will not find.

Civil Rights attorney and author of State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald, Bill Simpich

For those of us who research the Mexico City story, it has always been very frustrating to find that there is no organized way to find the cables and dispatches between Mexico City and Headquarters, or between these two entities and JMWAVE in Miami, except within carefully circumscribed dates.

What we have run into amounts to a CIA tutorial on how to avoid providing information that is mandated under the law.

Eusebio Azcue Lopez, former Cuban consul Mexico City

As shown below, the listing of files for JMWAVE begins on November 21, and the listing of files for HQ and Mexico City begins on October 1.  Very unhelpful for putting together the Oswald story, as well as the events prior to the assassination in Miami.

But not all of the files are missing.  A number of the files within this timeframe do exist – simply in a less organized format.  Many memos are tucked away in various other files, such as the files on Cuban consul Eusebio Azcue in CIA microfilm, Reel 2.

In fact, it is probable that most or all of these files could have been provided by the CIA if they had simply cross-indexed the files within their own Records Integration Division.

The National Archives has the duty to index the files themselves, and send a demand to the CIA for the missing files.  The Act is in effect until “the Archivist certifies to the President and the Congress that all assassination-related records have been made available to the public in accordance with this Act.”

This is yet another reason we need a new JFK Records Act with stronger enforcement powers.

From the ARRB Final Report in 1999:

The Review Board determined that, while much of the Mexico City Station cable traffic
existed in the JFK Collection, the traffic contained numerous gaps, particularly in com-
munications between Mexico City and the CIA Station in Miami, JMWAVE.

The Review Board deemed these gaps to be significant because both CIA stations played roles in U.S. operations against Cuba.

The cable traffic that the Review Board reviewed in the CIA’s sequestered collection commences on October 1, 1963, and contains the earliest known communication—an October 8, 1963, cable—between the Mexico City Station and CIA Headquarters concerning Lee Harvey  Oswald.

In 1995, the Review Board submitted a formal request for additional information
regarding the above-referenced gaps in CIA cable traffic. CIA did not locate additional
traffic for the specified periods. CIA completed its response to this request in February

1998 explaining that:

In general, cable traffic and dispatches are not available as a chronological collection and thus, for the period 26 through 30 September 1963 it is not possible to provide cables and dispatches in a chronological/package form.

During the periods in question, the Office of Communications (OC) only held cables long enough to ensure that they were successfully transmitted to the named recipient. On occasion. . .cables were sometimes held for longer periods but not with the intention of creating a long-term reference collection.

The Review Board was not able to locate cables or dispatches from the following periods:

Mexico City Station to Headquarters (September 26–30, 1963);
Headquarters to Mexico City Station (September 26–30, 1963);
JMWAVE to Headquarters (September 26–November 21,1963);
Headquarters to JMWAVE (September 26–November 21, 1963);
and all traffic between the Mexico City Station and JMWAVE for the periods September 26–October 20, 1963 and November 22–December 30, 1963.
In addition, CIA informed the Review Board that it did not have a repository for cables

and dispatches from stations in the 1960s.

Although originating offices maintained temporary chronological files, the offices

generally destroyed the temporary records in less than ninety days.

After the assassination, the Office of the Deputy Director of Plans ordered relevant CIA offices to retain cables that they would have otherwise destroyed.  The HSCA used the remaining cable traffic to compile its Mexico City chronology.

Had CIA offices strictly applied the ninety-day rule, there might have been copies of cable traffic commencing as early as August 22, 1963, rather than October 1, 1963, available to CIA on November 22, 1963.

https://www.archives.gov/ research/jfk/review-board/ report/chapter-06-part1.pdf

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Ann Egerter, Anne Goodpasture, ARRB, Bill Simpich, CIA, Cuban Consolate, Eusebio Azque, HSCA, Jane Roman, JFK, Kennedy assassination, Kennedy assassination files, Lee Oswald, Mexico City, Oswald impersonation, Warren Commission, Winston Scott

White House Physician, Autopsy Eyewitness, questions President Ford about Missing Bullet

Courtesy of AARC Board member, Dr. Randy Robertson

In December of 2001 and January of 2002 during an interview with U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery historians, Dr. James Young, a physician who had worked with White House Physician Admiral George Burkley during the Kennedy administration, related that during the autopsy he had been given a bullet in an envelope by White House Medical Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Thomas Mills after his return from the White House garage to retrieve skull fragments from the rear of the limousine. Young described this bullet as jacketed, straight but with a bent tip and visually close in diameter to CE399, which he estimated to be ½ centimeter. Dr. Young voiced his concerns to the interviewers that he had never seen any reference to it in the Warren Commission investigation. The last thing he remembers is that he gave the envelope containing the bullet with the bent tip to Dr. Humes, the head autopsy pathologist, and that the bullet was never seen or documented after that.

What Price A Rose? A Navy Physician Remembers Nov. 22, 1963

In the interviews Dr. Young said that he had initially contacted White House Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Mills by telephone and Mills confirmed his recollection. Navy historians called Mills in an effort to verify Dr. Young’s claims. Mills told historian Jan Herman that he remembered the event but when pressed for details Mills stated that he didn’t want to talk about it even after the historians notified him that they represented the U. S. Navy Bureau of Medical and Surgery Office of Medical History. Significantly Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young’s claim, something that might well have been expected if Young had fabricated the episode and falsely implicated Mills in the process.

Dr. Robertson then contacted Navy interviewer Jan Herman who informed him that the interview with Mills had not been taped but that Mills tone of voice changed perceptibly when pressed for details of the episode. Herman also vividly remembered the Young interview because after having the tapes transcribed, Dr. Young then adamantly refused to sign the release form for the Navy to use them. In the hundreds of oral history interviews that Herman had conducted, Dr. Young was the only one who had refused to sign such a release. Dr. Young’s stated reason was that there were revelations contained within the interview which he did not want to be made public. This same sentiment was included in his earlier letter to President Ford. An additional FOIA request by Dr. Robertson for the actual tapes of the interviews was non-responsive as the tapes could not be found. Dr. Young died in 2008 due to complications following a stroke.

RELATED: Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician

 

From the Mary Ferrell Foundation: “I would not care to be quoted on that.”

The Missing Physician

George Burkley, Assistant White House Physician at the time of this photo. He became JFK’s personal physician in July 1963.

The Warren Commission was faced with contradictions in the medical evidence. The Parkland Hospital doctors who treated the mortally wounded President described an entrance wound in the throat and a large occipital (rearward) wound in Kennedy’s head. The autopsy doctors declared the throat wound to be one of exit, and drawings they produced of Kennedy’s head wound showed it to be largely on the right side. At issue in these varying descriptions is whether shots came from the front or the rear.

One man was best suited to address these conflicting accounts – the President’s personal physician Dr. George Burkley. Burkley rode in the Dallas motorcade, was present at Parkland Hospital, rode Air Force One to Washington with the body, and was present at the autopsy, by some accounts running it. He signed the White House Death Certificate, wrote “verified” on a “face sheet” created during the autopsy, and took physical possession of JFK’s brain and tissue slides.

The Warren Commission never interviewed him.

Though Burkley was continually mentioned by other Commission witnesses, the only statements from the doctor himself to appear in the Warren Commission’s 26 volumes is CE 1126, a report Burkley wrote 2 days before the Commission was announced.

In 1976, Burkley’s lawyer William Illig contacted Richard Sprague of the HSCA, saying that his client had information that “others besides Oswald must have participated.” Sprague was ousted days later, and the reconstituted HSCA and its medical panel never took Burkley’s testimony. Instead, a short phone contact the following year was followed up yet months later, when the HSCA was done with all its public medical presentations, with an strange affidavit signed by Burkley. The affidavit, in which Burkley attested to his constant presence with Kennedy’s body from Parkland Hospital on, seemed almost solely devoted to refuting David Lifton’s as yet-unpublished Best Evidence.

The ARRB in the mid 1990s contacted the family of the now-deceased Burkley, and initially received verbal permission to obtain the lawyer Illig’s files. But Burkley’s daughter subsequently changed her mind and in the end declined to sign the necessary waiver.

Questions abound about Burkley’s handling of the now-missing brain of JFK, his role at the autopsy, and his involvement in the 1965 transfer of autopsy materials into the Kennedy family’s hands. Did the Warren Commission and HSCA avoid Burkley because they were afraid of what he would say? In a 1967 oral history, Burkley was asked whether he agreed with the Warren Commission’s view on the number of shots. Burkley’s reply: “I would not care to be quoted on that.”

Visit the Mary Ferrell Foundation HERE

 

Filed Under: News and Views Tagged With: Admirak Burkley, Bethesda Navy Hospital, Dr. Randy Robertson, JFK autopsy, Kennedy assassination

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • …
  • 81
  • Next Page »
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Donate your preferred amount to support the work of the AARC.

cards
Powered by paypal

Menu

  • Contact Us
  • Warren Commission
  • Garrison Investigation
  • House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
  • Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
  • LBJ Library
  • Other Agencies and Commissions
  • Church Committee Reports

Recent Posts

  • 20 MAY, 2025: DAN HARDWAY Opening Statement and Testimony to the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets
  • RFK Jr. asked Obama to probe ‘two gunmen’ theory, called for reexamination of his father’s assassination: new files
  • PRESIDENT’S PAGE
  • Planned Attack on Lady Gaga Concert in Brazil Is Foiled, Police Say
  • JOHN SIMKIN ARCHIVE
Copyright 2014 AARC
  • Privacy Policy
  • Privacy Tools