Jefferson Morley's Continuing Effort

[Cutty]

JFK Files: Some Documents From Probe Of Kennedy's Death Still Sealed Five Decades Later


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/jfk-files_n_3773282.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl27%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D359561

[Kelly]

Hello Karl. Unless I read wrong, it seems to me that the CIA was ordered to reimburse Jefferson Morley for lawyers` fees. It states, "But in June, a federal appeals court overruled a lower court that denied Morley`s request to be reinbursed for attorneys` fees. Records about individuals allegedly involved in President Kennedy`s assassination serve a public benefit, the decision said." What does this mean? Have the documents been ordered to be released or is it just suggested they be released? I don`t understand the wording of the judgement.

[Cutty]

Hi Kelly! Allow me to try to dissect the final paragraghs of the article and see if I can clarify them as well as add my comments & opinions which will continue to be in black text.

Morley's interest dates to the 1990s when he covered the newly-formed ARRB. He filed suit for the Joannides documents in 2003 and has pried loose several hundred pages since then.

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2010. But in June, a federal appeals court overruled a lower court that had denied Morley's request to be reimbursed for attorneys' fees. "Records about individuals allegedly involved in President Kennedy's assassination serve a public benefit," the decision said.

The way this reads, the case filed to obtain records was dismissed in 2010 but a "separate issue" of reinbursement for attorney fees incurred through his efforts was won on apppeal based on the public's right to pursue the records in the first place.

IMHO, I've always been cynical about believing there would be incriminating evidence found in any archive. Let's face it, as I see it, why would someone (Jaonnides) or anybody with the ability to obfuscate, as evidenced in the article, allow something to be discovered. Even if someone were to pry them loose it seems that much of the content is still "off limits". That said, I applaud & remain in support of Mr. Morley's quest. His interview with Alan, which I'm proud to say I was involved in as the audio engineer, can be accessed here on the Lancer Conversations board. My final hope for this latest ruling, granting the attorney fees based on the public's right to know, would be that it may set a precedent paving the way for more appeals to release the records.

Read here:  http://jfkfacts.org/tag/george-joannides/

Morley does not suggest the Joannides files point to agency involvement in the assassination itself, but more likely that their release would show the CIA trying to keep secret its own flawed performance before the assassination.

That may have some truth to it but, through my reading over the years, I believe there was contribution on the agency's part to the creation of Oswald's legend.

"The idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was some unknown quantity to CIA officers was false," Morley said. "There was this incredible high-level attention to Oswald on the eve of the assassination."

^ Obviously I am in agreement.

Assuming that Oswald fired the fatal shot, he said, "These top CIA case officers are guilty of negligence."

^ Here's where I have to disagree with a conspiracy theorist using a statement like this to advance the premise that the agency was only negligent. IMO, Mr. Morley may be correct in that the agency could be "also" negligent. After being "enlightened" by "The Enemy Of The Truth" I believe that the profound discovery that it is scientifically impossible for Oswald to have fired the fatal head shot renders making that assumption counterproductive to all conspiracy research efforts. It is my feeling that modern day forensic/ballistic science has added legitimacy to all research by the conspiracy community and should be used in forming new perspectives. Again, just my 2 cents.

Blakey isn't optimistic about getting all of the documents from the intelligence agency.

"They held stuff back from the Warren Commission, they held stuff back from us, they held stuff back from the ARRB," he said. "That's three agencies that they were supposed to be fully candid with. And now they're taking the position that some of these documents can't be released even today.

"Why are they continuing to fight tooth and nail to avoid doing something they'd promised to do?"

^ Good question.  I can only suggest that the disinformation chain has grown heavier and heavier over the years with each link that has been added.

[Kelly]

Thanks Karl. I Think I understand it now. I believe that Jefferson Morley stated somewhere that the Joannide's file may hold his fitness report for the CIA and that could be an interesting document.

[TLR]

Assuming that Oswald fired the fatal shot, he said, "These top CIA case officers are guilty of negligence."

^ Here's where I have to disagree with a conspiracy theorist using a statement like this to advance the premise that the agency was only negligent.

Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown Huffington Post.  Increasingly a partisan propaganda site. Also the slowest-loading news site on the planet.

Let's see, they used the term "conspiracy buffs." Somebody read the memo.

""This is not about conspiracy, this is about transparency," said Jefferson Morley."

Because any talk of conspiracy will cause the mainstream media to instantly ignore or ridicule it. So they have to talk about "transparency," something Obama does constantly. 

""There is no question that in various ways the CIA obfuscated, but it may be they were covering up operations that were justifiable, benign CIA operations that had absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination," said Anthony Summers."   - Very good, Anthony, your check is in the mail.

And then we have David Slawson, who thinks LHO did it because Marina wouldn't kiss and make up. 

Here's what Slawson wrote in a now-declassified WC memo back in 1964:
"The evidence here could lead to anti-Castro involvement in the assassination on some sort of basis as this: Oswald could have become known to the Cubans as being strongly pro-Castro. He made no secret of his sympathies, and so the anti-Castro Cubans must have realized that law enforcement authorities were also aware of Oswald's feelings and that, therefore, if he got into trouble, the public would also learn of them. The anti-Castro group may have even believed the fiction Oswald tried to create that he had organized some sort of large, active Fair Play for Cuba group in New Orleans. Second, someone in the anti-Castro organization might have been keen enough to sense that Oswald had a penchant for violence that might easily be aroused...On these facts, it is possible that some sort of deception was used to encourage Oswald to kill the President when he came to Dallas. Perhaps 'double agents' were even used to persuade Oswald that pro-Castro Cubans would help in the assassination or in the get-away afterwards. The motive of this would of course be the expectation that after the President was killed Oswald would be caught or at least his identity ascertained, the law enforcement authorities and the public would then blame the assassination on the Castro government, and the call for its forceful overthrow would be irresistible."

Slawson also dropped this little bombshell on researcher Amanda Rowell in 1992: "Yes, I listened to the tape of Lee Harvey Oswald's telephone conversations with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. I did not feel that the voice sounded any different from what I expected his voice would sound like...since Oswald was killed only two days after the assassination, of course he was not around, still talking. No one, therefore, can honestly claim to have compared his voice on this tape or anyplace else with what he actually sounded like." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth)

Slawson seems to imply that there are no recordings of Oswald's voice from the assassination weekend, when indeed there are several, not to mention from New Orleans. But here is further proof that the Mexico City tapes were not destroyed by the CIA.

[Cutty]

TLR, the publication is a reprint which was released by the Associated Press and states that on the first line. Here it is again, word for word, on the Washinton Post page:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/5-decades-later-some-jfk-assassination-files-still-sealed-researchers-demand-transparency/2013/08/17/d4a27154-075e-11e3-bfc5-406b928603b2_story.html

Here is the link I provided above to Jefferson Morleys own words about the release of the article in his post from 2 days ago:

http://jfkfacts.org/tag/george-joannides/

Obviously, the Huffington Post had no hand in editing or slanting the story so can't we look past the fluff and focus mainly on the "essential" which is Mr. Morley's progress to date? Being reimbursed is a significant victory and makes a positive statement for the conspiracy research community, I believe.

As I've said, even though I've been a bit of a cynic over the years about the possibility of finding incriminating files, I still regard Jefferson Morley as one of our heros out there continuing the good fight and would love to be proven wrong. Thoughts?

[TLR]

I've liked Morley's articles in the past, but this one was too light and danced around the main issues. The tone was, "If some CIA officers had been more diligent, that Oswald wouldn't have been able to kill the President." That's about as far as you can go and still be acceptable to the AP/WaPo/HuffPo, I guess.

[Mitch C.]

^ Yes. ""But after 50 years, there is no reason that I can think of why such operations should still be concealed," Summers said. "By withholding Joannides material, the agency continues to encourage the public to believe they're covering up something more sinister."

Apparently it is more acceptable to cause suspicion of something sinister, than to release the information and dispel all doubt of the fact that they WERE involved in a sinister manner.

[Phil Dragoo]

In his reply to Lisa Pease persistent questioning of his theory, Morley posted three, the first that Oswald was the sole assassin, the second that certain CIA officers may have been negligent, the third that it was a wrongful death.

After moderation my stipulation it was not Oswald and sufficient cause was shown for conspiracy was attached by a four-part tick bite by one "photon" apparently a toll booth operator

Morley was condescending to Pease and as much as said her method failed

After fifty years he prefers to stage Cole Porter's Please Don't Be Beastly to the Germans

As for Summers' naive or Mickey-the-Dope speculation about CIA files withheld, an oy vey moment

There is no way Joannides was not an accessory to the assassination in his work in 1963 and 1977-9--for which he was given a medal

Alan's post was enormously constructive and brushed off.  A friend in Greece waited in vain for his post to be moderated

If the shrieking fairies of the media--a la Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow--wish to repeat the Big Lie so be it

No one who is not cognitively challenged or complicit maintains the lone gunman coverup--

Thus Morley omits the most essential fact

Conspiracy

[Leslie Sharp]

The truth will be hijacked for another half-century if focus on the 50th Anniversary descends into of a debate between Jeff Morley and Lisa Pease when so many other serious researchers have contributed at least as much and expected far less notoriety over the last five decades.  I suggested the possibility of deterioration when this particularly high profile debate ensued at jfkfacts.  I hope the bar of the investigation of the Kennedy assassination transcends anyone's financial investment - including Jeff Morley's $400k.  My guess is that there are numerous researchers who have sacrificed as much in kind, perhaps even more, over the last 50 years.

[echelon]

In his reply to Lisa Pease persistent questioning of his theory, Morley posted three, the first that Oswald was the sole assassin, the second that certain CIA officers may have been negligent, the third that it was a wrongful death.

Hi Phil, and what a pleasure it is to see you posting here.  I have always found your contributions to be educational and insightful.

Having said that, I consider that you are being unfair to Jeff Morley - principally because you are mis-quoting him.

In his original post on JFKFacts, he did not state that Oswald was the sole assassin.  Having considered the evidence put forward to support such a theory, he wrote that "I find some supportive evidence but not nearly enough to confirm it".  In other words, he recognises the theory and has examined it but does not support it.  I think that your post above implied that he did.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/my-three-jfk-theories/

As it happens, I do think that the way in which Morley presented his arguments in that particular post was rather muddled.  A responder named Dan Hardway pointed out some of the flaws to good effect IMO.

I also tend to agree with you that Morley tends to err on the side of pedantry and caution.  But perhaps that's not such a bad thing when one witnesses the type of hyperbole used and "leaps of faith" presented by certain of our well-known JFK researchers.

Whatever the truth of the matter, I believe that Jeff Morley deserves respect and certainly he deserves to be quoted correctly.

[echelon]

The truth will be hijacked for another half-century if focus on the 50th Anniversary descends into of a debate between Jeff Morley and Lisa Pease when so many other serious researchers have contributed at least as much and expected far less notoriety over the last five decades.

Hello Leslie and welcome to the forum.  We badly need some new blood here.

I agree with you that much of the energy expended by well-meaning researchers over many years has been wasted, primarily because these researchers spend so much time arguing with themselves.  Innumerable hours are spent discussing the same old points in minute detail, even though some (perhaps many) of these points are - in reality - unknowable after all these years.  It's like those wily old political leaders who make great speeches to their own supporters behind closed doors, whilst ignoring everybody else.  There is a kind of "JFK bubble" in which people seem content to spend hours and hours every day playing JFK-Facebook, updating their walls, swapping articles and photographs and not really making any headway towards any specific objective (other than selling their latest book).

Surely, if we are serious about trying to make progress on this case, our attentions should be focussed much more on the great unwashed American public, none of whom ever logs on to JFK-Facebook?  In this regard, surely Morley is to be commended for using the system to challenge itself, in public, rather than spending hours on a forum decrying the failures of that system?

(I seriously doubt that there are any extant CIA files that spill the beans on Joannides but - to ingeniously mix my metaphors - that's a different kettle of fish entirely).

On a separate issue, I noticed another of your posts over at JFKFacts which said:

[...] and your last sentence is chilling: "Maybe from an actionable intelligence approach, we could term the deaths "necessary"". When I began to consider that possibility some years ago, I realized that it could be the glue that held everything together; the decision to assassinate Kennedy was necessary, the planning and execution were necessary, and the cover up was "necessary". And why "necessary" except to advance a very particular ideology (or to impede one) thus justifying the act; an ideology common to a large number of people would explain how the secret was so well kept by so many leading up to the assassination and following. It was necessary to a specific agenda; it was not a random act limited to policies relating to Cuba, or even Viet Nam; the assassination served a broader agenda and was therefore justified.

In my own stumbling, bumbling fashion I was attempting to say just the same thing in an earlier post.  I would be grateful for your considered response to that thread:

www.jfkessentials.com/forum/index.php?topic=134.0

[Cutty]

Welcome Leslie!

Good exchange going here everyone!

As I've stated earlier in the thread, my main focus in this obviously broad topic was on the monetary reimbursement Mr. Morely received as reported in the article released by The Associated Press which, incidently, was not written by Jeff. I would hope that the ruling could at least be recognized as progess in the "people's right to know department." As also stated previously in this thread, however, I do share echelon's sentiment: "I seriously doubt that there are any extant CIA files that spill the beans on Joannides but - to ingeniously mix my metaphors - that's a different kettle of fish entirely." Again on that, I'd love to be proved wrong.

So, that said, any sideshow is certainly on topic and an interesting read. Carry on everyone!

[Kelly]

Leslie, I want to welcome you to the forum also. I have always liked Jefferson Morley and I think he has done a great job with his research. It is my belief that people that support the Warren Commission Report are all about the same. There probably is not much difference in what they think. A few of them might admit to a few issues that they find a little puzzling, but for the most part they are in sync with each other's beliefs. On the other hand with conspiracy theorists, you get a mixed bag- from the completely absurd theories to people who are more conservative in their thoughts. I have always thought that Mr. Morley was really very careful. I think that there are a few researchers out there that roll like that. John Newman comes to mind. Also, Larry Hancock. What I'm trying to say is that some researchers are more concerned with the documents rather than the actual physical aspects of the assassination. There are so many researchers out there with their books, articles, and websites, it's hard for people like me to sort through it all. I think that Mr. Morley's work can be trusted and is worthwhile. This doesn't take away from some of the excellent researchers out there that have contributed so much on the subject.

[TLR]

I agree with you that much of the energy expended by well-meaning researchers over many years has been wasted, primarily because these researchers spend so much time arguing with themselves.  Innumerable hours are spent discussing the same old points in minute detail, even though some (perhaps many) of these points are - in reality - unknowable after all these years.  It's like those wily old political leaders who make great speeches to their own supporters behind closed doors, whilst ignoring everybody else.  There is a kind of "JFK bubble" in which people seem content to spend hours and hours every day playing JFK-Facebook, updating their walls, swapping articles and photographs and not really making any headway towards any specific objective (other than selling their latest book).

This is a good point, Echelon. Lately I've been trying to apply some advice that John McAdams (yes) gave me on alt.conspiracy.jfk back in the 1990s. He said that it's not enough to be a discrepancy hound and just point out things wrong with the official story. You need to put together a counter-scenario that makes sense and explains what really did happen. And he's absolutely right.

So recently I've been focusing on the hour and 20 minutes between the time of the assassination and the arrest of Oswald at 1:50pm. I'm reexamining everything with fresh eyes, looking at the earliest news accounts and trying to figure out some very basic things about that time period.