Interview With
Gaeton
Fonzi
8 October 1994
VIDEO INTERVIEW OF
GAETON FONZI
OCTOBER 8, 1994
RELEASE AND QUALIFICATION
In a written letter Gaeton Fonzi outlines the following
distribution
requirements.
"I hereby grant ... permission to disseminate, distribute or
otherwise
scatter
about in whatever fashion they so chose, be it by voice,
video,
electronic
or laser beam means, copies of the transcript, video and
sound
recordings
which resulted from the interview conducted with me on
October 8, 1994,
provided
that, beyond costs of material and time, NO COMMERCIAL gain
be involved
and
further provided that such distribution is not knowingly
made to anyone
or
any corporate entity who or which will further re-distribute
for
profit."
So dated Miami, FL October 17, 1994.
FORMAT OF INTERVIEW
Questions for the video interview were solicited through
many formats
including
CompuServe's JFK Forum, Internet, Prodigy, personal request
and other
means.
A total of 101 questions were submitted, grouped by subject
where
possible,
and submitted for review by Gaeton Fonzi prior to the
interview.
Each
question was given an arabic numeral (1, 2, 3).
Follow-up
questions
asked at the time of the interview are designated by an
arabic numeral
followed
by a letter in small case (1.a, 2.b, 3.c)
Gaeton Fonzi denied answers to certain questions either
because the
questions
were not within his expertise, or because the questions were
argumentative
and not within the intention of the interview which is
stated by Mr.
Fonzi
at the onset of the video. (See video text for
"intention").
Questions not addressed were questions 26-47, 50-55, 57, 63,
83-92 and
94,
and are not included in the transcript since they are not
part of the
video.
NOTE: Any text in brackets [ ... ] is either a
scribner's note or
an
addition/clarification by Gaeton Fonzi. Bracketed
items are not
part
of the video. Asterisks (*) were placed where words
were changed
or
deleted for grammatical errors and redundancy.
GAETON FONZI
Biographical Data
Gaeton Fonzi was born in Philadelphia on October 10,
1935. He was
raised
in West New York, New Jersey, and was graduated with
journalism honors
from
the University of Pennsylvania in 1957. He served as
an officer
in
the U.S. Army Infantry and a Civil Affairs Reserve
Company. He
worked
briefly as a reporter with the Delaware County (Pa.) Daily
Times and as
an
associate editor with the Chilton Company.
In 1959, Fonzi joined Philadelphia magazine and was later
senior
editor.
Fonzi won the magazine's first national journalism award and
wrote more
than
100 major feature articles.
In 1972, Fonzi became editor of Miami magazine and senior
editor of its
sister
publication, Gold Coast in Fort Lauderdale. In 1975,
on the basis
of
articles he had written on the subject while at Philadelphia
magazine,
Fonzi
was asked by U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker, then a member
of the
Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, to become a staff
investigator
probing
the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In
1977, Fonzi
was
invited to join the U.S. House Select Committee on
Assassinations as a
staff
investigator. Later, as a special team director, he
wrote and
edited
a major appendix, Volume X, of the Committee's Final
Report.
Subsequently,
his article for Washingtonian magazine, detailing the
political
limitations
of the Committee's investigation, received national media
coverage and
earned
the magazine record readership. Fonzi has been a
contributing
editor
of Gold Coast and South Florida magazine, a feature writer
for New
York's
Avenue magazine and contributed to Penthouse, Esquire and
The New York
Times
Magazine. He has worked on special
investigative
projects
for the New York Daily News and the Chicago Tribune
involving the FBI's
use
of criminal informants in political investigations.
Among the awards given Fonzi's articles are the Philadelphia
Business
Club
Award, the Philadelphia Bar Association Award, two local
Sigma Delta
Chi
Awards, a National Sigma Delta Chi Award, four Florida
Magazine
Association
Awards, a City Regional Magazine Association Award, a
Florida-Atlantic
University
Enterprise Reporting Special Award and a Washington Monthly
Award.
Fonzi has been a finalist in Columbia's National Magazine
Awards and
has
received the William Allen White Investigative Journalism
Award from
the
University of Kansas. He has been a guest lecturer in
journalism
at
the University of Pennsylvania and the University of
Michigan.
Fonzi is the co-author of an article TIME magazine honored
in 1970 as
one
of the ten most significant press stories of the
decade. That
article
appeared in the book, The Best Magazine Articles of 1968.
He is the author of Annenberg: A Biography of Power,
published in 1970
by
Weybright & Talley in New York and by Anthony Blond in
London, and
of
The Last Investigation, published by Thunder's Mouth Press
in 1993 and,
in
trade paperback, in 1994.
*****************************
FONZI: SELECTED REFERENCES (For Gaeton Fonzi)
Covert Action Information Bulletin #12/81 pp37-8
DiEugenio, J. Destiny Betrayed. 1992 pp235 239
Duffy, J. Ricci, V. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.
1992 p186
Furiati, C. ZR Rifle: The Plot to Kill Kennedy and Castro.
1994 pp144-6
150
Groden, R. Livingstone, H. High Treason. 1990 pp189 399
Lane, M. Plausible Denial. 1991 pp32-4
Marrs, J. Crossfire. 1990 pp521-4 526 530
Melanson, P. Spy Saga. 1990 pp181-2
Morrow, R. First Hand Knowledge. 1992 p295
Pell, E. The Big Chill. 1984 p174
Russell, D. The Man Who Knew Too Much. 1992 pp280-1 418 420
Summers, A. Conspiracy. 1989 pp506-7 518 535
Vanity Fair 11/93 p100
Vankin, J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 p123
Village Voice 3/31/92 p39
BEGIN VIDEO INTERVIEW
Today is October 8, 1994 and Gaeton Fonzi is here to answer
some
questions
submitted to the Ft. Lauderdale JFK Researcher Group.
And he has
given
us permission to take these answers and transcribe them and
place them
into
CompuServe and make them public record for anybody to read
and
download,
or whatever. Mr. Fonzi.
GF: Okay. We're doing this basically because I'd
like to be
helpful
in terms of helping the researchers who are legitimately
interested in
getting
my opinion or answers in areas of the investigation that I
was
personally
involved *. There is enough confusion around today in
terms of
people
saying things or giving opinions of which they have no
foundation
*.
I'll answer those questions that I do have some knowledge
about,
but
I don't want to get into any kind of argumentative position
here in
terms
of questions that are, in fact, just points of view or
arguments for a
point
of view. So we can take it from there.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. When your book, The Last Investigation, reached the
bookstores last
fall,
your feelings seemed pessimistic that there was going to be
another
investigation.
Do you still feel this way?
GF: Yes, I do feel that there will never be another
investigation.
And though I feel that way, in the back of my mind I'm
hopeful that
there
might be. Of course, there's always, again, the
feeling that I
just
don't know whether the government can conduct a legitimate
investigation,
on the one hand. And on the other, I've always felt
that if a
President
of the United States really wanted to find the truth, then
really
wanted
a true investigation, then perhaps there could be some
control of the
institutions
and agencies in order to achieve a true cooperative
arrangement with
that
investigation. Up to now, through history, there
hasn't been.
Addendum (not on video) to answer #1 by Gaeton Fonzi:
[I didn't quite clarify the basic dilemma here.
It revolves
around
this issue: Can the Government honestly investigate
itself?
I
believe it can if the President can take control of every
branch and
agency
of the Government and get it to follow his orders.
That would
take
a President who would have to give the investigation
priority over
political
and, perhaps, even issues that would be classified as
pertaining to
"national
security." So the bottom line question then becomes,
can there
ever
be such a President? I doubt it.]
2. Is there any difference in opinion on the above question
between you
and
those enthusiastic over the release of the records? If so,
what?
GF: Yeah. I think there are those
who...... And
I'm
enthusiastic about the release of the records
also.
But
I think there are those that think that another
investigation, another
government
investigation would accomplish something.. Or would
accomplish a
conclusion
to some extent that would be closer to the truth.
Again, to go
back
to what I said before, it's difficult to, for me, to feel
that the
government
could investigate itself, fully and completely without the
total desire
of
a President who wanted to get at the truth.
3. If there are future obstacles to another investigation or
further
release
of records, what contemporary societal institutions do you
feel will
put
up the greatest amount of resistance?
GF: Well I'm not too sure what is meant by societal
institutions.
Is
that, are they the same as government institutions?
Societal
institutions
... we're talking about?
3.a. Heritage Foundation?
GF: Yeah. Heritage Foundation, or institutions like
that. I
don't
really know. To answer that question as best as I can,
I just
don't
know.
4. In the 1994 November elections are there any candidates
that you
feel
could be either an asset or a detriment to further
investigative
activities?
Nationally or locally?
GF: Well, I would hate to see Jeb Bush elected
President.
But other than that, no, I don't know.
5. What areas of future investigation do you feel deserve
more
attention?
If your answers include the questions concerning David Atlee
Phillips/Maurice
Bishop and the Silvia Odio/Leon Oswald one, I already know
your
feelings
on these. What areas, other than the above, do you feel
deserve looking
into?
GF: Well, * I have to concentrate on the areas that I
was
involved
with in terms of answering that question. And it does
include
these
two areas. And to some extent Mexico City and the
CIA..
But,
as you are probably aware, at the COPA Conference this
weekend, there
will
be individual researchers that have done a tremendous
amount of
work
in other areas that, I know deserve further
investigation.
For instance, there's a fellow out in Oklahoma who is coming
up with
some
pretty good information when he tells me about the
possibility of there
being
two Oswalds at the time [one of the Oswalds] was supposed to
[be] in
the
Marines, in the early part of the fifties, mid part of the
fifties.
And so far, the information he has shown me has been valid
in terms of
the
conflicting evidence. So there are areas like that
that
individual
researchers are working on, that I think really should be
looked into *.
Addendum (not on video) to answer #5 by Gaeton Fonzi:
[The fellow from Oklahoma to whom I'm referring is
John
Armstrong.
His presentation at the COPA conference indicated he has
evidence of an
"Oswald"
working in New Orleans in the mid-1950s at a time when
another "Oswald"
was
in the Marines. I believe there are individual
researchers such
as
Armstrong who could point the way to many areas of the JFK
assassination
which need more investigation.]
6. Some people say that no connection between Oswald and
Banister has
ever
been incontrovertibly proven. What if Banister knew who
Oswald was but
didn't
know him personally? Could this possibly change the
direction of an
investigation?
After all, Oswald was on New Orleans TV in the summer of
1963. He may
have
been on at least one other 11 P.M. news television broadcast
also. Guy
Banister
couldn't have missed a "defector" and FPCC leafletter,
especially since
he
kept tabs on lesser radicals.
GF: Yeah. This is a confusing question and it's
also a
question
in an area that I'm not familiar with. From what I
recall though,
Tony
Summers, in his investigation, came up with fairly good
evidence that
Oswald
was with Banister [according to the people Tony spoke] *.
6. a A follow up on that then. Do we know if any
of
Banister's
files have been recovered other than just an index listing
of what some
of
his files may have been.
GF: No, I [don't]. I don't have an answer for
that. I
don't
know.
6.b. You didn't handle the New Orleans Part?
GF: No, I didn't.
6.c. You were just the Miami?
GF: I was just in Miami. I went down to New
Orleans a
couple
of times. I had met Jim Garrison prior to my joining
the House
Committee.
Met him when I was working with Schweiker and as a result of
that I was
kind
of the initial liaison with Garrison for the House
Committee. But
then
they, two separate investigators were hired in New Orleans
to handle
that
aspect of the investigation.
6.d. You don't know then or have any indication of
whatever
happened
to his files?
GF: No.
6.e. They could have just been thrown away or some
government
agency
grabbed them or what?
GF: I don't know.
6.f. You have no idea?
GF: I have no idea.
6.g. The state police, I understand. The state
police got
some
of his files through his brother and his wife.
GF: Well there were two investigators. L. J.
Delsa and Bob
Buras
who were with the New Orleans Police Department prior to
their joining
the
Committee, who might provide better information.
7. Have you ever run into any evidence of Guy Banister
conducting
surveillance
on Tampa FPCC chairman VT Lee?
GF: No I haven't, because again, * I wasn't involved
in that
aspect
of the investigation.
8. Accepting Veciana's story of seeing Bishop with Oswald,
how can you
account
for this violation of "basic tradecraft"? Is it not
possible that
Veciana
>participated< in the meeting with Bishop and Oswald?
GF: Anything is possible. But as far as
violation of basic
tradecraft
goes, David Phillips had a record of violating basic
tradecraft.
He
left his briefcase, I believe at one point, in a
restaurant.
Almost
got in trouble with that. So I have no problem with
violation of
basic
tradecrafts.
Addendum (not on video) to answer #8 by Gaeton Fonzi:
[As far as a lapse in "tradecraft" goes, let me add
the incident
about
which I have personal knowledge. It's detailed in my
book.
That's
when Phillips was introduced to Veciana at the ARIO meeting
in Reston.
(At
the time it was still ARIO, not AFIO.) Veciana was
introduced by
name
to Phillips twice, once in the banquet hall and once in the
hallway.
Phillips even asked that it be repeated and then, when
Veciana asked
him,
"Don't you remember my name?" Phillips responded,
"No." As
Veciana
himself later pointed out, that was odd considering that
Veciana had
been
exceptionally well-known in anti-Castro activity, being the
founder,
key
fund-raiser and spokesman for Alpha 66, the largest and most
militant
anti-Castro
group. It was odd because anti-Castro activity was the
heart and
soul
of Phillips' mission during the period in question. It
was
impossible
for Phillips not to know or remember Veciana's name.
Phillips had
simply
been caught off-guard by Veciana's surprise appearance at
Reston and
had
a little "slip of tradecraft." Phillips himself must
have later
realized
that because later, under oath during his Committee
testimony, he
decided
the only way he could rectify that "slip of tradecraft" was
to lie and
say
that Veciana was never introduced to him by name at that
encounter.
I urged Chief Counsel Bob Blakey to recommend Phillips be
charged with
perjury,
since we had three witnesses to that Reston encounter:
myself, Veciana
and
an aide from Senator Schweiker's office. Blakey
declined to take
on
the CIA.
9. Can you clarify the >exact< wording of Veciana's
previous
statements
about Bishop's request that Veciana contact Guillermo
Ruiz?
Specifically,
did Veciana's early statements imply that Ruiz had no
knowledge of
Oswald
but would be asked to lie?
GF: Yes. As far as clarifying Veciana's exact
wording, I
can't
likely do that, especially off the top of my head because
these are
things
that we discussed so many time. I discussed so many
times with
Veciana
in terms of getting additional details from things he was
telling
me.
But from what I recall now, Veciana said that Bishop did
come to him
and
said that he knew that his cousin was involved with, was
with Cuban
intelligence
in Mexico City. And at that time there was a story
going around
that
Oswald had been seen with a man and a woman somewhere.
And the
man's
wife could speak very good English and I think Ruiz' wife
could speak
very
good English. This is, again, off the top of
head. And
Bishop
said, "if you can get your cousin to say that he was with
Oswald, it
would
be worth a lot of money to him." And Veciana said
okay, he would
try
to get in touch with him. Veciana made several
attempts over the
next
few months to get in touch with his cousin but was unable
to. I
believe,
and I don't recall the specifics of this, but I believe
Veciana told
me,
or I found out later, that Ruiz rebuffed his attempts to
contact
him.
And so Veciana was never able to get in touch with him
. And when
Bishop,
in one of his later meetings with Bishop, he told Bishop
this.
Bishop
said, "well, that's okay, forget about it." But
to answer
the
question as far as did Veciana's early statements imply that
Ruiz had
no
knowledge of Oswald but would be asked to lie.
Definitely.
That's exactly what he was asked, would be asked to do.
10. Veciana states that Bishop asked Veciana to contact Ruiz
and get
Ruiz
to state that Oswald was at the Cuban Consulate;
later, Bishop
changed
his mind and told Veciana to forget it. This implies
that Veciana
had
some means of communication with Ruiz but had not yet
contacted
Ruiz.
Do you know if Veciana maintained contact with Ruiz?
GF: Well again, this question was answered in what I
have just
said,
in terms of the previous question. * * Bishop didn't
ask Veciana
to
contact Ruiz and get Ruiz to state that Oswald was at the
Cuban
Consulate.
That's not what he had asked him to do. And Bishop
didn't change
his
mind as far as telling Veciana to forget. Veciana told
Bishop
that
he hadn't been able to get in touch with Ruiz. Veciana
didn't
have
a means of communication. That was the problem.
He was
trying
to establish a means of communication and was unsuccessful.
**.
11. Recently, Guillermo Ruiz stated that he translated for
Oswald at
the
Cuban Consulate. Do you know of >any<
corroborating
evidence
that Ruiz met with Oswald? Does the statement by Ruiz
contradict any
previous
statements by Veciana?
GF: No it doesn't contradict anything that Veciana
said because
Veciana
didn't have any knowledge about that. I'm familiar
with Ruiz'
statement
about Oswald at the Cuban Consulate. I have difficulty
accepting
the
Cuban reports at this point as I do with the reports of the
Russian
intelligence
as far as Oswald being there because there is conflicting
information
in
terms of where Oswald was, when, in Mexico City. So,
I...
There are too many areas left under-investigated in the
whole Mexico
City
business.
12. Fabian Escalante [Font] has asserted that Veciana
participated in
the
meeting between Bishop and Oswald and that the purpose of
the meeting
was
to develop a plan to recruit Guillermo Ruiz when Oswald went
to Mexico
City.
Your reaction?
GF: I'm not familiar with Escalante's details
here.
The whole Cuban report here seems to be largely drawn from
previously
published
materials, it seems to me. I haven't had an
opportunity to talk
to
Escalante **. But as far as the details of that
specific report,
I
have no basis for evaluating it because they didn't present
any kind of
foundation
for what they said.
13. There is circumstantial evidence that there may have
been a
parallel
plot by some members of Alpha 66 (or that Alpha 66 was being
set up as
a
potential patsy). There are strong historical ties
between Alpha
66
and JURE, and specifically ties between Alpha 66 and S.
Odio.
What
are the reasons that you would exclude the possibility that
Alpha 66
was
"behind" the Odio incident?
GF: Well that's a reversed type of question in
terms of
excluding
the possibility that Alpha-66 was behind the Odio
incident.
I've
showed Silvia Odio an awful lot of photographs of various
people,
including
a number of Alpha-66 people, and she did not identify
them.
I'm
not sure exactly what is meant by strong historical ties
between
Alpha-66
and JURE. JURE was founded by Manolo Ray and I'm not
sure there
was
any strong historical tie excepting some overlapping
membership by a
few
people. The initial reason that I went to see Veciana
was because
someone
had suggested the possibility of Veciana himself having been
one of the
people
who visited Silvia Odio. But Silvia knew Veciana, knew
what he
looked
like and said that it wasn't him.
14. I'd like to know what he thinks about Lane's central
thesis in
_Plausible
Denial_. More specifically, does he believe LHO's
appearances at the
embassies
in Mexico were fabricated and, if so, does he feel this
shows he was
being
set up.
GF: I think I mentioned before that I'm, I have a very
difficult
time
establishing any conclusions of my own line as far as
Oswald's
activities
in Mexico City because there seems to be so much conflicting
evidence
in
terms of where he was, when. And including in
the Cuban
Consulate.
There are little details, as you may remember in Dallas when
the
Russian
KGB agent (Oleg Nechiporenko). Nechiporenko
said, of course
it
was Oswald there, yet he described Oswald as wearing
something totally
different
than Oswald was wearing when he left the Cuban Embassy to go
to the
Russian
Embassy. So there are all kinds of conflicts there
that I can't
resolve
yet. And, again, this is, I think, one of the
key areas
that
needs more investigation.
14.a. I just want to ask one thing. Do you
question whether
it
was even Oswald or not?
GF: I wouldn't discount the possibility that Oswald
was there,
but
there was also someone else there, identifying himself as
Oswald.
(NOTE: See attachment "A", Odio and Connell
testimony)
[Attachment "A" was sent as part of the question and is not
part of
this
transcript. It consisted of photocopies of published
statements
and
testimony.]
15. What does Connell's earlier story say about Sylvia
Odio's
credibility?.
Have you questioned Odio about Connell's claim? . Has
Connell's story
been
investigated and refuted beyond Odio's own denials?
GF: This is a question, as I think I mentioned
earlier, that I
have,
I think I have, specific answers to in the files. And
I haven't
had
a chance to review the files. I talked to Connell and
I'll tell
you
this now off the top of my head. I spent an awful lot
of time, of
course,
with Silvia Odio, questioning and re-questioning her.
Not only
myself,
but other investigators and attorneys for the
Committee. And came
to
the conclusion that she is totally credible. And not
only did I
come
to this conclusion, but the attorneys questioning her and
other
investigators,
and the Committee, said [so] in it's report. Now as
far as, again
off
the top of my head, when I talked to Connell. I talked
to her a
few
times also. I had a difficult time getting her to
corroborate
what
was in the FBI reports, as far as what she said
earlier.
And
I have to admit that I was suspicious of Connell in terms of
her
activities.
I mean, she was a volunteer for this Cuban refugee
agency. And
her
husband ** had an interesting job that took him around the
world,
supposedly
doing travel agency business, travel consulting business. **
The
relationship
between Silvia Odio and Connell deteriorated tremendously
prior to the
Oswald
[incident], what I call the Oswald incident, as a result of
Mrs.
Connell
specifically wanting to infiltrate herself into Silvia
Odio's total
life.
Knowing what Silvia was doing every minute. That was
according to
Silvia
Odio herself. And that's why they had a falling
out. Mrs.
Connell
did not initially know Silvia Odio, but was introduced to
her by her
sister
Sarita who had come to Dallas earlier and who Mrs. Connell
had
befriended.
I can say in answer to the question specifically, that
regardless
of
the contradictions that * Mrs. Connell herself put forth in
terms of
Silvia
Odio's testimony. All the evidence that we came up
went towards
Silvia
Odio's credibility.
16. In your discussions with Mitchell Livingston
WerBell III, did
he
discuss any of the ultrasophisticated assassination weapons
he had
developed
for the CIA at all? Anything that comes close to
Livingstone's
reference
to "ice bullets" used in Dealey Plaza?
GF: Mitch WerBell discussed almost [everything].
I spent
almost
a whole day with him up in his farm, as he called it, in
Georgia.
His
training ground for guerrillas. And he covered almost
everything.
He was half bombed. He had been coming off the wagon
and he
covered
almost everything in terms of questions that I was
interested in.
I
don't recall him saying anything about an ice-bullet.
Not at all.
16.a. An ice hatchet? A machete?
GF: (Laughter).
17. WerBell's association with Lucien Conein is
mentioned in the
book,
but nothing of any contact with Lansdale. Did WerBell
ever
mention
Lansdale or Conein working with Lansdale, especially in
Vietnam?
GF: I don't remember him mentioning Lansdale. We
didn't
talk
much about Vietnam from what I recall. He may have
mentioned
Lansdale.
I don't recall at this point, but it wasn't an area that I
was
specifically
questioning him about.
18. In your book, you write that two pieces of
evidence in the
case
proves that there was a conspiracy:
QUOTE:
"One demolishes the single-bullet theory: the locations of
the bullet
holes
in the back of Kennedy's jacket and shirt - hard, tangible,
measurable
evidence
- obliterate the possibility of a bullet emerging from
Kennedy's throat
and
striking Governor Connally. Single-bullet-theory
author Arlen
Specter
conceded this was a worrisome contradiction. The other
substantiation
came from validating Sylvia Odio's report that Oswald, or
someone who
resembled
him (it matters not), appeared at her door in Dallas with
two
associates,
one of whom would link Oswald to the notion of killing the
President.
That was a deliberate act of connecting Oswald to the
assassination
*before*
the assassination. Beyond all the other evidence
indicating
conspiracy,
all the acoustic tests, the autopsy evidence, the bullet
trajectory
theories
and what have you, even beyond all the other evidence of
Oswald's
associations,
the Odio incident absolutely cries conspiracy. In
fact, I have no
hesitation
in declaring the Kennedy assassination a conspiracy based
strictly on
Sylvia
Odio's consistently credible testimony and, more important,
the fact
that
our investigation proved it true."
END OF QUOTE
How do you view Posner's technique on this subject vs. your
own?
For
example, it does not appear from the notes in the back of
his book that
he
interviewed her, relying instead on her testimony to the WC,
yet, he
doesn't
hesitate to mention her emotional problems (p. 178), her
divorce (p.
178)
or that there isn't one piece of corroborating evidence for
her
post-assassination
claim that one of the men who visited her was introduced as
'Leon
Oswald'
(p. 180). Could he have interviewed her? Should
he have
interviewed
her? What >makes< her credible, in your
opinion?
GF: First of all, let me say at the start, that I view
Posner's
book
as a dishonest book. Posner called me early on when he
was
beginning
to work on the book. He asked me about those areas of
the
investigation
in which I was involved. I told him briefly, gave him
some
specifics.
He said that they seemed very interesting and very important
and that
he
would have to come and talk with me in detail about
it. And I
said
he was welcome to do that. This was way before I even
began my
book.
He said that he would do that and I never heard from him
again.
As
far as Posner's handling of Odio, he never talked to
Odio. The
testimony
and what he does in his book in terms of building up a
tremendous
emotional
problem that she had by using an individual, quoting an
individual
who Silvia Odio never met, who happened to be a friend of
her uncle's,
I
think. To me, was, again, misleading and
dishonest. As far
as,
it isn't true, as this says, that there isn't one piece of
corroborating
evidence for a post assassination claim that one of
the men who
visited
her was introduced as Leon Oswald. That's simply not
true because
her
sister was at the apartment at that time. We got
corroboration
from
her sister. Could he have interviewed her? I
don't know,
whether
or not he could have interviewed her. Should he have
interviewed
her?
Of course he should have interviewed her. And what
makes her
credible,
of course, is the fact that everything she says, we got
corroboration
about.
We got a corroboration in terms of the details which are
more
important.
And in fact, even additional corroboration has come forward
when a
priest,
who we couldn't locate, a friend of hers, specifically
recalled her
saying,
talking about the visit prior to the assassination. On
a specific
evening.
He pinpointed the evening closer than she had before.
So, as far
as
Posner goes, and his credibility in the Odio area, I think
it's
dishonest.
19. David Sanchez Morales and David Atlee Phillips
were, as I
understand
it, associates? Did Morales report to Phillips?
Did Hunt
report
to Phillips? Sturgis? Harvey?
Barker? Was
Phillips
running the show pretty much as far as the anti-Castro
activity
went?
Or was Helms? How, in your opinion, was Phillips
vis-a-vis
Veciana
and Alpha-66, able to continue anti-Castro activity after
Kennedy
forbade
it, without sanctioned CIA approval?
GF: Well, that's a question * based on the assumption
that
there's
a huge paper chain of command that is strictly adhered to by
* CIA
agents
[at all times]. And there may be a huge
paper chain
of
command somewhere in the walls of Langley, but in the field,
I don't
believe
it [always] exists. I think, especially during this
period of
time,
you had a tremendous * "off the wall" operations almost, you
might call
them,
going on and they involved individuals who had worked
together in other
operations
and in other areas. And who, on the basis of their
association,
not
on the basis of any chain of, written chain of command,
accomplished
what
they were trying to accomplish. As far as CIA approval
of
anti-Castro
activity after Kennedy forbade it, the records indicate, and
newspaper
reports
even indicate, that these raids were in fact made. And
we have,
the
Committee, developed information that these individual
anti-Castro
groups
were, in fact, controlled by their CIA handlers. I
mean, we know
that
from the evidence and testimony that we dug up from former
CIA people
who
worked out of JM/WAVE station.
19.a. Are you saying that Alpha-66 made raids and they
were
verified
by the Committee?
GF: Well, that was in the newspapers.
19.b. I know that was in the newspapers. But
Alpha-66 was
set
up solely as a money making operation for another group and
when it was
found
out that this had occurred, Veciana took his Alpha 66, [name
for
himself.
He took the name and incorporated it under the Secretary of
the
Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico as an organization. And when Tony
Cuesta, who had
belonged
to Alpha-66 prior to this and kept using the name Alpha-66,
found out
about
it, he changed his [group] name to Commandos-L. But in
FBI
documents,
it shows that out of the Puerto Rican office they've
got
Alpha-66,
Alpha-66 Incorporated, and then they have
Alpha-66/Commandos-L.
Now,
did the Committee ever get down to figure out who was doing
what?
It
sounded like from the FBI documents that Alpha-66 didn't do
anything
and
that it was the Second National Front of Escambray that was
doing it
[all
the raids on Cuba].
GF: Well, again, I think you're getting into this
paperwork
organization
that probably didn't really exist in the field.
Because you
have
reports in the New York times, for instance, with Veciana
saying, in
effect,
during the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, " Alpha-66
conducted these
raids
into Havana Harbor." So, I think what's happening is
that these
names
and titles and unit designations were being thrown out by
whoever
wanted
to throw them out.. Veciana was saying Alpha-66, and
it was
Commandos-L,
and Tony Cuesta was involved.
19.c. But Veciana also told the news media at a
conference, at a
news
conference in Washington, that he over-exaggerated raids and
actually
stated
raids that Alpha-66 had [not] done. Intentionally he
had said
that
they had made raids that they had not done in order for fund
raising
purposes.
So did the Committee get into verifying, whether......or
wasn't that
important
that Alpha-66 was doing it or some other group was doing it?
GF: No. Because Alpha-66, for instance, and we're
talking about
specifically
that period during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the raids
into Havana
Harbor,
that Veciana claims, now we know that they weren't, and I
think that
Veciana
took credit for them, for Alpha-66. Now whether
Veciana
later
said that wasn't really Alpha 66, I'm really not that
familiar with
that.
19.d. Well I think it was Menoyo's group. See, the
Menoyo group
and
Second Front. He [Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo] was doing the
raids and
Alpha-66
was taking claim for them, I think that was the way the
scenario went.
GF: Yeah. Could have been, but as far as....the
bottom line
is
that Veciana was claiming that Bishop was the one who
suggested that
they
do these raids at this time. And that's * what the
Committee was
interested
in.
19.e. Now, taking it from here. Veciana
was making
claims
that Alpha-66 performed raids that some other group was
doing because
he
wanted to get funds through Alpha-66 for this other
group. Then
he
makes a statement that he had intentionally deceived
the news
media
on what raids he had done. Now take that, and take the
fact, and
a
lot of people bring this up, and he is a convicted drug
felon.
Now,
can we believe anything he says? Where is the
credibility in this
man?
This is a big, big problem with a lot of people. The
credibility
of
Veciana, especially because of the drug thing.
GF: We're left with that impression of a convicted
drug felon as
an
image in our minds that has certain connotations. And
what is
difficult
to convey is, what I think is the truth, that Veciana does
not fit that
image
at all. And having looked into the circumstances of
that specific
case,
Veciana's claim that he was set up. He had never been
involved in
drugs
before, and how the discovery of drugs in a car that he
rented came
about,
and how it appeared that his claim for being set up on it
seems
valid.
That would require going into a tremendous amount of
detail. But
when
I first approached Veciana I had all that skepticism about
that.
I
was an investigative reporter for twenty years. I
can't tell you
how
many ex-convicts I talked to said they were innocent of the
charges.
People who are sitting in jail saying "they framed
me." So I had
a
lot of experience dealing with people like that. And I
was ready
to
discount Veciana's story, on the basis of his being an
ex-convict.
In fact, when I first contacted him, he was still in Atlanta
Federal
Prison.
And yet, when I did the investigation into that, looked into
the
background
of his claims in terms of the case, I found that there was
some
validity
to them. And, again, Veciana doesn't fit into that
image of a
drug-dealing
felon in terms of his philosophy, his family and how he's
operated in
the
past. There's absolutely no connection at all.
And so the
basis
of believing Veciana has to rest on two things. One,
this aura of
believability
- which can't hold up on itself. And second,
corroboration on as
much
detail as possible. Or, failing corroboration,
catching him in
discrepancies
in details. And that's what I tried to do, and
could not do
over
the years of working with him. Everything that he told
me that I
could
corroborate. And I mean corroborate by him being where
he was, or
even,
for instance..... Let me give you a little
anecdote. Little
incident
here. I was sitting in Veciana's living room talking
to him when
he
was telling me about the incident where he got the final
payoff from
Bishop.
When Bishop decided that he couldn't work with Veciana
anymore.
And
they couldn't work together. There had been a mistrust
developing
and
I think, just to go into a little sidetrack here, that
mistrust
developed
as a result of Veciana wanting to continue to attempt to
assassinate
Castro
and Bishop telling him that further assassination plans had
been called
off.
And Veciana, without Bishop's knowledge, going ahead and
planning
additional
assassination attempts. I think when Bishop discovered
that,
that's
what caused the split.
19.f. That was the Chile incident?
GF No. That was after Chile.
Yeah.
And
so, as a result of that, Bishop called Veciana and said he
wanted to
pay
him for all the years he worked with him. The
arrangement had
been
from the beginning, Veciana said, no, when we get rid of
Castro, then
you
pay. Because Veciana didn't think that it would go on
for all the
years
it did. He thought it would be a short period of
time. All
Veciana
wanted was expenses. Some little expenses along the
way.
But
as it worked out, Veciana got a specific amount of money,
like
$245,000,
I think it was. Or $253,000, I forget the figure
now. And
he
said Bishop called him up and told him to meet him at the
parking lot,
the
dog track. And he's telling me this story.
19.g. What dog track? Here in Miami?
GF: In Miami. The one right next to where
Veciana
lives.
Flagler?
19.h. Flagler Dog Track.
GF: Right. And as he's telling me this story, he
said it
was
ironic because the payment came on the 26th of July.
And his
wife,
Veciana's wife, who had been paying absolutely no attention
to us as
she
was cleaning the house and taking care of the children,
going back and
forth
between the kitchen and the bedrooms and through the living
room as we
were
talking. Paying absolutely no attention to us.
And he
mentions
this, he mentions the 26th of July and she comes walking by
at that
point
and he stops here. And he says, "Remember that 26th of
July?"
She says, "Huh? . "You know, 26th of July, and the
money."
And
she says "And when you got the money?" And , you know,
you'd have
to
believe that was a setup not to be credible. I mean,
that he
planned
this, her walking by, and her being part of the scheme
to fool
me.
I find that hard to believe in itself. So, things like
those
little
incidents when you're talking to people that give you a
sense of
credibility.
And that's what I mean in terms of corroborating as much as
I could in
other
details that Veciana told me.
Addendum (not on video) to answer 19h by Gaeton Fonzi:
[I don't think I made myself clear here in terms of
Veciana's
wife
spontaneously corroborating his receiving the briefcase of
money on
July
26 and that she did so under circumstances which couldn't
possibly have
been
pre-arranged. That's my point here in terms of judging
Veciana's
overall
credibility.]
20. In your opinion, is [David Sanchez] Morales' drunken
admission of
complicity
in the assassination credible?
GF: What I find credible were the people who told me
that's what
he
said. And these were the people that had no connection
to the
work
that Morales was involved with. Who were very
close friends
of
Morales. And who had very legitimate
backgrounds. One was a
Harvard
Law School graduate. So on that basis, yeah. I
find that
what
was told to me about what Morales said, credible.
20.a. Was Morales a close friend of Phillips?
GF: He was a working associate of Phillips down
through the
years.
Phillips mentions him in his book.
20.b. At JM/WAVE? Were they working
together?
GF: I'm sure they were working together. Well,
Morales was
the
executive officer of JM/WAVE and Phillips didn't really work
out of
JM/WAVE,
he had his own little thing going. He used
people. But what
we
were able to develop, and Morales' work in Latin American
operations
where
Phillips was the boss, puts him and Phillips together very
closely.
20.c. So Shackley then, came under Phillips in the
chain of
command?
GF: No. I don't think...Well, at one
point, it was in
the
time period of the JM/WAVE, I don't [think] that's true
because I think
Phillips
was involved in psychological warfare and
counter-intelligence before
he
got into specifically head of Cuban
counter-intelligence. And so
I
think he had operations going. For instance, we were
talking to
an
individual who was one of the agents working out of the
JM/WAVE
station.
One of those who supervised an anti-Castro group. And
if they got
into
certain areas of operation in psychological warfare, for
instance, well
then
they would coordinate with Phillips. Phillips would be
like the
expert.
Meanwhile Phillips had his own blue operations going..
I'm not
sure
exactly how, you know, the chain of command went [or there
were a chain
of
command]. It was more like calling on, I got the
impression,
calling
on fields of expertise that were employed.
21. Any plans to make a mini-series out of THE LAST
INVESTIGATION
similar
to the A & E INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS series? The
book read like
a
murder and suspense mystery thriller and was, IMO, extremely
well done
and
might translate well to video format.
GF: Well, I think that's awful nice. And if
anyone has, *
[no
one has suggested that before].
21.a. Well, can we say that this is the first in a
series?
GF: No. (laughter)
22. Was there any investigation in LHO's travels to New
Orleans during
his
leave periods while stationed in Mississippi? If so,
were any
further
connections with David Ferrie revealed?
GF: I'm not familiar with that area at all. I
can't answer
that
question.
23. Do you know of any LHO activities in Atlanta, GA? (Other
than just
changing
planes.)
GF: No, I don't know.
24. Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" came out around the
time the
National
Archives started releasing the first group of JFK
assassination files
under
the President John F. Kennedy Assassination records
Collection Act.
Posner
was highly regarded by the media, but to the best of our
knowledge did
not
see any of the newly released files. Of these records, some
of which
you
have seen, what if any shows Posner's insufficient knowledge
of the
case?
GF: Well again, I think I answered [that] before [in
terms of] my
own
relationship with those areas of the investigation which
Posner
mentioned
in his book. As far as other areas, I'm aware of
individual
researchers
who are extremely knowledgeable in certain areas who find
Posner's
conclusions
and his handling of the evidence absolutely ludicrous.
24.a. Have you read his book?
GF: Sure.
24.b. You call it dishonest. Do you think
intentionally so?
GF: Oh yeah. I have to believe on the basis of
my own
experience
with Posner, that it was intentional. As he said, he
was going to
come
down and talk to me about that area of the investigation
that I was
involved
with. And when I read what he had written without
doing that,
without
getting the details I had. I offered him access to my
files.
He never showed up. And so when he did that, I could
come to no
other
conclusion that he deliberately distorted those areas
because
they
would have run against the thesis of this book.
24.c. Do you have any opinion what ends he could have
been doing
this
for? Other than to maybe sell books?
GF: Other than selling books? Well that's a
pretty good end
in
itself. I think he would consider that a pretty good
end in
itself.
24.d. Have you read CASE OPENED?
GF: No, I haven't read Weisberg's book. You
know, I'm
really
not that interested in critiquing Posner. It just
infuriates [me]
that
the major media paid so much attention to him without
knowing anything
about
what he was writing. And I think we could spend an
awful lot of
time,
waste a lot of time, discrediting Posner.
24.e. I wrote in my notes here that to even ask
questions in
regards
to him is giving him credibility.
GF: And I think that's a good point.
25. DO YOU HAVE SOME HARD CORE ANSWERS TO A DIRECT
CONNECTION BETWEEN
MAURICE
BISHOP & DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS. I'm talking PROOF - NOT
OPINIONS.
GF: I can only say that whoever asked that, [should]
read my
book.
And look at the chain of circumstantial evidence, you can
call it, but
nevertheless
evidence that Maurice Bishop was David Atlee Phillips.
Including
testimony
from former CIA agents who recalled Phillips using the name
of Maurice
Bishop.
[Questions 26-47 not answered by Gaeton Fonzi.]
48. On the same page (50), you also wrote George
de
Mohrenschildt
was a "CIA intelligence asset." What do you mean by an
intelligence
asset?
GF: In the case of George de Mohrenschildt, he
provided
information
to the CIA. And that's in the records. That's in
de
Mohrenschildt's
own records. It's in the CIA records, as a matter of
fact.
48.a. And that's your definition of an intelligence
asset?
GF: In terms of George de Mohrenschildt, yes.
49. On page 54 you discuss what Clare Boothe Luce told
to Sen.
Schweiker,
including quotes. Where does one find the record on
this
including
the quotes you use? Is there any available
corroboration for the
story
she is alleged to have told? Where is it found?
GF: The, all that documentation regarding Clare Boothe
Luce and
Senator
Schweiker is in Schweiker's records. It's in
Schweiker's, or one
of
his assistant's, reports to me in terms of her conversations
with
Schweiker.
Our conversations with Clare Boothe Luce, when I was on the
House
Committee,
should be in the House Committee's records. Everything
in terms
of
our contacts with Clare Boothe Luce and our efforts to
corroborate her
story
by talking to individuals who were involved with her in the
story are
all
in the House Committee records or memorandums that I wrote
for
Schweiker
when I was working with Schweiker on the Kennedy
Subcommittee of the
Church
Committee. And I think most of those Schweiker
documents were
turned
over to the House Committee. So they should be all in
their
records.
In addition to which, I have.......
[Questions 50-55 not answered by Gaeton Fonzi.]
56. Have "Angel" and "Leopoldo" been identified?
Recently, Cuba
released
a statement indicating its belief that they are, in fact,
the Novo
brothers,
Guillermo & Whoever. Has anyone taken pictures of
the Novo
brothers
to the Odio sisters to see if there is a positive ID?
Also, I
understand
that the AARC has quite a collection of anti-Castro Cuban
materials.
Has anyone ever made a decent attempt to take a bunch of old
photos of
the
anti-Castro Cubans to see if the Odio sisters can identify
Angel and
Leopoldo?
I imagine that the G-2 would have a nice collection of
photos. Has
anyone
ever approached Cuba to see why it feels that Angel &
Leopoldo are
the
Novo brothers?
GF: We, the House Committee, got together a huge thick
photo
album
of individuals including many we thought might be
possibilities of
Angel
and Leopoldo. And of course we ran them all by Silvia
Odio.
I
ran dozens of photos by her when I was still, before I
joined the House
Committee,
when I was still with Schweiker. I don't know whether
Silvia Odio
had
been specifically shown photos of the Novo brothers
recently.
But....and
I don't recall whether I asked her about it in one of my
more recent
conversations
with her. In my mind, I dismissed the Novo brothers as
far as
that
Odio connection. I may be dismissing it because I did
ask her
about
it, or I may be dismissing it because the Novo brothers were
fairly
well
known and their photos had been in the paper. And
Silvia Odio
would
have said something to me when I spoke with her. It
would have
been
like, "oh, by the way Gaeton, I just remembered, it was the
Novo
brothers...".
I mean, because they were well known characters in
town. It's a
good
question about the G-2, Castro's G-2, having a nice
collection of
photos.
And I'm sure they do. And, as a matter of fact,
something was
being
set up prior to all this recent confusion with the
immigration
policy.
Something was being set up in terms of getting that
information.
And,
hopefully, those photos.
56.a. The last contact you had with Silvia, does she
feel
that
she would be able, if she had pictures from that era, that
she would be
able
to identify the photographs of the people who visited her?
GF: That's a good question now because she has seen so
many
photographs
that, and this is only my personal opinion, that I'm not
sure there
still
exists an image in her mind of Angel and Leopoldo.
There is,
obviously
some certain specific characteristics that she's been
consistent
in
repeating over the years. But, as I said, she's seen
so many
photos
that there might be an element of confusion in her mind at
this point.
Addendum (not on video) to answer #56a by Gaeton Fonzi:
[I don't mean to imply here that Silvia Odio couldn't
identify
photos
of Angel or Leopoldo if she were shown them. I am
suggesting that
she
might not be able to be definite if she were now shown
photos of
individuals
who only bore a resemblance to those men, whereas if the FBI
had
immediately
shown her photos at the time she would have been able to
eliminate
look-a-likes.]
[Question 57 not answered by Gaeton Fonzi.]
58. What agencies do you feel have records which need to be
released?
GF: That again is a good question. The usual
agencies.
The usual suspects, of course, but the question raises
another, I think
interesting,
point. And that is there are many areas that the House
committee,
for
instance, didn't get into. Individuals that they never
got around
to
requesting documents on. And who may not be now
sitting in the
FBI
and CIA files under Kennedy Assassination headings.
But I think a
good
place to start, in terms of records in any of the agencies,
are
specific
and valid records of the agents and officers involved in the
time and
places
that, we in the Kennedy assassination research, define. And
I think
that
that's where a plan could be formulated from.
58.a. Did the Committee get into US Customs records at
all?
GF: I don't know.
58.b. You know about the neutrality team they had down
here and
all
these anti-Castro things....Is that a valid JFK record?
GF: Oh yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.
I think we
should
have. And I know we did try to get the records of
certain
individuals,
like [Cesar] Diosdado for example and were not successful.
58.c. They wouldn't give them to you?
GF: I think we probably asked too late at some
point. And
[Cesar]
Diosdado wouldn't talk to us.
58.d. Did you talk to [Steve] Czukas?
GF: Yeah. Many times.
58.e. Did he have anything interesting to say?
GF: Yeah, about a lot of different things.
Sturgis,
Lorenz.
58.f. Yeah. So that story about him putting
Lorenz up in
the
Miami Springs Villa is true?
GF: Yes.
59. Would the release of all the U.S. Customs records
pertaining to
weapons
and Neutrality violations be of use to JFK
researchers? If so, in
what
way will these records shed any light on the investigation?
GF: Well, I think specifically they would reveal names
of people
involved
in that time and place. And would serve as a basis for
additional
investigation.
60. Do you see the door closing on the release of records
under the JFK
act?
What might trigger the closure?
GF: I'm not sure. I'm not sure exactly what that
question
means.
The door is not open all the way, by any means, so
far.
Yet.
And again, what would trigger the closure from what it
appears now is
simply
funding. If they don't get the funding to keep that
Committee,
that
operation going, it will close it down.
60.a. For your information, there was a notice the
other day that
the
JFK Review Board was asking for suggestions as to the
definition of a
JFK
record. And that, I think, goes back to Question #59,
would the
US
Customs records pertaining to the neutrality violations - -
would that
be,
in your estimation, would that come under the definition of
a JFK
assassination
record?
GF: I would definitely think so because I think what
should come
under
the definition of a JFK record would be all the records of
every
government
agency involved in that, the specific time and places
connected to the
Kennedy
assassination. And that includes New Orleans, Dallas,
and where
ever
Oswald might have been. And where ever any possible
individual
might
have been who had some connection to anyone in the
previously developed
records
of both the Warren Commission and the House Select
Committee.
60.b. Was there any great evidence ever uncovered that
Oswald
ever
came to Miami?
GF: No. I found absolutely no story that panned
out as far
as
Oswald ever being in Miami.
60.c. Did you check on the newspaper articles in the
Sun Sentinel?
GF: Yeah. We checked on the articles [including
those
written
by] Jim Buchanan. And they all trace back somehow to
invalid
sources.
[Note: Jim Buchanan was a good friend of Frank Sturgis]
61. Are there any other individuals that were not mentioned
in your
book
who are important players in the JFK assassination?
GF: Well, there are probably dozens that other
researchers would
consider
important players. As I said, I didn't get in to all
the other
areas
of the investigation. And I dealt with only those in
which I was,
had
some experience.
62. What other areas of investigation still need to be
explored or
verified?
GF: I think this is redundant and what I just said in
terms of
the
areas that are yet, unexplored, under-investigated.
62.a. Do you think that there are any records that in
the past,
when
requested, have been claimed to have been routinely
destroyed? Do
you
think there is a possibility of those records, or a copy of
those
records,
ever becoming available?
GF: I do think there is a possibility that
copies of such
records
[exist]. There's a whole military intelligence
area. The
records
had supposedly been destroyed. ** The Committee
* didn't
pursue
the possibility that there may be duplicates somewhere.
[Question 63 not answered by Gaeton Fonzi.]
64. What was del Valle's association with the
underworld? What do
you
have to back up any connection?
GF: I don't specifically recall what
documentation I
have,
if any, regarding del Valle. This was an area of the
investigation
, again, in which I wasn't directly involved. I did
some research
on
del Valle. Gordon Winslow did a tremendous amount of
research on
del
Valle. But the information that I had was that there
was a
connection
between del Valle and some drug traffic.
65. How valid is Cuba's claims that del Valle was one of the
shooters?
GF: I don't know the answer to that question.
But they
haven't
presented any kind of specific evidence to back it up.
66. Can Tony Cuesta have had any information on the
assassination?
GF: Could he have had any information? He may
have had
information
about individuals and what they were doing when, at some
point. I
don't
know what specific information he would have had. I
didn't have
the
opportunity to question him.
67. Was Cuesta involved in assassination attempts against
Castro?
GF: Again, I don't specifically know. I think he
claimed
that
he was involved in a few attempts to assassinate Castro.
67.a. That recent ZR-RIFLE book that came out by
Furiati on the
Cuban
documentary. I think that's, they claim that that was
an
assassination
attempt. That landing was. That's when he got
blinded.
No comment made by Gaeton Fonzi.
68. Do you believe Carlos Prio committed suicide?
GF: All the evidence seems to indicate that he
did. And I
don't
have any evidence indicating that he did [not].
69. Do you believe de Mohrenschildt committed suicide?
GF: Yeah. I believe de Mohrenschildt
committed
suicide.
70. Do you think that de Mohrenschildt committed suicide
because you
were
going to see him? What was your reaction upon hearing of his
suicide?
GF: Yeah. Again, this is my opinion. At
the time de
Mohrenschildt
committed suicide, there were a number of things taking
place, and a
number
of specific factors that put a lot of pressure on him.
The House
Committee
was getting started again. He was being asked, I
believe, to
begin
another role in his relationship to the assassination and
his testimony
before
the Warren Commission. He was taken, just before he
committed
suicide,
he was taken to Belgium by a foreign journalist. He
was, I
believe
he felt he was, being set up. He was supposed to have
a meeting
with
a KGB official, I believe, but he ran away. He came
back to
Florida.
He believed he was being set up to make it appear that there
was a link
between
him and the KGB. And then obviously a link between
Oswald and the
KGB
because of his link to the KGB. And then, Epstein
shows up.
And
once again, spends a whole afternoon with him at a hotel in
Palm
Beach.
And, I think, he's under a lot of pressure. He comes
back home
and
his daughter hands him my card. I had been there in
the morning
and
I told his daughter that I wanted to talk to him and that I
would be
back
in touch. He puts the card in his shirt pocket and
goes upstairs
and
blows his head off. And so, I think you have a
whole series
of
linkages there. He hadn't been a well man,
mentally. Just
months
prior to that he had been treated for mental problems.
So I think
the
linkage is there in terms of the pressures being put on
him. And
I
do believe he committed suicide. I don't think there's
enough
evidence
to indicate that he didn't.
70.a. What was your reaction at the time?
GF: Well, I heard it second hand. As a matter of
fact,
after
I came back from Palm Beach county that afternoon, and was
going to get
back
in touch with him, I got a call from a friend who was
working for a tv
station
in Dallas who had heard that de Mohrenschildt had committed
suicide.
And I was shocked. I hung up the phone and immediately
got a call
from
the US State attorney in Palm Beach, who was at de
Mohrenschildt's
house.
And who had found my card in his pocket and who had told me
de
Mohrenschildt
had committed suicide. And so, I immediately rushed up
there to
find
out exactly what happened.
70.b. How did that affect your investigation at that
point?
GF: Well, I can tell you how it should have affected
our
investigation.
It should have had a tremendous impact on the House
Committee
investigation.
We should have inundated Palm Beach County with
investigators. We
should
have gone off in every single direction with a crew of
investigators.
Unfortunately, that very evening, the Committee was in a
fight for it's
life.
And no one paid any attention to my desperate calls for help
when I
called
the Committee because the Committee was about to be
expunged. And
it
was only as a result of.........well, the result of two
things that the
Committee
was able to [be] re-funded. And that was Sprague's
resignation, a
sacrifice
on his part because he was absolutely right what he wanted
to do.
And
the second was de Mohrenschildt's suicide, which got a lot
of play in
the
papers about the Kennedy assassination. And that's why
the
Committee,
the next day, got enough votes to be re-funded and continue
for it's
designated
two year life.
Addendum (not on video) to answer 70b by Gaeton Fonzi:
[I don't want to give the impression here that the
Committee did
no
investigation of DeM's death. A couple of
investigators with
homicide
experience did later come down to Florida to review the
medical
examiner's
report, but we did no independent investigation of the
circumstances
surrounding
his death. That's mainly because of the state of flux
and
confusion
in Washington in the days and weeks following DeM's
death. In
terms
of DeM's relationship to Oswald and the JFK assassination,
that was
later
handled by attorney Surrell Brady, whose report is in the
Committee's
volumes.
I don't know if she ever interviewed Epstein but I would
guess that she
did.
I had no opportunity to question Epstein immediately after
DeM's death
because
he quickly left town.]
71. What roll, if any, did WerBell have in the assassination
of JFK?
GF: Well, we certainly looked into that and wasn't
really able to
develop
very much. We got, initially, when I was working for
Schweiker,
we
got reports from someone who was close to WerBell who
indicated that
there
was a link. Werbell had perhaps some knowledge.
And we
spent
an awful lot of time with WerBell and looking into his
connections and
associations.
And because they were so convoluted and so, in many cases,
so very,
very
deep, involved in covert operations, we weren't really able
to come up
with
anything in terms of any kind of linkages.
Though, in my
interview
with him, at one point he said he received a call from
Ruby.
Incoming,
as he said. And then refused to get specific about
exactly what
that
call was. But he was half bombed when I was talking to
him.
And
it may have been something that either he made up, or he
slipped.
And
I thought it was interesting.
Addendum (not on video) to answer 71 by Gaeton Fonzi:
[I don't mean to give the impression I didn't attempt
to follow
up
on WerBell's reference to Ruby. At the time, however,
it was
difficult
to get WerBell to respond coherently to questions I asked,
either
because
he was getting drunker or, more likely, pretending he was
getting
drunker.
He simply became evasive and mumbled more when I repeatedly
tried to
pin
him down to details, so it's still difficult to decide
whether his
reference
to Ruby was a true slip or an attempt to add a touch of
disinformation.]
71.a. There's been some new material, speaking of Ruby
making
connections
down here. That Ruby also had contact with Rolando
Masferrer?
Have you ever heard of any such thing?
GF: No, I've never heard of it.
72. Did David Atlee Phillips ever recruit Frank Sturgis at
any time for
any
job? If Yes what job or use was Sturgis to Phillips?
GF: I've got no indication that Phillips ever worked
with
Sturgis.
And knowing this, what sticks in my mind, whenever I would
bring up
Phillips'
name to Sturgis, Sturgis would go ballistic in terms of how
much he
hated
Phillips. Absolutely wild in terms of his reaction to
anything,
any
mention of David Phillips at all. He [said he] "hated
the
son-of-a-bitch".
And the reason he said he hated him was because Phillips
claimed that
Sturgis
never had anything to do at all with the CIA. And that
made me
suspicious
about that connection. Veciana said that at one point,
Maurice
Bishop
asked him to sit, or go to a meeting, monitor an operation
that Sturgis
was
involved in called Cellula Fantasma. And Veciana did
and reported
back
to Bishop about what was happening. I believe it was a
.....
there are all kinds of reports now exactly what it
was. When I
asked
Sturgis about it, I think he told me it was ** a leaflet
dropping
mission.
* There were indications that it may have been something
other than
that
also. But that's the only connection I could come up
with between
Phillips
and Sturgis.
73. Could you give us a brief scenario of the law suit that
David Atlee
Phillips
brought against you for your article in the Washingtonian?
GF: Sure. ** David Phillips sued me, the editor, the
publisher
and
the magazine for $70 million each for the article. And
he brought
the
lawsuit in Federal Court in Virginia and in Maryland State
Court.
And
it was immediately thrown out of Federal Court because
there was
no
foundation for it. But it did reach the Supreme Court,
what is in
effect
the Supreme Court in Maryland, it has another name.
And, the
judge
ruled that there was absolutely no basis for a libel action
on
Phillips'
part. I mean, he actually rendered his decision on the
substance
of
Phillips' contentions. It wasn't a technicality.
It was
opinion
rendered on the substance that Phillips wasn't libeled in
the article..
73.a. Was that because he was a public figure?
GF: No, it wasn't because he was a public figure.
73.b. Did the lower courts throw it out because he was
a public
figure?
GF: No. The lower courts, from what I recall,
the lower
courts
didn't throw it out as a result of his being a public
figure. I
think
the judge eventually ruled, and I do recall the specifics of
the
Supreme
Court ruling, that everything that was in the article was
backed
up.
It was no accusations or specifics in the article that
wasn't
documented
in the article.
73.c. But Phillips wrote in the article for the
National
Journalistic
Review, or something like that, that he was declared a
public
figure.
How did that come up? How does that come up? How
does he
say
that?
GF: He says it.
73.d. I know that he says it. What was it in
your case that
he
was ruled a public figure?
GF: I don't recall that. I don't recall....
73.e. Or was it in the Donald Freed case?
GF: In my opinion, it might have been in the Freed
case. I
don't
recall. I don't know. But I recall specifically
the ruling
of
the Supreme Court in Maryland that Phillips had no basis for
his
contentions
of libel. It wasn't the fact that he was a public
figure.
73.f. Now he claims that he didn't have any money to
go
further.
I don't know how, in the suit. Maybe I'm asking a
legal question
here.
GF: He may not have had any money to go further in the
Federal
suit
because it was dropped afterwards. ** But he went all the
way to the
Supreme
Court in Maryland.
73.g. In Maryland. But he was evidently going to
go higher
but
he, the organization he started called Challenge Inc. was
the one that
was
feeding him the money. Is that a correct statement?
GF: That's the assumption I got. But I can't
imagine any of
the
resources of the retired CIA officials being insufficient..
73.h. Me either.
74. Do you think the Assoc. Of Retired Intelligence Officers
had
anything
to do with coaxing David Atlee Phillips into bringing
suit? Did
they
help him? What do you have to back up your claim?
GF: No. I think David Atlee Phillips coaxed the
Association
of
Retired Intelligence Officers to support him. And I
think that's
why
he set up this Challenge group specifically to support him
in his
suit.
Although he said, of course, it was to support all these
other lawsuits
also.
Did they help him? Yeah. I think there's
documentation that
they,
in fact, helped him. There's certainly documentation
that he was
asking
for funds for the suit.
74.a. Yeah. And in that letter that he asked for
funds, he
said
that for, I think, legal reasons, or something else, that
Challenge,
which
appeared on the letterhead, could not be associated with the
Association
of Retired Intelligence Officers. Do you remember
reading
that?
There was some reason why the two of them could not be
together.
They
had to be a separate group?
GF: No I don't. The only thing I assume is that
the
Association
of Retired Intelligence Officers may have been a tax-exempt
organization
and couldn't use the funding for that.
75. Is there an effort on the part of the Association of
Retired
Intelligence
Officers to use the courts to silence critics?
Why? When
did
it start? What have they done to counteract the JFK
conspiracy
theories?
GF: I don't have the answers to any of the
questions. All I
know
is that they were, in fact, active in the suit that David
Phillips
brought
against me and the Washingtonian, unsuccessfully.
76. Can you comment on the following message that Gary
Aguilar
posted
to 12 individuals by CompuServe e-mail? He states,
"Have you
heard
any of these interesting rumors going around that at least 3
former
high
ranking members of the CIA, nationally well known
individuals, have
expressed
"concern" about COPA? I've heard such things and I
find
them
fascinating. What on earth could they be worried
about? Who
better
than they knows that a lone nut did it?"
GF: All I know is what I heard from Gary Aguilar
himself and
someone
else who was talking to Gus Russo, who told, from what I
gather,
individuals
that the luncheon was arranged by this fellow Ed, Ned
[Dolan].
Whatever
his name is.
76.a. Dolan.
GF: Dolan. And that [Ted] Shackley.. [Richard]
Helms, was
it?
76.b. Helms wasn't there.
GF: [William] Colby?
76.c. Colby?
GF: No. Colby didn't show up. One of them didn't
show up
because
they were .....
76.d. Dr. Artwohl. Russo. But Russo has
stated that
that
wasn't the intention of the meeting anyway.
GF: Oh, no. This is all second hand information
76.e. Yeah. Well, that's what everybody's
getting. I
just
thought you might have an inside track.
GF: No. No inside track.
76.f. No back channel either?
GF: No. Except for what Gary Aguilar told me.
77. Is there a concerted effort today on the part of
any group or
government
agency to quiet the conspiracy rumors? Why? Who are
these
forces?
What tactics do they utilize?
GF: This gets in to too much speculation in terms of
government
agencies
quieting the conspiracy rumors. Again, going back to
the previous
question.
I think what we've got to keep in mind here, in terms of
hard fact, is
that
the government agencies historically have not been
cooperative to
investigations
regarding the Kennedy assassination. And there's no
reason under
this
democratic form of government that they have, that they
shouldn't
be.
But their reason that they haven't been can either be
interpreted
willfully
avoiding cooperation because of guilty knowledge or
willfully avoiding
cooperation
to preserve, for self preservation reasons. And
reasons that go
to
the preservation that any bureaucracy feels it has to have
in order to
protect
it's own boundaries, as it were.
78. What was the relationship between David Atlee
Phillips and
Townley?
GF: What we do know is that Townley knew, I mean
Phillips knew
the
Townley family. And from what, from the
individuals I've
spoken
with who are intimately involved in that investigation, and
this
investigation,
of course, goes back to, we're talking about the Letelier
assassination.
There was a relationship between Phillips and Townley.
You're not
going
to find it on any document. But, again, this is
sources who
were
involved with the investigation.
79. Was Jorge Mas Canosa associated in any way with
JM/WAVE?
How?
GF: Jorge Mas Canosa said, in a written response to
questions
asked
him in regard to an article I was writing for Esquire
magazine at the
time,
that he did work for Radio Swan.
80. What part did Jorge Mas Canosa have in the death
of Rolando
Masferrer?
GF: I have absolutely no knowledge of anything to do
with that.
81. Did Orlando Bosch have any ties to the
intelligence community
at
any time? What were these connections?
GF: I think that he did. And my feeling is based
on
associations
with individuals who were CIA assets or agents. What
comes to
mind
specifically is Luis Posada, who is a CIA agent. And
[Bosch] is
involved
with Posada in the Cubana Airlines bombing. But Bosch
himself,
said
that he was running a, at one point, a camp that the CIA was
supporting
in
South Miami, I mean South Florida.
82. On page 118, you wrote: "In his memo [to
Schweiker]
Paul
Hoch wondered why Veciana's attempt against Castro was not
mentioned in
the
Church report. He pointed out that although CIA
claimed its
ventures
with the Mafia were suspended at that time, Hoch noted that
there was
an
earlier directive still in effect---NSAM 100---which ordered
a
contingency
plan drawn up for Castro's `removal'." What is the
purpose of
this
as neither CIA, nor apparently the Mafia, had anything to do
with Alpha
66,
Veciana's organization? It was solely a free lance
operation.
You give special emphasis to Hoch comments. Did
Hoch
provide
ANY documentation to the committee to support his memo, or
is it simply
an
unsupported opinion?
GF: I'm not too sure what he means. What he's
referring to
in
terms of Hoch's opinion. Hoch's opinion seems to
indicate that
there
was a contingency plan drawn for Castro's removal and Alpha
66 may have
been
involved in it, despite the fact that the CIA claimed that
it's
ventures
with the Mafia were suspended. Veciana's attempt
against Castro
may
not have been mentioned in the Church report but it
certainly was
mentioned
in the report Castro gave to McGovern at the time, as far as
the list
of
Cuban intelligence information regarding attempts on
Castro's
life.
It was mentioned there and Veciana was specifically
mentioned.
The
point here, what is the purpose of this is neither the
CIA nor
apparently
the Mafia had anything to do with Alpha-66. Well
certainly the,
you
know, one of the points of my whole book is the relationship
between
the
CIA and Alpha-66 through Maurice Bishop or David Phillips.
[Questions 83-92 not answered by Gaeton Fonzi.]
93. Identify FABIOLA and tell us what you really
think! Can
you
identify her?
GF: *Yes, I can. I do have her name and
address. I
just
don't think it would be worth doing in terms of her own
security.
93.a. She's still alive then?
GF: Yes, as far as I know.
[Question 94 not answered by Gaeton Fonzi.]
95. Why did you discount Marita Lorenz's experiences
based on a
personal
anecdotal incident that had absolutely nothing to do with
the
activities
she described in Florida pre-November 1963 and in Dallas
during
November
1963? If she was so unbelievable, why was her
testimony taken in
executive
session and not published in the reports?
GF: First of all, executive sessions were determined
by one of
two
things. Whether or not the Committee itself felt that
the
information
that was being provided by the witness might endanger the
witness'
life,
or be made prematurely public so as to hamper any additional
investigation.
Or at the request of the individual. I think that the
decision to
take
Marita Lorenz' testimony in executive session was to
avoid giving
her
the publicity, I believe, she was after and why she went
through this
whole
scenario of getting herself all this newspaper publicity in
order to
get
the Committee to call her. I had been telling the
Committee,
really,
that it wasn't necessary to call Marita Lorenz as a witness
because of
the
discrepancies in the stories she was telling. And the
fact that
she
kept changing her stories. And why I discounted her
experiences,
although
I think there's some validity to her earlier reports of
exactly what
she
was doing here in Miami working with anti-Castro
people. As far
as
the connection to the Kennedy assassination, I discounted
that on far
more
than what's described here as a personal anecdotal
incident. It
was
discounted as a result of specific information we developed
and,
regarding
the individuals she said were involved. And we
couldn't find any
proof
that they were in that caravan * going to Dallas. And
she kept
changing
the names and number of people in the caravan.
95.a. How many cars were there in that?
GF: Eventually? Originally?
95.b. Eventually.
GF: Eventually, I think two or three
cars. I
don't
recall. Originally there was one.
96. Why didn't you find Antonio Veciana's changing
stories
(especially
the cat and mouse Phillips/Bishop scenario, the cocaine
bust) a
reflection
on his ability to accurately recall incidents in his
relationships and
also
his motivations?
[This had been gone over in question number 19.e and was
deemed
redundant
during the interview]
97. Frank Sturgis appeared on CNBC on the 20th
anniversary of the
Watergate
break-in. When a caller asked about Marita Lorenz, he
nearly
flipped
his lid. How do you consider him to be an impartial
character
witness
for/against her?
GF: That's hard to consider Frank to be a, having been
an
impartial
character witness for anybody. But I document, in my
book, the
relationship
between Sturgis and Marita Lorenz. And how it
developed.
What
it was. And what it eventually became. I think
that even
though
it appeared on the surface that they had a tremendous
falling out at
the
end, I have my doubts about that. I think the
scenario, as I
described
in my book, and as I state in my book, had some covert
implications.
And Frank Sturgis was wonderful in developing such
scenarios.
98. How can I get in touch with your
fellow-investigator Al
Gonzales?
I'd like to write to him to confirm that, per THE LAST
INVESTIGATION,
pg.433,
former CIA officer code-named Ron Cross, told him that he
knew David
Atlee
Phillips and that he knew Phillips used the pseudonym,
Maurice Bishop.
GF: I don't think I'd be free to give out Al Gonzales'
home
address
at this point. That would be an invasion of his
privacy.
But
the House Select Committee investigative reports should be
available,
or
should be soon made available. And whatever Crozier
told Al
Gonzales
and what he told me and Al Gonzales is documented in those
investigative
reports.
98.a. You said Crozier.
GF: In the initial article. Interesting.
I'm glad you
brought
that up. In the initial article that I wrote about
this ex-CIA
man,
I disguised his name as Ron Cross. And I think the
Committee
disguised
his name as Ron Cross. And subsequently, it was David
Phillips,
himself,
who revealed Ron Cross' real name as being Crozier.
98.b. How do you spell that?
GF: C-R-O-Z-I-E-R. And he revealed it publicly.
98.c. In what forum?
GF: In a response, I'm trying to recall now. It
was a
response
or a debate with Tony Summers or in some document or
publication.
He
specifically revealed who Cross really was. And he
denigrated
Cross
by saying well, you can't believe this guy, he was an
alcoholic.
And
the interesting thing was, Cross, in fact, did tell us,
people will be
saying:
don't believe that guy, because he was an alcoholic.
And he said,
"I
was an alcoholic." But he was totally recovered when
we talked to
him.
He was a member of AA. And, but the real name of Ron
Cross was
made
public only by David Phillips himself.
98.d. You mean, he disclosed the name of a CIA agent?
GF: Exactly. Exactly what he did.
98.e. Was that before the law was in effect?
Then he was
doing
the exact same thing [as Phillip] Agee did?
GF: Exactly the same thing.
99. Do we have any documentation concerning the
infiltration of
Garrison's
investigation by the CIA?
GF: I was told that by researchers who had access to
CIA files.
99.a. So you claim that it is in a file somewhere in
the CIA
files
that they had people?
GF: That's what I was told.
100. Did Jimmy Hoffa ever testify before the Church
Committee or
was
he ever asked to?
GF: I don't know.
101. William Sullivan?
GF: The Church Committee? It sounds familiar,
but I don't
recall.
END
OF
INTERVIEW
*****************************************************************
End of Page
Copyright
1998-2014 Cuban Information Archives. All Rights
Reserved.
