|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 5, 2021 14:20:17 GMT -5
472 Records of a DPD inquiry at Red Bird Airport
Conspiracy theorists would love to have some "evidence" to support this delicious Redbird Airport suspicion of theirs. And they got it when it surfaced publicly for the first time in 1966 in Richard Popkin's book The Second Oswald. Conspiracy theorist Jones Harris told Popkin that one Wayne January, "the manager of the Redbird Air Field at the time of the assassination," told him, Harris, that on Wednesday morning, November 20, 1963, three people turned up at the airport. Two of them, a heavy-set young man and a girl, got out of their car and spoke to him, leaving a young man sitting in the car. The couple inquired about the possibility of renting a Cessna 310 on November 22 to fly to Mexico, saying they would return the plane on Sunday, November 24. From their appearance and demeanor, January did not believe they could afford the flight and suspected they might want to hijack the plane and go on to Cuba. He decided not to rent them the plane even if they turned up with the money for the flight, which they did not do, and January never saw them again. However, when January saw Oswald on television he was "convinced" Oswald was the man seated in the car. One big problem with January's credibility is that Alexander said that because he and Fritz had wondered if Oswald was on his way to Redbird Airport, "either one or two days after the assassination I know that Captain Fritz sent a couple of detectives out to the airport to speak to the people in charge and check all the records of the arrivals and departures for the days leading up to and including the assassination, and everything was negative." (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 1038)  Anyone who begins to delve into the Kennedy assassination in Dallas will eventually encounter various references to Red Bird Airport, a small private airfield in the south part of Dallas. On November 22, 1963, because of a 1:30PM notice from the FBI to report suspicious activities, a Red Bird tower operator became so suspicious of a certain aircraft that he made repeated calls to the FBI. The plane in question had remained ready for take off for some time and departed only after news of a suspect in the assassination capture was announced –it then reversed course from its stated departure path, flying south rather than north. The FBI number remained busy and the tower operator finally gave up. The plane then returned some time later. Anyone who begins to delve into the Kennedy assassination in Dallas will eventually encounter various references to Red Bird Airport, a small private airfield in the south part of Dallas. On November 22, 1963, because of a 1:30PM notice from the FBI to report suspicious activities, a Red Bird tower operator became so suspicious of a certain aircraft that he made repeated calls to the FBI. The plane in question had remained ready for take off for some time and departed only after news of a suspect in the assassination capture was announced –it then reversed course from its stated departure path, flying south rather than north. The FBI number remained busy and the tower operator finally gave up. The plane then returned some time later. While the flight itself may well have been innocent, the airport tower notice to the FBI required a response and no reports indicate any similar notice to the Dallas Police, no mention is made of any separate, proactive DPD or Bureau inquiry at airports or airfields. The incident certainly raises questions about any Dallas Police Department inquiries at Red Bird, as well as whether any real DPD effort was made to check private flights out of Dallas on November 22nd. On November 29, 1963 the FBI did interview an individual from Red Bird following the assassination, apparently due to a report from local sources. The individual was Wayne January, operator of an aircraft sales and charter business located at the airfield. January had remarked to friends about a couple who had inquired about renting a plane for a long distance flight. He recalled he had been suspicious of their intent and ability to pay. After the assassination he also thought there was a resemblance between a third person with them and Lee Oswald.[1]During the FBI interview, January also mentioned that he had been frequenting the Carousel Club, and so the FBI agents spent a great deal of the interview pressing him on a possible connection to Ruby. Vince Bugliosi felt it necessary to address the Red Bird Airport topic in his book Reclaiming History. His treatment of the subject is relatively limited; his overall view seems to be that nothing significant could have happened in or around.  Assistant DA Bill Alexander 1920-2015Red Bird since, according to him, the Dallas police investigated matters there. As his only source for that assumption Bugliosi cites anecdotal information from Dallas Assistant DA Bill Alexander to the effect that, “Will Fritz had sent people out there and turned up nothing suspicious.” Regardless of Bugliosi’s claims, there seem to be no records of a DPD inquiry at Red Bird Airport. (Larry Hancock, The Mystery of Red Bird Airport, 2013)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 6, 2021 13:02:30 GMT -5
473 John Hart Ely Interviews of El Toro Marines
Context:470 ONI post-defection investigation “[O]ur depositions and examination of records and other data
disclose there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration
and, in some cases, omission.”Interviews by John Hart Ely of Marines who knew LHO at El Toro, CA are missing. ( AARC Library) John Hart Ely (December 3, 1938 – October 25, 2003) was an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law. He was a professor of law at Yale University from 1968 to 1973, at Harvard University from 1973 to 1982, then at Stanford University from 1982 to 1996, where he served as dean of the Stanford Law School from 1982 to 1987. Ely was one of the most widely cited legal scholars in United States history, ranking just after Richard Posner, Ronald Dworkin, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., according to a 2000 study in the University of Chicago's Journal of Legal Studies. Ely was best known for his book Democracy and Distrust (1980), which was widely regarded as the most important academic work in two generations on American constitutional law, and was the most cited legal scholarship from 1978 to 2000. In the book, Ely expounds a theory of constitutional interpretation known as political process theory. The theory suggests that judges ought to focus on maintaining a well-functioning democratic process and guard against systematic biases in the legislative process. ( Wikipedia, retrieved 1-6-21)  John Hart Ely, the WC staff attorney who was Lee Oswald's ageJohn Hart Ely, a staff attorney or the Warren Commission, was responsible for gathering background information on Marguerite and Lee Oswald. He forwarded Palmer McBride and William Wulf's FBI interviews to Albert Jenner and Wesley Liebeler on March 30, 1964. From the FBI interview of McBride, Liebeler would have known of Oswald's employment at Pfisterer's in 1957 and 1958. From Oswald's Marine records he knew Oswald was supposed to have been in Japan at the same time. Oswald in New Orleans and Japan at the same time for nearly a year posed a serious problem. It was unexplainable and therefore had to be neutralized. On April 10, 1964 Albert Jenner wrote a memorandum to J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel for the Warren Commission. He said: “[O]ur depositions and examination of records and other data disclose there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in some cases, omission.” (John Armstrong, The Assassinations, Probe, p. 106) Delivered herewith are three preliminary memoranda at my request made in late February or early March. My purpose was to obtain a chronology based upon then existing data in our files of the background facts – life, school, places of residence, etc. – of Mrs. Oswald, her several marriages, her husbands and her three children and, in particular, Lee Harvey Oswald, from the time she married Richard John Pic, jr., in the fall of 1929, to the time Lee Harvey Oswald entered military service in October, 1956. We planned to employ the memoranda as a guide for the presentation of evidence before the Commission, for determining the persons and agencies whom we would examine by deposition in Dallas, New Orleans and New York City as well as to determine what additional investigation we believed to be necessary or desirable on the part of the FBI or Secret Service, or members of the Commission staff. (...)  Jenner-Rankin memo, notations by John ArmstrongMr. Ely's memoranda are well done. They have served as excellent material, against which we have proceeded with our testimony presentation before the Commission and the taking of depositions in Dallas and New Orleans. On the whole, Mr. Ely's memoranda present a good over-all picture of the course of events involving the Oswald's up to the time of Lee Harvey Oswald's entry into the military service. Our depositions and examination of records and other data disclose that there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and. in some instances, omission. Furthermore, some of his speculations have not been born out by our later work. ( Jenner-Rankin memo April 10, 1964)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 9, 2021 14:09:18 GMT -5
474 The mysterious FBI file 105-2137
Context:20 Fourteen minutes recording of Hoover – LBJ phonecall on 23-11-1963 260 Pre-assassination reports and files of FBI agent Wally Heitman 375 One ten-page encoded teletype The Review Board also sought to determine whether the FBI maintained a file in Mexico City on a “Harvey Lee Oswald” under the file number 105–2137. The Mexico City Legal Attache (Legat) opened a file on Lee Harvey Oswald (105–3702) in October 1963 following Oswald’s visit to Mexico City. Some of the documents in the Legat’s file contain notations for routing records to a file numbered 105–2137, and were captioned “Harvey Lee Oswald.” One researcher conjectured that this file would predate the Lee Harvey Oswald file, 105–3702, and might lead the Review Board to other FBI documents on Lee Harvey Oswald. In response to the Review Board’s request, the FBI searched its Legat’s files for a file numbered 105–2137 and captioned “Harvey Lee Oswald,” but it did not find such a file. ( ARRB Final Report p.82)  FBI Special Agent Clark D. Anderson ca. 1974 (© 2021 sketch Arjan Hut)At the time of the assassination, Special Agent Clark D. Anderson served as the Legal Attaché of the American Embassy in Mexico City. Special Agent Joseph Garcia served as the Assistant Legal Attaché. The Legal Attaché’s office functioned much like a FBI field office, with Special Agent Anderson performing the functions of a Special Agent in Charge. Including the Legat and the Assistant Legat, there were approximately 17 agents that operated under the control of the Mexico City Legat’s office. Most were stationed in the embassy in Mexico City, but the Legat’s office controlled three small Resident Agencies in Mexico -- in Mazatlan, Guadalajara, and Monterrey. Another agent traveled from the Mexico City Legat’s office to five Central American countries in an effort to develop contacts with individuals in those areas. Although it seems that most people in the Embassy (and many Mexicans) knew that the Legal Attaché’s office was, in fact, an FBI post, the Mexico City Legat Administrative File at the FBI indicates that the Bureau did not officially disclose their presence in the country. The Legat’s primary work in Mexico City involved locating fugitives who had crossed the border and recovering stolen property that was in Mexico. In addition, the Legat’s office engaged in foreign counterintelligence work in Mexico City -- which included investigations of American citizens in Mexico who the FBI believed to be engaged in subversive activities. The Mexico City administrative file indicates that FBI HQ considered the Legat’s espionage work to be quite important because it was aware of a large Soviet diplomatic establishment in Mexico. However, the file also demonstrates an FBI awareness that espionage should not be its primary mission in Mexico City. Consistent with the manner in which he ran the Bureau, Director Hoover kept a close watch over day to day decision making in the Mexico City Legat’s office. The administrative file contains a good bit of “Hoover blue ink” in which the Director made his characteristic comments on a range of activities in the Legat’s office, from whether agents could drive Bureau cars for personal use to the advisability of agents revealing information about American activities in Mexico to acquaintances at dinner parties. ( MEXICTY FBI)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 11, 2021 14:03:59 GMT -5
475 The original transcript from Sylvia Duran’s arrest
Context:183 Tapes of Lee Harvey Oswald calling the Soviet embassy in Mexico City222 A whole lot of CIA 201 or 'p' files 281 CIA file on Maurice Bishop
Given that the initial ten-page “confession” or interrogation appeared to be a summary report of Duran’s account ...
the Review Board wondered whether the CIA had an “original” transcript from Duran’s arrest.By all accounts, Duran – the receptionist at the Cuban consulate who talked to Oswald more than once – is a key personage. Anyone interested in finding out the truth about Oswald in Mexico City would have to consult with her and evaluate her as a witness. All one needs to know about the Warren Commission inquiry into this subject is this: They never interviewed her. They relied on edited transcripts of her brutal interrogation at the hands of Mexican security forces (the DFS) during which she was held in solitary confinement and tortured.  One of the more embarrassing parts of the Warren Report is the endorsement the Commission gives the Duran/DFS summary. They write, “...the most important confirmation of Senora Duran's testimony, however has been supplied by confidential sources of extremely high reliability available to the United States in Mexico.” (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 285) The portion of the transcript that reads, "I went to the Cuban Embassy to ask them for my address, because they have it, " implied that the Cuban Embassy furnished Oswald a place to stay in Mexico City, but he did not know the address. When Silvia Duran was interrogated by the DFS following the assassination, David Phillips prepared the list of questions to ask Duran. Positive answers to these questions would have implicated Duran, Oswald, and the Cubans in a plot to assassinate the President. One of Phillip's questions was, "Did the Cuban Embassy furnish him a place to stay in Mexico City?" (Amstrong, Harvey & Lee, p. 647) 
The Central Intelligence Agency had relied on Duran's statements, but had deleted Duran's description of Oswald as blond and short. (Hardway & Lopez, Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City, p, 191) Silvia Tirado de Duran, a Mexican national who worked as a receptionist at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City at the time of Oswald’s visit, assisted Oswald in his quest to apply for a visa to ultimately return to the U.S.S.R., and thus became a key figure in the Mexico City chapter of the assassination story. In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, the Mexican federal security service, Direccion Federal de Seguridad (DFS), arrested and interrogated Silvia Tirado de Duran. CIA had transcribed intercepts of phone calls made between Silvia Duran and the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City that related to her dealings with Oswald. Duran’s statement to the DFS after the assassination corroborated the information in CIA’s intercepts—that Lee Harvey Oswald went to the Cuban Consulate to request a transit visa. The DFS provided Duran’s interrogation reports to U.S. authorities in Mexico City and the reports were widely disseminated to U.S. federal agencies in the immediate aftermath of President Kennedy’s death. Given that the initial ten-page “confession” or interrogation appeared to be a summary report of Duran’s account and the statements of several other individuals who also were arrested and questioned with Duran, the Review Board wondered whether the CIA had an “original” transcript from Duran’s arrest. The Review Board requested that CIA search for such a transcript, but CIA searches all returned to the ten-page summary and CIA did not locate additional records. ( ARRB Final Report, p. 90)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 12, 2021 13:23:37 GMT -5
476 Contemporaneous records of the Dallas pro-Castro demonstrationRelated:463 Request for records relating to Pro-Castro demonstration in Dallas
464 Identity of Pro-Castro demonstrator in Dallas "The police report was written a year after the actual event."The quality of the detective work performed by the Dallas police, and scarcely improved upon by the Warren Commission, is more suitable to a Marx Brothers comedy than to the awful tragedy of Kennedy's assassination. The Commission, having overlooked one anachronism completely and failed to explain another—leaving unresolved the strange indications that the police were familiar with Oswald before the assassination—asserts and reiterates, in its Report, that the Dallas police did not know that Oswald was in the city before the assassination. (WR 660-661) That evasive phraseology falls short of saying that the police had no knowledge of Oswald's existence until his arrest on November 22. Erasing the Past...Discussions Indeed, Oswald seems to have been encountered by the Dallas police sometime between April 6 and 24, 1963, while distributing pro-Castro literature on the streets of Dallas (WR 406-407), as the Commission acknowledges somewhat too tentatively. If we compare Oswald's description of the incident in a letter to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (V. T. Lee Exhibit N. 1) with the Dallas police report to the Warren Commission of May 19, 1964 on "an unidentified white male passing out pro-Castro literature at Main and Ervay Streets" in the late spring of 1963 (CE 1407), it becomes quite clear that the "unidentified white male" was Oswald. But the police report was written a year after the actual event; contemporaneous records of the incident, if they exist, have been withheld. Can we be certain that the pro-Castro picket remained "unidentified," despite the two police memoranda of November 22, 1963 which indicate—without any apparent legitimate source—details of Oswald's life which suggest that he was known to the police long before the assassination? (Meagher, Accessories after the fact, 1967, p. 93)  V. T. Lee Exhibit N. 1
"The white male removed the Viva Castro-sign and ran into H. L. Green Company."A good deal of Oswald's energy in Ma, June and July centered on the FPCC. On April 19, 1963, just five days before he left Dallas, Oswald wrote to FPCC national headquarters in New York. We have elsewhere mentioned this letter, quoted here in full: Dear Sirs, I do not like to ask for something for nothing but I am unemployed. Since I am unemployed, I stood yesterday for the fist time in my life, with a placard around my neck, passing out fair play for Cuba pamplets, etc. [sic] I only had fifteen or so. In 40 minutes they were all gone. I was cursed as well as praised by some. My home-made placard said: HANDS OFF CUBA! VIVA FIDEL! I now ask for 40 or 50 more of the fine [five?, basic pamplets [sic]. Sincerely, Lee H. Oswald. (Newman, Oswald and the CIA, 2008 version, p. 303) About this time, Sgt. Harkness drove up on his three-wheel motorcycle and stopped on the northeast corner where I was standing. We started to discuss the situation, the white male removed the Viva Castro-sign and ran into H. L. Green Company. I started after him but was told by Sgt. Harkness to let him go. Another unknown male told us that when Sgt. Harkness came up, this unidentified white male said "Oh, hell, here come the cops." ( Report of W.R, Finnigan, CE 1409) "Many people had televisions in their homes by 1960 and could watch the protests unfold across the country,
and also witness the sometimes-violent police response." At 1612 Main, across the street from Neiman Marcus, the H.L. Green Department Store, with its lengthy lunch counter,
is picketed by members of the Dallas chapter of the NAACP in 1960. It will be another year before this store and others
in the downtown area lower barriers to racial integration. (Marion Butts Collection of the Texas/Dallas History and
Archives Division, Dallas Public Library)H.L. Green, formerly located in the Wilson Building in Downtown Dallas, was the first department store downtown to desegregate their lunch counter. Although segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1954 as a result of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, Dallas – like many Southern cities of the time – stubbornly held on to their policies of racial exclusion well into the next decade. In 1960, civil rights activists across the country began to stage peaceful sit-ins, a form of non-violent grassroots protest. While sit-ins had happened before in Oklahoma City and Wichita in 1958, the tactic gained widespread attention during a sit-in at a Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960. Dallas civil rights leaders such as Juanita Craft had already begun organizing protests at Dallas whites-only theaters in 1955 and, encouraged by the momentum of the Greensboro sit-in, began organizing members of the NAACP Dallas’ Youth Council to ramp up their efforts. Sit-ins, letter-writing campaigns, and protests at Dallas establishments such as HL Green, Titche-Goettinger, Neiman Marcus, the Majestic Theater, State Fair of Texas, public pools, and other Dallas businesses became more frequent. Many people had televisions in their homes by 1960 and could watch the protests unfold across the country, and also witness the sometimes-violent police response. Public support for the protesters and desegregation grew as a result, and the sit-ins were ultimately successful. The actions of the protesters across the country paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Jennifer Anderson, H.L. Green: First Department Store in Dallas to Desegregate Lunch Counter, 2020)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 14, 2021 7:34:53 GMT -5
477 DOS Moscow visitors book 1959
478 Any list of visitors and tourists for late 1959Context:471 Documentary evidence explaining Joan Hallett 1959 dates confusion In an effort to account for the widely varying stories from the interviews of personnel assigned to the American Embassy in Moscow, the Review Board staff reviewed the Department of State post files for Moscow for the period 1959–1963, which are available to the public at NARA. The Department of State was not able to locate the visitors book for Moscow circa 1959 nor any list of visitors and tourists for late 1959. (ARRB Final Report p. 86) 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 15, 2021 8:18:48 GMT -5
479 Various Hoover subject files
See also:20 Fourteen minutes recording of Hoover – LBJ phonecall on 23-11-1963326 Hoover's personal filesThe Review Board requested that the FBI search for Hoover and Tolson “working” records relevant to President Kennedy’s assassination. The FBI made Director Hoover’s “Official and Confidential” (O&C) files available to the Review Board and the Review Board designated as assassination records the two O&C files on John Kennedy, the O&C file relating to Secret Service-FBI agreements on Presidential protection, a memorandum regarding Hoover’s conversation with Lyndon Johnson about the assassination (from the Johnson O&C file), and several other documents from the O&C files. The Review Board also reviewed Director Hoover’s telephone logs. Recognizing that the FBI has already made the logs public in its FOIA reading room, the Review Board relieved the FBI from the burden of further processing the logs under the JFK Act. Finally, Hoover maintained various subject files (apart from the O&C files), including materials on the assassination. The Review Board asked the FBI to locate these materials, but the FBI has not been able to locate the materials. ( ARRB Final report, p. 97) 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 16, 2021 13:56:39 GMT -5
480 William Manchester rough notes & tape recordings
Related:200 William Manchester interviews with Robert Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy378 William Manchester's mysterious expertsMost of William Manchester’s work papers relating to his work on The Death of a President are stored at the JFK Library under a 1967 Deposit Agreement. Of particular historical value are the extensive personal interviews he conducted in the early aftermath of the President’s death. In contrast to other records in the Collection that shed light on the assassination investigations, the Manchester interviews chronicle the human side of the story. Manchester envisioned that The Death of a President would provide “one complete, accurate account about the assassination,. . . that would be based on material gathered while the memories were still fresh. The interviews captured and recorded the early recollections and reactions of people closest to President Kennedy and provide a lens through which the tragedy of the event can be seen and understood in the context of the times.  Marine Manchester during WWII
Beginning in early 1995, the Review Board made repeated attempts to gain access to Manchester’s papers at the JFK Library. In June 1998, Manchester agreed to allow a Review Board staff member to review his material at the Library. This review revealed that, while much of the information Manchester obtained from the interviews is incorporated into his book, his raw notes would be of great value and interest to researchers. Although Manchester recorded some of his interviews on tape, the recordings were not available at the Library. Only the written notes and/or transcripts of his interviews are in this collection. Furthermore, not all of the interviews that Manchester referenced in The Death of a President are accounted for in the notebooks and transcripts he deposited in the JFK Library. Because of their unique historical value, the Review Board regards these interviews as highly relevant to the assassination. This outstanding collection of materials should be made available to the public as soon as possible. At this point, however, Manchester has refused to cooperate and it is unfortunately impossible to open the records without his consent. ( ARRB Final Report, p. 117)  Manchester passed away in 2004
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 18, 2021 12:46:42 GMT -5
481 Any 1963–64 files maintained by Clyde Tolson
More Tolson:450 The bullet behind the ear479 Various Hoover subject filesThe Review Board also requested and received from the FBI access to the files of Clyde Tolson, which consisted solely of original memoranda from Director Hoover. Unfortunately, the chronological file started with January 1965, and the FBI could not account for any 1963–64 files that Tolson may have maintained. The Review Board identified several documents as assassination records. ( ARRB Final Report, p. 96)  Tolson (1900-1975) and Hoover. He is best known as the protégé and long-time top
deputy of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. (Wikipedia, retrieved 1-18-21)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Jan 20, 2021 4:55:36 GMT -5
482 Rufus Taylor filesMore Navy/ONI (selection):19 The Pitzer Film40 The original autopsy notes by Commander James J. Humes103 Many of Gordon McLendon's records190 Defense department report on Oswald/Atsugi investigation302 Records of Navy interview with Oswald-like defector361 Navy officer Steel's reports on Lee Harvey Oswald470 ONI post-defection investigation471 Documentary evidence explaining Joan Hallett 1959 dates confusionThe Review Board requested that the Navy and ONI search for the records of Director of Naval Intelligence Rear Admiral Rufus Taylor. The Review Board acquired a copy of an unsigned September 21, 1964, affidavit regarding Oswald that Taylor appears to have executed and forwarded to Secretary of Defense McNamara. The affidavit states that that ONI never utilized Lee Harvey Oswald as an agent or an informant. ONI did not locate any files belonging to Taylor. ( ARRB final report, p.86)  Rufus Lackland Taylor (January 6, 1910 – September 14, 1978) was an officer in the United States Navy. Eventually he became Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence and held the rank of Vice Admiral. In 1966 he was appointed as Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), then shortly thereafter as Deputy Director of the CIA, where he served from 1966 to 1969. (...) In late 1967, DCI Richard Helms asked Taylor to oversee a difficult, intra-CIA dispute involving Yuri Nosenko, who had defected from Soviet intelligence in 1964. CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton had almost immediately accused Nosenko of being a double agent and provocateur sent by the Soviets to penetrate American intelligence. As a result of this dilemma Nosenko was held for several years by CIA pending resolution. Taylor conducted his "independent review" of the "immense files" and began to interview the CIA officers involved. Finally Taylor concluded that Nosenko was not a double agent and that Helms should set him free. ( Wikipedia, 1-20-21)
|
|
