John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee

[Charles Drago]

Perhaps, as a co-originator of the Evica-Drago model, I can provide some degree of clarity.

In that model, Angleton, Harvey and Helms, along with Phillips and Hunt, are appropriately placed in the Facilitator Level.

Those who designed the conspiracy and drove it to the point of execution (pun intended) are Facilitators. This segment of the conspiracy model is by far the largest; it encompasses a broad range of players, from the brilliant and powerful planners to the three stooges who rang Sylvia Odio's doorbell.

In the Evica-Drago model, the term "Mechanics" narrowly and for the sake of clarity refers to the Dealey Plaza shooting teams and individuals providing their immediate E and E support.

Why wouldn't, say, the murderers of David Ferrie appropriately be labeled Mechanics? After all, the term commonly is used to describe hired killers who take out designated targets.

Because the raison d'etre of the conspiracy which they served was to kill JFK; the act of taking out Ferrie, like the act of ringing Sylvia Odio's doorbell, facilitated efforts to bring the designated target under the Mechanics' guns.

Hi, Charles,

Those definitions seem extremely logical ... so, let's talk Facilitators.

For Angleton, it's hard to believe the Oswald project would escape the radar of the CI/SIGgers, if there wasn't even more intimate involvement. And with the number of statements released over the years from CIA veterans about Oswald, it's easy to imagine surprisingly broad knowledge of the Oswald project at the Agency.

Thanks for checking in on all this, Jim.

If by "the Oswald project" you mean LHO's role in the assassination conspiracy, I don't agree with your conclusion -- at least insofar as it would pertain to the pre-assassination period. Certainly the future patsy's role in any other on-the-books agency op would be known to his respective handlers and other essential personnel. And after the president's murder, a whole lot of 2's and 2's were put together.

But not before.

But turning a Cold War spy effort into an assassination operation is a whole different issue. Is there real evidence connecting the higher level officials to the assassination? (I'm not as well read as many of the people here, so I hope someone will correct me if I'm missing something obvious.)

The best argument for Angleton's key role in the conspiracy is made by John Newman in the 2008 revised edition of Oswald and the CIA:

"In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald's files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president's assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were [the Sponsors -- CD], their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence." (p. 637)

But the circumstantial evidence, at least, for Hunt and Phillips seems a lot clearer. During the whole Mexico City business, whatever it was, Hunt was, according to Hunt, temporarily running the American embassy there and Phillips was in charge of the Cuban mayhem. Perfect! Who better to hatch a plot to murder a president and blame Cuba?

See above for the answer to the question you pose in the final sentence. And whenever you're tempted to bolster the bona fides of any deep political story by typing "according to Hunt," take a step back from the old Smith Corona until reason returns.

Also -- and forgive me, I don't intend to nit-pick or offend -- the term "hatch a plot" is all too vague and simplistic to be of any use in the study of deep politics.

It seems exceptionally unlikely that Hunt and Phillips hatched the whole plot on their own, and I would expect higher Agency involvement, as well as some of the officials David Josephs is brainstorming about, but I'm just not aware of much evidence, sadly.

The Newman quote provided above is argued in full by its author and should be read critically in its entirety before you reach judgement on it.

I'm certain that significant JFK conspiracy tactics were contributed by high level Facilitators both in advance of and in response to developments.

Finally, I'll again suggest to one and all that failure to consider third alternatives in favor of either/or choices almost always spells disaster for deep politics researchers.

Hope this helps. Make no mistake, we're all in this thing for the long, challenging haul.