In his book "All The President's Men" reporter Bob Woodward's source "Deep Throat" on a number of occasions repeats that in order to get to the truth one must "Follow the Money".

This certainly applies to the JFK Assassination as well.

As Jeff mentioned in the posting, at this moment in time Lee Harvey Oswald's tax returns are still classified and kept from public view. From what I've heard, the reason being privacy statutes in the current IRS codes. Yet we have someone here who was suspected of committing a criminal act, but the Government still uses confidentiality as the reason to keep these important records from public view. In spite of Oswald's itinerant lifestyle he was still able to eek out a living, therefore his sources of income are indeed a relevant question. This is also an individual who is suspected of a crime and has therefore obviated certain rights to privacy. Yet in spite of it all, the Government insists that these documents must be kept from the public.

This begs the question- why are they going to all this trouble?

Expand full comment

A few points about Oswald I would like to add. For starters, Oswald was not a leftist or a Marxist. I encourage everyone to watch the show on YouTube “I led 3 lives” about a government infiltrator in a left wing communist underground. The Tv show is to modern eyes, corny and laughable (seeing a librarian give a secret cable from party chairman in some Midwest small town is hysterical). According to Oswlad’s brother LHO was a massive fan of this show.

This is not a relevant piece of evidence to the killing but it is relevant to what Oswald wanted out of life. He wanted to be the undercover guy infiltrating and disrupting communist plots. In my mind this piece of knowledge points to why Oswald would have been for being moved all around the south like a chess piece. Oswald likely thought he was going undercover and it also explains the tensions Oswald was having where he seems to have felt that something was amiss in the fall of 63.

This type of individual would have been easy to dupe and lead around by the nose.

Expand full comment

Here's some evidence for the learned skeptics to ponder:

E. Howard Hunt and David Phillips, both senior CIA officers in the Cuba Ops of the era, both said the "Big Event" was probably a rogue operation by non-sanctioned CIA personnel.

Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello, proven to be CIA assets in the Cuban assassination plots, both admitted involvement in the JFK murder before they died.

Finally, there is John Whitten, a senior CIA officer who worked closely with Bill Harvey, the CIA's chief of "wet ops" in the 60's. Whitten told the HSCA in 1978, after being asked why Harvey would instruct his wife to destroy his personal papers upon his death, "Well, he was too young to have assassinated McKinley or Lincoln."

There is ample evidence (maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt) that senior CIA officers were aware of plots to kill JFK. Who specifically participated is unclear. My thought has always been that the most senior CIA officials may not have known of these plots, but they certainly knew who LHO was and, as a result, went to extreme measures to obscure their long and complicated dealings with him from 1959 to 1963. As I have counseled some young family members over the years, cooperate with the police and tell them what they need to know... unless it involves the family. The CIA is a family, not unlike the family of Mrs. Trafficante and Marcello.

Expand full comment

The CIA case officer who preceded Joannides in guiding the DRE didn’t appear to buy the official story either https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/11/21/jfk-spy-cuba-new-york-times-crozier/2425360001/

Expand full comment

The lone gunman theory is not a theory. Multiple shooters were involved and all real evidence indicates this and always did. Nothing indicates a lone gunman so the concept is reduced to a lone gunman false flag. If Paul Chambers saw an original film of the assassination he could deduce the head shot came from the front. One cannot do that from the extant Zapruder film because Z313 intervenes between Z312 and the backward movement depicted. Physics does not work like that. A head shot from the front simultaneously transfers momentum to the head and drives it back. Since Z313 does not demonstrate this the only conclusion, based on Parkland medical evidence, is that Z313 indicates frames have been removed and that Z313 captures the head recoiling forward after being driven back.

Expand full comment

Jeff’s answers to Cory Franklin’s 10 Questions could and should be seen as the definitive overview of where the case stands in 2023. Not only does he tie the crime to the coverup but also to the 2023 iteration of the coverup evident in the Questions.

In 1991 Newsweek ran a high profile feature acknowledging the majority of assassination researchers believed — as Jeff puts it — that Oswald was what he said he was: “a patsy”. What I don’t understand is how 32 years later a man as learned and worldly as Cory Franklin can approach a serious Oswald Q&A as if he’s never heard of such a thing. This causes Jeff to expend valuable column space repeating the basics of the ‘patsy’ angle — which is probably what Franklin’s disingenuous pose was intended to do. I would guess the 10 Questions were concocted by Langley’s best and brightest (right down to the feigned ignorance of “officer” vs “agent”).

Expand full comment

I would also like to point out the most obvious flaw in the “where is the evidence” crowd’s argument.

The Warren Commission Report is the equivalent to the prosecution at a trial presenting their side of the case and no defense being offered or given to the accused. I understand Oswald was dead. I do believe that the Commission was under the moral obligation of appointing an ombudsmen for Oswald’s side to call witnesses, supply reasonable defense to Oswald even in death.

Because the Warren Commission report never stood defense litigation it can only be viewed as what it is, a politically minded report aimed more at answering questions in a way favorable to the government then proving conclusively Oswald’s guilt.

Had Oswald been allowed an ombudsman team they could have challenged the murder weapon and bullets (really? How many specials do we need to see that this gun couldn’t have done it and what about the Mauser initially found?) custody of evidence, the fact that Oswald was apparently finishing his lunch at 12:35 pm and seemed to have no knowledge of the shooting. The already stated lack of motive.

If the goal in a murder trial is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that goal would not have been met here.

Finally, in light of all the evidence we now have I believe the Warren Commission report to be a nice starting ground for single shooter ostriches and theorists but no more than that.

Expand full comment

These are some of the people we know CIA did recruit and utilize:


Church Committee: Interim Report - Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders.

“QJ/WIN was a foreign citizen with a criminal background, recruited in Europe. In November 1960, agent QJ/WIN was dispatched to the Congo to undertake a mission that “might involve a large element of personal risk.” Supervising agent Michael Mulroney described QJ//WIN as follows: “I would say he would not be a man of many scruples. Question: So he was a man capable of doing anything? Mulroney: “I would think so, yes.” Question: And that would include assassination? Mulroney: “I would think so.” (p 43)

“A 1962 CIA cable indicates the value the CIA accorded QJ/WIN and the inherent difficulty for an intelligence agency in employing criminals. The CIA had learned that QJ/WIN was about to go on trial in Europe on smuggling charges and Headquarters suggested: “If information true we may wish attempt quash charges or arrange somehow salvage QJ/WIN for our purposes.” WI/ROGUE was an “essentially stateless” soldier of fortune, “a forger and former bank robber.” (p 45-6)

“CIA’s Africa Division recommended WI/ROGUE as an agent in the following terms: He is indeed aware of the precepts of right and wrong, but if he is given an assignment which may be morally wrong in the eyes of the world, but necessary because his case officer ordered him to carry it out, then it is right, and he will dutifully undertake appropriate action for its execution without pangs of conscience. In a word, he can rationalize all actions. Station Officer Hedgman described Wi/ROGUE as “a man with a rather unsavory reputation, who would try anything once, at least.” (p 46)

In a cable to Headquarters, the Station Officer was “concerned by WI/ROGUE free wheeling and lack security. Station has enough headaches without worrying about agent who not able handle finances and who not willing to follow instructions.” The Station Officer suggested that WI/ROGUE had concocted the idea of an execution squad: “His idea of what an intelligence officer should do, I think, had been gathered by reading a few novels or something of the sort.” The Station Officer maintained that WI/ROGUE’s propositioned to QJ/WIN to join an “execution squad” could be attributed to WI/ROGUE’s “freewheeling” nature: “I had difficulty controlling him in that he was not a professional intelligence officer as such. He seemed to act on his own without seeking guidance or authority. I found he was rather an unguided missile - the kind of man who could get you in trouble before you knew you were in trouble.” (p 47-8)

Expand full comment

The Warren Commission apologists love to trash Stone’s JFK film. But the documents released in the last few years in my opinion shows that Jim Garrison had developed an outline of the conspiracy way back in the 1960’s. Harrison made some errors, in particular exaggerating the role of the New Orleans suspects. While the played roles, Garrison did not take into account the “need to know” procedures that almost certainly would have been in effect, which I feel is supported by the success of the coverup for nearly 60 years. Critics can quibble over minutiae evidence forever, but the broad strokes Garrison wrote about in “On the Trail of the Assassins” is bolstered by the new evidence that Jeff Morley has detailed over the past few years.

Expand full comment
May 23·edited May 23

The fatal flaw in the Oswald narrative may be the alleged Mexico City trip. There's evidence Oswald was not in Mexico City when he is alleged to have been.


Doctors and others at Parkland observed a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. Witnesses on the street saw blood and brains shoot out the back of JFK's head.


If these things don't convince conspiracy skeptics, I don't know what will.

Expand full comment

That $51,000 the DRE was getting from the CIA is worth over a half-million in 2023 US dollars, and each month, no less.

$503, 000 a month, so over six million dollars - of course the New Orleans branch wasn't receiving all of it, but even so, something to conjure with, and in Nawlins we also find long-time CIA contract agent Clay Shaw:


^^^^ Wiki is unreliable on the JFK assassination, but that's fine, it makes for a fine test of our own detection skills., and there's also this as a resource:





EDIT: The unreliability of Wikipedia on the JFK assassination is also verified in a way I just now discovered, by the laughably biased and/or definitively refuted many sources cited under the Clay Shaw article, so I moved to the next step: what if I click on their link posted to the famous Playboy interview with Jim Garrison, in two parts? What happens is that the "jfklancer.com" site "takes too long to answer," probably the Wiki mavens are hoping readers will just give up...


^^^^^ Refutation of one of Wiki's sources.


^^^^^ And more refutations.


^^^^^ Here's two more.

Can't forget this guy, either, whose books on Oswald and much else are erratic and very unreliable:


Expand full comment

On Question 4... left out is the Antonio Veciana story of his late August 1963 encounter with Maurice Bishop/Atlee Phillips and LHO in the Dallas office building. The latest edition of The Last Investigation includes the letter he wrote to Fonzi's widow before he passed away a few years ago, confirming that Bishop was one and the same as Atlee Phillips...an opinion or fact that he was unwilling to answer while he was still alive, for obvious reasons.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Mr. Morley, for answering those questions so cogently! It's good ammo to use when confronted by a know-nothing, lone nutter.

Expand full comment

Correction to author(s) of the book, Chaos, referenced in the article. It is written by Tom *O'Neill* and Dan Piepenbring.

Expand full comment

I remember appearing in Hanksy Panksy movie"Parkland" what metaphorical triangulation strangulation split screen with first 'the truth being buried oz's walled patsy ,2 the eternal flame forever burning not alight ,as and the third FIB Dallas office Gordon Shanklin (he got a road named for, Kennedy got a dirt road running off the 10, 222 miles east of El Paso. to nowhere burning a three inch file on a man they only just met?" In MEX City SS recording stating man in custody not the voice nor physicality HSCA Bob Tannenbaum had JJ lying in executive session on suppression of tapes with the other man in line ahead of, or behind , hid name currenlty escapes not mush sleep...

Expand full comment

Either way, shell casings, lifted cement strike by bullet evidence where Tague was standing, everyone comes upon the Billy Harper incident and others if they study the case long enough.

The problem is "there's no one to sue," since no one alive working in the current FBI had anything to do with any of this, so make the most of it in other ways, sure.. Better use of the time is to figure out ways to pressure congressional reps and senators, to pressure Biden administration to follow the law: release all documents, unredacted except for some kind of legally exempt personal data irrelevant to any JFK assassination cases, or incredibly unusual "sources and methods" that can be shown to implicate national security.

Expand full comment