Return to Main Page
Author's note: This is my attempt to inform the research community of what was said at the hearing in Los Angeles. I have made every effort to be as accurate as possible. Some words may be in error or some names misspelled. There is no deliberate effort on my part to decieve or misquote anyone's testimony.
Many, many thanks to all of the people who sent in their hard-earned money to help me get to Los Angeles.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- Good morning everyone. I call to order this Public Hearing of the Assassination Records Review Board. I want to welcome everyone here today to this public hearing in Los Angeles. We are very pleased as a Review Board to be here and very pleased that you are able to join us this morning. The Assassination Records Review Board is an independent federal agency that was established by the Congress for a very important purpose. That purpose being to identify and secure for the American people all the materials, the documentation concerning the tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy 33 years ago in Dallas.
The objective is to provide for the American people a complete public record of this national tragedy. And to lift the veil of secrecy that has surrounded the records of the assassination for so many years. And to present files that are fully accessible to any American citizen who wishes to see them, who wishes to study them and to try to understand.
The members of the Review Board, which is a part time citizens panel, were appointed by President Clinton. To my right on the end is Dr. William Joyce, the Associate Librarian at Princeton University and to my immediate right is Dr. Anna Nelson, Professor of History at American University in Washington, D.C. To my left is Dr. Kermit Hall who is the Dean of the College of the Humanities at Ohio State University. Dr. Henry Graff, Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University was unable to be with us today, the fifth member of the board. My name is John Tunheim. I am the chair of the Assassination Records Review Board. And I am a United States District Court Judge in the state of Minnesota. Also with us up here today is the Executive Director of the Review Board, the top staff member for the effort, David Marwell. We have a number of other staff members who are with us today, Jeremy Gunn, Tom Samoluk, Tracey Shycoff and Eileen Sullivan.
I must emphasize before we begin today that it is not the mandate of the Review Board to reinvestigate the assassination and to try to determine the answers to all of the mysteries and questions that are still swirling around this event. The Review Board is, however, on a search for records. Our primary focus has been, as it should be, a review and release of federal government records, records that have been held by agencies of the federal government for the past 30 some years. But the review Board is also seeking records, documents, photographs and other materials, whatever form they may be in that will enable the American public to see the complete record of the death of their President and it's aftermath.
We are nearing the end of our second year in existence and we have made significant progress. We have issued rulings on close to 2,500 records, federal records. Another 2,300 or 2,400 are in a category of consent releases by the agencies following our rulings on similar issues. Those add to a collection that is growing by the day at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. Later in our hearing we will hear from Steve Tilley who is our liaison at the National Archives who will bring us up to date on the current status of the collection.
The Review Board has nearly completed its review of the Central Intelligence Agencies core file on the assassination, the Oswald 201 file. We are nearing a completion and review of the core files maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the assassination and have made significant progress at this stage on the records that were maintained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations which investigated the assassination in the late 1970's.
We have secured now much of the record of the Jim Garrison saga in New Orleans, the only criminal prosecution that was taken involving the assassination. Other private parties have made significant contributions to the Board, to the Collection, to the American public, including new films that have been recently discovered from the day of the assassination.
We have made significant new progress recently on military records, including the NSA for which we hope to have announcements very soon regarding the release of those records. And we have made significant attempts to try to clarify the medical evidence, one of the more enduring of the mysteries. We hope to release materials concerning the medical evidence somewhere around the end of this year.
Much progress has been made by the Review Board and its staff thus far but there is still much to be done and that is why we are here today in Los Angeles. We are going to hear testimony today from a number of experts, individuals who we believe will greatly assist the Board in its search for records. Many more individuals have indicated an interest in testifying today. We simply don't have time to accommodate everyone. We thank them for their interest. We hope that those who are not able to testify today will provide the Review Board with written testimony and information that will be able to assist the Board.
The Board has held previous hearings in Dallas and Washington, in Boston and New Orleans, and those hearings have been extraordinarily helpful to the Board as it has gone through its work over the past two years. And although the Review Board's review of classified records must by necessity occur in private out of the public eye, the Board does feel strongly that ongoing reports of the work of the Review Board should be as public as possible, Public Hearings have given us an opportunity to hear from the public and to be able to adjust our work in response to legitimate interests that have been expressed to us by members of the public.
Before we hear our first witness this morning in Los Angeles we have one matter of business that we would like to take care of as a Board and that has to do with the extension of our existence for an additional year. When Congress passed the original law, the President John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act of 1982 (oops! Chairman Tunheim did say 1982. It is of course 1992.) they specified the Review Board was to be in existence for a period of two years with a third year at the Board's discretion. When the Act was repassed several years later to give us additional time because of the slow start up that provision was also contained in the new Act. The Board has made a determination that it is important to continue this effort for an additional year. And so we need to go about our business of doing that. Dr. Hall?
DR. KERMIT HALL- Well, pursuant to Section 701 of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act I move that the Review Board extend its life for one additional year to October 1, 1997.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- Is there a second?
DR. ANNA NELSON- I second.
DR. WILLIAM JOYCE- (simultaneously) I second.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- It has been moved and seconded that the Review Board extend its existence for one additional year until October 1, 1997. All in favor of that motion say aye.
DR. KERMIT HALL- Aye.
DR. ANNA NELSON- Aye.
DR. WILLIAM JOYCE- Aye.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- Opposed? It's carried.
Again, I want to thank all of you for your interest today. And now we are going to move on and hear from our first witness. Our first witness today is Robert Tannenbaum. He is the former Deputy Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970's. He is the author of "Corruption of Blood" a fictionalized account of his experience with the committee investigating the assassination of President Kennedy.
Mr. Tannenbaum, welcome.
MR. TANNENBAUM- Good morning ... I'm ... ah ... you look at me in stunned silence. I'm here at the request of you to answer questions and if you have any I'll be delighted to answer them.
DR. HALL- Mr. Tann-
MR. TANNENBAUM- I have purposefully not given you a statement because I am not here to urge you to do anything other than release every document you can get your hands on. I can tell you that if Richard Sprague and I were; stayed with the committee there was no document that we would have kept away from the American people. And I say document I include in that films and other pieces of evidentiary value. We saw nothing, frankly, that should not be given to the American people. And I say that Judge, and members of the panel, when you mention classified material. We were representing at the time an investigation of the Legislative branch of government. We looked into certain Executive intelligence agency of the Executive branch and we did not feel that any of that material, certainly none of it should be redacted, and the material that we were looking for, particularly from the Executive intelligence agencies were reports of the homicides, those two homicides of two extraordinary Americans. But the focus was to deal with these cases as homicides.
DR. KERMIT HALL- Would it be possible Mr. Tannenbaum for you to give us really just a brief overview of your career and how you became involved with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
MR. TANNENBAUM- I attended college and law school at the University of California at Berkeley and went to work for District Attorney Frank Hogan in New York County. And while there I served as Bureau Chief of the Criminal Courts of the Felony Trial Bureau and Deputy Chief and for a period of time Acting Chief of the Homicide Bureau. And while there tried several hundred cases to verdict. And while I was there I was asked to come down to the Committee. I did not apply for it in any fashion. And Richard Sprague was the Chief Counsel. And I met with members of the Committee and Mr. Sprague both in Mr. Sprague's offices in Philadelphia and in Washington.
I had no real intimate knowledge of the library of books that had been written to that point on the assassination and [I] wanted assurance from the Committee that whatever the facts were we would be permitted to tell the American people. And that is if Oswald did it from the facts and he did it alone we were prepared to say that. If he didn't based upon the evidence we too wanted to be able to say that. And we wanted to have an open and clear investigation as we did for example in dealing with homicides on the streets of Manhattan. And again I emphasize that because of course we are dealing with two extraordinary Americans --- that is, Dr. Martin Luther King and President Kennedy --- but the cases were to be analyzed by individuals who have a lot of experience trying homicides. And that's how I came to be at the Committee.
Thereafter, I have been in private practice and have written ten books, all of which are based upon my own experiences as an Assistant District Attorney and otherwise in the legal profession.
DR.WILLIAM JOYCE- Can you help us to understand a little bit about the nature of your responsibilities in your work with the HSCA and how long you were there?
MR. TANNENBAUM- I started on about the first week of December 1976. And I remained to a period of time, as I best can recall, in the summer of 1977. I was responsible and was Chief Counsel and assisted the subcommittee investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, although Deputy Chief to the whole Committee investigating both homicides. And the organization was broken down into the Kennedy side and the King side.
I had with me, fortunately, expert detectives, some of whom I had worked with in New York county who had been detectives for 20 or 30 years just dealing with homicides. And during that time the focus of our investigation that was most fruitful had to deal with the anti-Castro Cuban/CIA connection to the assassination. And that is to say briefly, we tried to deal with documentary evidence, rather than with individuals who are now coming forward in 1976-'77 who might allege that they saw acts in 1963 that they didn't bother to tell anybody about for 13 or 14 years.
And some of those documents and material that we had was somewhat shocking to me having been in law enforcement as a D.A. And that is to say when I came across, for example, an Executive Committee transcript, that was --- and bear with me I am going back approximately 20 years, 19 years in this and it is not something I think about on an everyday basis, although I am troubled by what happened in Washington, frankly --- and that is to say that the Congress wasn't really interested in pursuing the truth, which is why Richard Sprague and I left, but I will get to that in a direct response to a question. But with respect to the investigation, the Executive committee transcript, for example, of approximately January 28th, 23rd, 27th, in that period of time time when the Attorney General of Texas Waggoner Carr, Henry Wade, the District Attorney, Leon Jaworski, counsel to the Attorney General on the transcript spoke to the Chief Justice and said in substance as I recall that they had information from unimpeachable sources that Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI. And the Chief Justice said well we will investigate that. And again in substance, on the record, Allen Dulles says 'not so fast'. 'What do you mean?' says the Chief Justice. To which Allen Dulles replies, 'Well if you ask J. Edgar Hoover whether or not Oswald was an employee of the FBI he is simply going to say no. To which the Chief Justice responded, 'Well, you mean to tell me if I were to call an agent in here, under oath, he would not tell the truth?' And Dulles said, 'If he were a good agent.' And the Chief justice said, 'Well who would he tell the truth to?'. And Dulles replied, 'Maybe the President'.
Coming again from the office of Frank Hogan, which from my experience was an apolitical meritocracy, I was stunned with that kind of revelation. It didn't --- that was, you know, one of many. I was also stunned and sadly disappointed when David Phillips gave testimony before the Committee in Executive Session and in fact lied to the Committee. He told the Committee [that] on or about October 1st, 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald went to Mexico City and in Mexico City went to the Russian Embassy and telephoned the Cuban Embassy. And that photographs of him were taken and there was a tape recording of that conversation. We found out, bottom line, that the photographic equipment had broken down. He indicated so that the wrong photograph of Oswald with the wrong description on the telex of Oswald's alleged appearance in Mexico City was sent out to the Executive Intelligence agencies and otherwise. And so they didn't have the real photograph.
He also, importantly, misled the Committee by saying that the tape of that telephone conversation was destroyed. And in the ordinary course he said they were destroyed every 6 or 7 days. I imagine they did that for purposes of economy. I'm not quite sure, or recycled them. I don't know what he meant by that.
We of course then came up with a document that was dated November 23rd from J. Edgar Hoover, indicating that the agency that investigated the case and had spoken with Oswald for approximately 17 hours had listened to the October 1st tape in Mexico City; another individual who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald in the Russian Embassy calling the Cuban Embassy and these agents stated that the voice on the tape was not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Veciana, Antonio Veciana, material on Alpha-66, and the anti-Castro Cuban activity, with this "Maurice Bishop", who from the evidence we had from the Committee was David Phillips. That was in our judgement based upon the information we had was somewhat shocking in a point from Veciana, unsolicited, basically, he was telling our investigators that in fact he was "Maurice Bishop", [I want to make it clear that Mr. Tannenbaum is equating "Maurice Bishop" as being David Atlee Phillips.] David Phillips was with Lee Harvey Oswald.
We had photographs of Oswald with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. We had information of Oswald being in Clinton, Louisiana with Ferrie and other anti-Castro, rabid anti-Castro Cuban individuals and various "soldier-of-fortune" types, who were contract employees of the CIA.
We came across a film of anti-Castro Cubans, who were identified as anti-Castro Cubans, not on the film but people that we recognized, and these soldier-of-fortune types were the contract employees, CIA, the Sturgises, the Hemmings and other individuals. Again somewhat shocking to me because I learned at P.S. # 32 in Brooklyn when I was in Public School that there was an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. I didn't know of any secret armies that were existing in America.
I came across some material from Earl Warren I think that was, probably, the most troubling to me and that was his point of view to his staff that existing conditions were going to override principals in this case. I had the greatest respect, still do for Earl Warren as a great Chief Justice. And he had a remarkable career here in California both as District Attorney and, I should say as District Attorney in Alameda County, and as Attorney General and Governor, but I guess it was best summed up almost three years ago when I appeared for the first time at the 30th Anniversary at a convocation in Chicago where I was on a panel with a Mr. Burt Griffen who is a judge now, I believe in Ohio, who was a deputy counsel for the Warren Commission; and he indicated that we, that is some of the counsel when he said we, the Warren Commission, we didn't believe, didn't really trust our investigators, the CIA, and FBI people, but we wanted to keep them close to us because we had nobody else to rely on. And the troubling aspect of course in all of this is that there can be no compromise.
There was no compromise from our point of view with respect to the investigation of this case. We held no brief for either side, or any point of view, other than where the facts were leading us, period.
And when it became clear that we had to recall David Phillips to the Committee, when it became clear that we had to probe into this area that burst forward like ripe peaches falling from trees of the CIA's involvement with anti-Castro Cubans and Lee Harvey Oswald, where the Committee almost shut us down virtually. That is to say we could no longer make long distance telephone calls. We had franking privileges removed [free mail] but fortunately I had two people in the field, Al Gonzales, who was an outstanding detective for many, many years in the 20's perhaps 30's, I forget, I can't recall exactly, in New York as a homicide detective, and another investigator Gaeton Fonzi, who had worked for the Church Committee and was working in Florida in the Miami area. And they were able to give us a lot of information. So I was in that regard I was somewhat stunned having as I said represented the people in New York county and somewhat shocked again to see documents that I did not mention from Richard Helms indicating that he was stonewalling the Warren Commission; to his people to forget about things, they won't remember when we (the HSCA ) ask for it, don't give it right away.
Judge, as I know you must have dealt with in some of these cases where you have the arguments on discovery and material is not given over, but what we are talking about here is not one isolated case. What we are talking about is the mirror of America's conscience and that mirror did not reflect a kind of truth that we care about as Americans.
So to me it has always been an American truth, and the reason why I say that the Congress was not interested in this to the extent that when I say "this" I mean to say finding the truth in this case is that there is no political way to investigate a case. There is no Republican or Democratic way to analyze evidence. So in the compromise of what the Congress does as it was designed by the Constitution you can't compromise on a criminal investigation. That is to say it is okay if we tell the American people 70% of the truth but they can't handle the other 30%. And that gets me back to what His Honor said with respect to classified material. I don't believe that, and this is from my own experience, and when I was, during a period of time I was running the Homicide Bureau of New York County I was responsible for thousands of homicides, regrettably, that occurred on the streets of Manhattan on a yearly basis but some people, I don't believe, are injected with gold in their veins and stamp a document "Top Secret", "Secret" or otherwise and therefore it should remain that way in perpetuity, and we poor "John Doe" Americans are unable to look at them. Not with the track record, I would say with respect to those individuals of that time who are in the Executive intelligence agencies, with that record of deceit and deception.
It is a sad commentary and it is heartbreaking to me to have SEEN IT and it is the primary reason why Richard Sprague and I left. And the reason was I wanted the Committee to go forward. We didn't want to shut anything down and have a grandstand play with respect to what our opinions were. I don't believe I have a monopoly on the knowledge of what happened here. I don't know what happened.
I do know that I don't think from my experience Lee Harvey Oswald could be convicted in any courtroom in America. That's not saying much. O.J. Simpson was not convicted on I think a hell of a lot better evidence. But the fact is based on a lot of the problems in this case, starting with eyewitness testimony right down the line I wouldn't want to be the D.A. to have to explain this to a jury. So the integrity of the evidence is in question.
But I was heartbroken, am heartbroken that these events occurred by our government and I am hopeful that in some fashion whatever is left of these records will be released. Because when a former Secretary of Defense testifies, or rather writes a book, and keep in mind my book "Corruption of Blood" is mentioned in his paper[back version], is a novel, is a work of fiction, unfortunately we [who worked] on the Committee, who investigated this case found the Warren Report to be a piece of fiction. And it wasn't meant to be. But when I read a book about the former Secretary of Defense saying that he lied to the United States Senate about whether or not America should go to war, and I reflect upon an individual who I happened to see, whose name is Fuller, whose father is Chesty Fuller [sic?], and this young man represents to me the lying of individuals in government, and the distortion of American history, and the results that flow therefrom.
He as you may know wrote a Pulitzer prize book about his experience. He stepped on a mine while he was in Vietnam. And he was there about 5 to 8 weeks in that period. And he lost his limbs. He had no legs. And his hands were virtually blown apart. A couple of years ago he took his life. He represents those 59,000 who died and the 500,000 or so who are in hospitals. The reason I mention that is if we have the justification to pursue a war then we should have told the American people what that was. If in fact we had a report that told us what the truth was about the assassination of President Kennedy then our government had a direct responsibility to tell the American people what the truth was. And if they didn't find that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, that they could have told us where they were in the process of what they were doing, from my point of view as one humble American, I certainly would have been satisfied with that accurate historical record but I wasn't going to participate any longer when I found out that the Congress was not going to tell the truth. I didn't want to participate in a historical fraud. And as I have mentioned on occasion, publicly, my daughter when I was in Washington was three years old. She is now a junior at UCLA, and I did not want to look at her years later and put my rubber stamp on a report that I knew was a fraud because it would look good on my resume and then I could get another job as a counselor somewhere and or teach somewhere at a University as has taken place on occasion. But it was more important to me then, it is more important to me now, not to deal with this for the resume but to deal with the truth.
So that is a long winded answer to a question. I apologize for it.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- With respect to records, part of the collection of the House Select Committee on Assassinations that you played a role in developing, are there other records or groups of records that you recall that perhaps were not put into the collection that we should be looking for, any ideas for us?
MR. TANNENBAUM- Well the only area that was of value to us was this anti-Castro Cuban CIA connection and there were a lot of records with respect to Antonio Veciana, who had formed Alpha-66 with the help of "Bishop"/Phillips and the whole connection of Oswald with the intelligence community. That was the primarial, where they are today I of course have no idea. Where they were put when I left I also have no idea but they were there when I left.
DR. ANNA NELSON- I am interested in your point of view on what's to become, because as you know we have a broad mandate to open the records. We have done all that we possibly can to do that. And many of the documents that you saw are now in fact open to the public. I wonder if you are at all troubled as this has been raised for us to decide. I wonder if you have been troubled by privacy rights in these documents. That is a little bit of a different issue but one which also faces us as we decide on opening documents.
MR. TANNENBAUM- I wasn't looking for the disclosure aspect while we were in Washington. With respect to anything having to do with personnel, having to do with backgrounds of individuals who were investigators that weren't relevant to what in fact was being investigated. What I am talking about are the standard investigative forms, of one individual from the government who spoke to whom and what was said and when it was said and what, if any, follow-up was made as in the ordinary course [when] you do an investigation. You take over any homicide investigation in America, you look at police reports, unredacted, and that is the manner in which we wanted those documents. We weren't interested in "sources and methods" or embarrassing any individuals that is the last thing we wanted to do. All we wanted was what was the information that was given with respect to a whole range of issues. Some of those issues, frankly, were the issues of individuals who were at the grassy knoll area running away, one called back by an officer, an individual is running out of the Depository shortly after the shots are fired who had Secret Service identification. And in fact the Secret Service did not know who they were because all of the Secret Service agents in Dallas at the time are in the motorcade.
There are areas that are very, very prime for disclosure. And again, I have to repeat I saw nothing when I was in Washington that would cause me not to turn over in its entirety the material that I am referring to. For example, the Helms documents, the executive committee transcripts, the material from the FBI, whether it was from the Director, Mr. Hoover or to supervisorial personnel or otherwise having to do with this case, it seems to me, and, for example, the material from Earl Warren and his discussions having to do with his own staff, if it will enrich the historical record as to what happened and or what the motivations of these individuals were then it seems to me that the balance in the equation should be for disclosure.
DR. HALL- I have a two part question for you. Part one is, I think, in the answer to Judge Tunheim about what other materials might be where you didn't speak to the question of the film that you were ......... that deals with anti-Castro Cubans .... So I wonder if you could speak to that particular matter. And then, let me give you the other half of this, do you have any materials from your days with the HSCA?
MR. TANNENBAUM- Let me take the last question first, I have no documents at all. And anyone can go into my office and they won't find any land deals there either or anywhere else, even my private law office, but certainly while I was in government the same is true. I have nothing. I walked in as I, I walked out, I should say as I walked in. But as far as where the film is, again, I can only tell you that all of the material, I assumed was (laughing), in the same place. And that is where all the documents were kept in the document area. When I was document I include in that, statements by witnesses and memos that were drafted but films and medical evidence and other pieces of evidentiary value. So I can't remember what room it was but we had it in our possession.
DR. HALL- And that film had been obtained from the Georgetown University Library?
MR. TANNENBAUM- That is my best recollection. Is that, investigators and researchers found it in the Georgetown Library Archives, as I recall.
DR. HALL- And just for the record the significance of this film if it were now recovered would be?
MR. TANNENBAUM- Well, it showed, again, it could be Sherlock Holmesian, it could be an everything, it could be a nothing. On the one hand it shows a lot of anti-Castro Cuban players with CIA contract people in a military training setting. There was some speculation somewhat unclear as to the direct identities of some of these people. And as I stand here now I am not going to tell you exactly who they were but there were some of the major players in this whole case. Now does that mean for example, in a direct answer to your question Mr. Hall that if we continued our probe into the anti-Castro Cuban connection with the CIA that that would show that the CIA in some fashion was responsible for the assassination? I can't say that and I will not say that. And it doesn't mean also that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone. I can't say that but there is certain medical evidence that suggests and other evidence that suggests that he did not act alone. That is a whole different area of inquiry. So with respect to the film it was just another piece in this great mosaic of trying to understand and recapture what occurred at a time. And that is one of the reasons why it was a fascinating view.
DR. HALL- A critical piece of evidence, this is a piece of material that you have previously seen in the course of doing so you know as an investigator that is currently not available.
MR. TANNENBAUM- Well, again, I don't know where it is , whether it's available or not but yes I did see that in my role on the Committee.
DR. HALL- Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- In your role with the Committee did you have anything to do with the probe into possible organized crime connections?
MR. TANNENBAUM- Yes, we tried to probe and go down every avenue. That was one of the things that Dick Sprague and I were committed to doing before we started. We, again, as I say Judge, didn't have any preconceptions. And again if the evidence showed that it was Oswald and he acted alone without foreign intervention that was it. We held no brief one way or the other. Notwithstanding the impact we had from various sources both from within the government and from without, who had antithetical points of view and were convinced of their positions. We weren't as fact finders but we did from our point of view check that area pretty carefully. We found some what we considered to be "tough talk" but no connection. Had we continued on perhaps and gone into CIA activities with organized crime we can only speculate. But we certainly at the time did not conclude that the mafia did it. That was something that we did not, we just simply could not do, due to the unavailability of evidence.
DR. JOYCE- Just one final inquiry if I may, in the work that you did for the Committee you have gotten involved and were working for more than a year, then left under the circumstances that you were describing and all the dissatisfaction with the failure of the Congress to support this enterprise, were there any inquires or initiatives that you have wondered about over the years, specifically, whether there may have been areas, avenues of approach that you wish might have been taken and that you can recommend to us as potentially fruitful in terms of us having to find additional records?
MR. TANNENBAUM- I, let me if I may, set the record straight on how it was that we left if that's permitted. I'll be brief. I was asked by the Committee sometime in early 1977 when we were no longer funded to speak to the membership of the House. And I did. And I almost prevailed in speaking to all 435 of my bosses, another phenomenon in a criminal investigation which is a very difficult thing to deal with. In any event, it became apparent that the Congress, that the members of the House were not going to vote for the Committee if Richard Sprague stayed on. And that was the excuse in my mind. I use the word excuse to the extent that based upon the requests that we were making to continue the probe which were denied, that the excuse was Richard Sprague. God only knows why, he was a brilliant lawyer and a terrific prosecutor. He worked with Arlen Specter for many years and you know his background I'm sure. And I can testify that he is a man of extraordinary integrity and I told that to him the night before our vote, which was sometime on or about March 30 or 31st, 1977. And we went to see our Chairman who is a dear friend of mine to this day, Lou Stokes, Congressman Lou Stokes. And Dick resigned. And I, that night, virtually told him that the honorable thing to do would be that we resign. I say "we;" he was the focus of it. Because we did not want individuals to stand in the way of this investigation, even though we felt that it wasn't going to be what we thought it should be, perhaps we would be wrong and good things would result. And that is that the truth would come out. So that is the reason why he resigned.
I was then offered his job and could not accept it because I had asked them to resign. I did not want to live with the notion that there was a capillary in my body that might have suggested that and I took his job. So I didn't do that and stayed for the transition. And that is the reason why I waited until the new Chief Counsel was in place and that was sometime. I left, I believe, in July of '77.
But the major area, and I can't overemphasize this, focus on the government and what the government knew about Lee Harvey Oswald, what Hosty, the whole Hosty episode, which I am sure you are experts on. And what the CIA was doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, and what he was doing in New Orleans with anti-Castro Cubans, rabid, anti-Castro Cubans, and to get everything you can get from the government with respect to it. And how the government to this day can still possibly want to withhold that information and feed the kind of anti-government feeling that results from nondisclosure is really beyond my comprehension. Because from everything I have said and observed during that period of time, and have said today, notwithstanding total disclosure, it still did not appear from what we have seen that there was a conclusion that would in fact come up with a result that is somewhat different from what we have to the extent that we would have someone else and or another group. That is not to say that based upon the evidence that we uncovered that members of our staff believed that Oswald alone was responsible for the assassination. We had another opinion, most respectfully, based upon the evidence, that would be the medical, ballistic, eyewitness, lack thereof and contradictions and other kinds of information evidentiary wise which I won't go into unless you want me to.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- Thank you very much Mr. Tannenbaum. We appreciate you testimony this morning.
MR. TANNENBAUM- Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- Our next witness this morning is Eric Hamburg. Mr. Hamburg was the co-producer of the Oliver Stone Movie "NIXON", a former Congressional staff assistant who was involved in the passage of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. Welcome Mr. Hamburg.
MR. HAMBURG- Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today-
(END OF TAPE ONE SIDE A)
Mr. HAMBURG-... and while I was on Congressman Hamilton's staff I worked extensively during 1991 '92 on the legislation which became the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. And it was this legislation which as you know created the Assassination Records Review Board so it is very gratifying to be here and appear before you today. I can assure you from personal experience that this bill could never have been passed by Congress if not for Oliver Stone's film "JFK". I can tell you more about the whole sequence of events if you are interested but basically following the release of that film in late 1991 the Congress was inundated with letters from the American public demanding the release of the secret government files on the assassination. And many prominent members of Congress who had previously been indifferent to this issue or even had actively opposed release of these files changed their positions shortly after the release of "JFK". The American public have Oliver Stone and his film to thank for the legislation which created this Review Board and allowed the opening of the JFK files. And I hope no one has any doubt about that.
It was obvious then and it was still clear today that the American people want to know the truth about who killed President Kennedy and why. That is why this law was passed and this Board created. I hope that you will never loose sight of this fundamental fact as you pursue your work. The American people overwhelmingly believe that there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. Polls over the years, starting long before Oliver Stone made "JFK" have shown that 80% to 90% of the American public believe that there was a conspiracy and that they have not been told the whole truth. These figures remain the same today. While we do not yet know the full story it is gratifying to know that an estimated 2 million to 3 million pages of government documents relating to the assassination have been released since the passage of the JFK bill. You can correct me if I'm wrong on those figures but that is what I am told.
The Review Board should be commended for the role that you have played in facilitating the release of these documents. And I would particularly commend you for fighting for the release of documents pertaining to the Garrison investigation which have been withheld by New Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick. And also for seeking the release of some certain documents which the FBI has sought to withhold. It is very important that all of these documents be released and made public.
It should be remembered that it was the intent of Congress to make all documents and files available in uncensored form for the maximum extent possible. Indeed, when this legislation was introduced Senator David Boren, who was then Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee stated that it was the intention of the bill's sponsor's that "99.99999% of all assassination related material should be made public and only in the rarest circumstances would a name or a word be blacked out from a document." Unfortunately, this standard has not been met. the FBI and also in some instances the CIA seem to have a mindset dating back to the days of the cold war. And Army Intelligence, to my knowledge, has yet to release any documents, or almost any documents at all. And also very little, I think from Naval Intelligence.
Frankly, it is ridiculous, in my opinion to think that 33 years after the events in question there are still sources and methods to be protected. And in any case the public's rights to know the facts about the assassination outweighs any such considerations after this length of time. In my view all of the documents from these agencies should be released unredacted as soon as possible. Any material that is withheld will simply serve to undermine public confidence in this entire process. I would just second what Mr. Tannenbaum said in that regard.
With this in mind I would like to make a few suggestions as to areas which I think can and should be pursued in relation to additional documents. One area that has been of particular interest to me personally has been the question of Cuba and the possible participation of Cuban exiles, that is to say anti-Castro Cuban forces in the assassination plot. Most serious researchers who have studied the assassination have concluded that there were most likely elements of three groups involved in the plot, rogue elements of U.S. intelligence agencies, elements of organized crime or the mafia, and elements of the Cuban exile groups in the United States. The plot, if there was one, most likely evolved out of the assassination plots against Fidel Castro which involved these three groups. I have long felt that for many reasons including barriers of language and culture we have had perhaps the least understanding of the Cuban "element'. For this reason I was very interested when the Cuban government put forward a semi official version of their view of the assassination events in late 1993. I myself made two trips to Cuba in 1994 and spent a total of about two weeks there holding extensive meetings with Fabian Escalante, the Cuban official in charge of their investigation of the JFK assassination I also had additional conversations with General Escalante and his colleague Orturo Rodriguez at a conference last year in Rio de Janeiro. I was very impressed with the depth and extent of the Cuban's knowledge about these events also the potential for useful exchanges of information and documents with the Cubans. Needless to say Cuba is a Communist country and is not a Democracy. And any information emanating from Cuba must be treated with appropriate caution. Nevertheless, Cuba has a great volume of files and documents which are relevant to this case. They have many files dating back to the early 1960's on Cuban exile groups and specific individuals as well as mafia and CIA figures who were active in Cuba. Many of these would be very relevant to your work and would be of great interest.
As you may know the House Select Committee on Assassinations did visit Cuba and met with Fidel Castro and other Cuban officials in pursuit of any information relevant to their inquiry, I believe in 1978. I would strongly recommend that this Board do likewise. Notwithstanding the fact that the United States does not maintain diplomatic relations with Cuba, I believe that the Cuban government would be receptive to such an approach and would be willing to produce files and documents which have not yet been made public. This is a treasure trove of information which has not yet been tapped. And could be one of the most productive areas left to be explored. Specifically, I would just like to mention a few specific points to try to be helpful and also put some new information on the record that has not been made public to my knowledge. Specifically, General Escalante has stated in interviews conducted for the book "ZR/RIFLE" by Claudia Furiati, a Brazilian journalist that he believes two Cuban exiles Eladio del Valle and Hermino Diaz Garcia took part in the assassination in Dallas. He told me that this was based on informant reports by Cuban sources which are in their files. He also named three Chicago mafia figures, Dave Yaras, Lenny Patrick and Richard Cain who he believes were in Dallas and also involved in the plot, again , this is based, he says, on their informant reports. It would be very important to obtain any documents which Cuba could provide to substantiate these claims. I mean he did show me files of such documents but I did not retain copies of them. I was not an official representative of the U.S. government, but they do exist.
I would like to mention a couple of other specific points which are examples of the kind of information which could be gained from the Cuban documents and also from related U.S. documents. These are specific points which I had followed up with General Escalante on which he provided new information to add to what we already know from American documents. One is in the area of Lee Harvey Oswald's mysterious trip to Clinton, Louisiana in August of 1963. It has never been clear why Oswald went to Clinton or what he was doing there. I was intrigued by the fact that according to information obtained by Jim Garrison's investigators Oswald had told people in the Clinton area that he was living or staying with a Cuban doctor at the local hospital named Frank Silva, or Francisco Silva. I asked General Escalante to check his files to see if he had any information on this individual. He reported back that according to his sources Silva's full name was Francisco Silva Clarenz (sic?) and that he is related to a Frank Bartez whose full name was Francisco Bartez Clarenz. Bartez lived in New Orleans and was a close associate of Carlos Bringuier, the head of the Cuban group DRE in New Orleans who had a "street brawl" with Lee Harvey Oswald, you know, obviously in 1963. This incident took place shortly before Oswald's trip to Clinton. Bartez appeared at Oswald's court hearing after the incident on August 12th, 1963 as a show of support for Bringuier. Bartez is discussed extensively in the book "Oswald and the CIA" by John Newman. I know that you have heard from Mr. Newman before. Where he (Bartez) is described as a CIA informant and operative. General Escalante even speculated that Frank Silva and Frank Bartez may actually have possibly been the same person, since both shared the first and last names of Franciso Clarenz. This information would appear to provide a Cuban connection to Oswald's trip to Clinton which is very interesting. Obviously, this should be followed up with a request for documents to corroborate this information. It is my understanding that Dr. Silva is still living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, I believe.
General Escalante also provided additional information on another mysterious Cuban exile named Carlos Roca who is discussed in the book "Oswald Talked" by Ray and Mary La Fontaine (See p. 317). Roca was also a member of the Cuban exile group DRE, which was funded and run by the CIA under the code name of AM/SPELL. The DRE issued a press release in Mexico City on December 8th, 1963 stating that Carlos Roca and three other DRE members had been killed in a battle in Cuba's Escambray mountains in mid-September of 1963. The others were identified as Andre Tartabull, Julio Garcia and Sergio Perez. According to Escalante's information only Tartabull was actually killed in this battle. Furthermore, he stated that Roca, according to him (Escalante), was seen in Miami a day or two after the assassination of President Kennedy in the company of, Juan Manuel Salvat, another member of the DRE. According to Escalante's information they were on their way to Nicaragua at that time. Escalante said that Roca was also connected to Carlos Bringuier in New Orleans who operated a business there called Casa Roca or Roca House. Roca had gone to a religious school in Cuba with Jose Bringuier, the brother of Carlos Bringuier and after the Cuban revolution Roca had sought asylum in a Latin American embassy in Havana along with Jose Bringuier, according to this information. Escalante also stated that his files indicated that Roca was a qualified single engine pilot. He pointed out that in Jim Garrison's investigation David Ferrie had told investigators that he traveled to Houston after the assassination and was supposed to pick up two of the assassins who were flying from Dallas in a single engine plane. One of them was a Cuban named Carlos, who would be flying the plane. And Escalante speculated that this may have been Carlos Roca.
According to Escalante's files Mr. Salvat was in Dallas, he says, during the week of November 22nd, went to Miami and then on to Nicaragua with Roca. He also stated that Mr. Salvat allegedly was in Mexico City when the allegedly false story about Roca's death was published in early December. Escalante said that according to his information Salvat was an agent of Mr. David Phillips of the CIA as was Angel Gonzalez, the DRE representative in Mexico City who issued the press release. He told me that his source was a human source for intelligence and that he had files and documents to substantiate this.
Escalante speculated that Roca and the other DRE "captains" named in the press release, Julio Garcia and Julio Perez, may have been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. He thought that after the assassination they were probably taken to a Cuban exile training camp at a place called Monkey Point in Nicaragua near the border with Costa Rica. He thought that they had probably been killed there sometime between November 22nd and December 8th and then a false press release was allegedly issued in Mexico City stating that they had been killed in a battle in Cuba in September. While I have no way to know if this is true and I am not endorsing Escalante's views this is obviously an area which should be followed up. If there are documents to corroborate any of this they should be sought and made public. In Escalante's views the Cuban exile groups DRE, Alpha-66, MRR, and Commandos L were all linked to each other and to the assassination. All available information and documents on these groups and others such as CRC and other Cuban exile groups, UIR, there are a number of them should be sought from both U.S. and Cuban sources, in my opinion.
Escalante has also named another Cuban exile associate Isidor Borja , as being the person who was seen handing out leaflets with Oswald in front of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans on August 16th, 1963. You have probably seen pictures of these two men, their skinny ties, handing out these leaflets, and the identity of this Latin appearing man has always been a mystery, so he has identified him. Borja was also a member of the DRE. Borja is also discussed in John Newman's book, (p. 346) and I believe a picture appears there. He was interviewed by the house Select Committee, Borja was, and told them that the DRE had relayed information that the CIA had in 1963 on Oswald's contacts with Bringuier in New Orleans. The DRE is discussed at length in both the Newman and La Fontaine books. And is likely to have been a key group in the assassination conspiracy.
In this connection I would like to mention that it is my understanding that a large collection of files on the DRE have recently been donated to the University of Miami by Mr. Salvat, who I referred to earlier. These should be sought by the Review Board and added to the collection at the National Archives. Since it will be recalled that the University of Miami, where they are presently located was formerly the home of the CIA's JM/WAVE station it may not be the most suitable repository for these documents.
Escalante also told me that Cuba has numerous files on David Morales, formerly the second in command of the JM/WAVE station. Escalante believes that Morales may have been in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963 and may have been in charge of the assassination operation on the ground in Dallas. He speculated that Morales may have been the person driving the Nash rambler which allegedly picked up Oswald outside the book depository. Morales is discussed extensively in the book "The Last Investigation" by Gaeton Fonzi.
Escalante also told me that according to his sources Morales had met with Rolando Cubela, alias, "AM/LASH", who was a CIA asset, in Paris in September or October of 1963 as part of the CIA's ongoing effort to assassinate Fidel Castro. He believes that this was related to the plot against President Kennedy as well.
There is much more but this should be sufficient to illustrate why I feel it is important to seek any files and documents pertaining to the assassination from the government of Cuba. I hope that you will pursue this area. I also think that the Review Board should seek any files on this matter held by other foreign governments especially the governments of Russia, Byelorus, France, Japan, and Mexico. As you know Oswald lived both in Russia and what is now Byelorus whose capitol is Minsk for a period of time. We know that the KGB had an extensive file on Oswald parts of this file have been made available to ABC News and to author Norman Mailer among others. And the Review Board should also seek that file.
The French government reportedly assisted in the publication of a book called "Farewell America" about the Kennedy assassination and would have files pertaining to what has been called the French connection to the assassination. this is discussed in the book "Conspiracy' by Anthony Summers among others.
And, of course, Oswald also allegedly made a mysterious trip to Mexico in 1963. Any files on this held by the Mexican government, for example the DFS, which is their intelligence arm, should also be sought.
Oswald also spent time at the Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan and the Japanese government may have files on his time in Japan.
Another area which should be pursued is the question of Kennedy and Vietnam and whether the assassination may have had any relationship to Kennedy's efforts to end U.S. involvement in the war, which has been a subject of considerable controversy. Government records on this issue should be sought by the Board, specifically, a tape of a crucial National Security Council meeting of October 2nd, 1963 is held by the Kennedy Library in Boston. This should be made public. Also, all records of the Honolulu conference of November 20-21st, 1963 which dealt with this issue should also be made public.
I would also suggest that the Review Board seek to obtain files and documents from the collections of private researchers and organizations. And as I am sure you are aware many of the prominent private JFK researchers have their own extensive collection of documents as do some of the leading private research organizations. All of these collections should be sought and copies of these documents made available to the public at the National Archives to the maximum extent possible.
I am also submitting a copy of a letter which has been sent to the Review Board by Marina Oswald Porter, the widow of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mrs. Porter's letter details a number of areas of documents which should be pursued. It is my understanding that many of the documents mentioned in her letter have still not been released. And I would also like to mention that Mrs. Porter called me yesterday and asked me to submit an additional statement to you in connection with this hearing and I have given some copies to Mr. Samoluk of that statement which is sort of a personal statement from her. So I would ask that that be included in the record.
Probably one year is not sufficient time for the Review Board to complete all the work which needs to be done although I commend you for taking the actions you have taken today to extend for an additional year. It will probably be a good idea for the Board to seek an extension of its term by Congress perhaps for another two years but if the Board is to extend its life it should also extend the scope of its work. One of the powers which has been granted to the Board by Congress is the power to subpoena witnesses and to take their depositions. I understand that this power has been used by the Board already in a few instances. I think it would be a good idea for the Board to make much broader use of this power to take sworn statements from many key individuals who could provide information pertaining to the assassination and to possible sources of additional documents. Just to stimulate your thinking I'll just name a few, there are many people still living who could potentially provide useful information, a few such names, Gerald Ford, George Bush, Richard Helms, Ted Shackley. Howard Hunt, Estor Sanchez (sic?), Silvia Odio, Juan Manuel Salvat, Carlos Bringuier, Antonio Veciana, Francisco Silva, Lenny Patrick, Frank Ellsworth, James Hosty, John Elrod and John Thomas Masen, among others. While I am not suggesting I certainly do not mean to imply in any way that any of these people were involved with the assassination of President Kennedy, they could provide useful information to the Board and to the public.
I think there is a myth that somehow that the trail is cold and that no one still living could provide any information, that is not true at all. There are many people still living who could provide very useful information to you.
The Review Board has been entrusted with a great responsibility by Congress and by the American people. I hope that you will bear this in your minds as you pursue your work over the next year. I don't think that you will want to be remembered by history as the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee and other official bodies have been remembered, leaving a legacy of doubt, distrust, and unanswered questions. The American people expect more from you. I commend you for the work you have done so far. You have set an important precedent with the opening up of closed chapters in our history, one which I believe should be also followed in other areas of our history as well.
I hope that you will continue your work in the spirit of openness and accountability and a search for the truth wherever it may lead.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM- Thank you Mr. Hamburg. We are running a little short on time so we don't have time to ask you any questions this morning. I hope that you will permit us to follow up with you on a number of these areas that appear to be very fruitful.
MR. HAMBURG- Sure. I would be very happy to. Thank you.
Return to Main Page
* * *