by J. W Lateer
This request reached the “bottom rung” in distribution, i.e. the desk of Margaret Stephens, who worked for Paul Gaynor, of CIA’s Security Research Staff, SRS. Apparently, Gaynor gave instructions to his subordinate Margaret Stevens of SRS. When he passed the list on to her, he requested her to investigate some of the 18 defectors on the list, but not a particular seven persons on the list whom he excluded.
According to the Probe article, Otepka had a friend in the CIA Security Department who tried to exclude Lee Harvey Oswald’s name from any further investigation by either State or the CIA.
So, at this point, there is some confusion:
William Gill in his biographical book on Otepka describes the incident, but doesn’t mention any letter from Hugh Cummings of the State Department Intelligence and Research Bureau to the CIA.
The Probe article mentions letter from Cummings to State, but does not say that Cummings asked Otepka to research the list. If Cummings (who worked for State Department intelligence) wrote the letter to State, why wouldn’t he be depending on State to answer his questions about the defectors? Why would Cummings involve Otepka? Why would Cummings think that Otepka would be able to find out who among the list of defectors was a double agent? And if Otepka had the ability to find out, why would he, Cummings, bother to inquire of the CIA? Why wouldn’t Cummings keep the matter open on his own desk until he heard from State, whether it was either before or after he passed it down to Otepka? It appears that a man in the CIA security department named Robert Bannerman was a friend of Otepkas. It appears that Otepka and Bannerman worked together to try and direct the investigation of LHO to the desk of Otepka and not by anyone else. There was a CIA personnel file (201 file) opened on Oswald only after State inquired about LHO. Apparenty, Otepka tried to keep to himself an Oswald file which he intended to keep open indefinitely, until it was physically stolen from his office.
Author Joan Mellen wrote on maryferrell.org an article that states that Robert B. Elwood wrote a letter requesting information to State and it was not Hugh Cummings who did so.
Joan Mellen relates that [at some uncertain time], on the list of defectors [sent from State to CIA or the reverse] the words were written by the CIA “Lee Oswald, tourist” in quotes. When Hugh Cummings/Robert B. Elwood wrote the letter requesting info on the list of defectors, from where did they get the list? If the words “Lee Oswald, tourist” were written on that list, did Cummings/Elwood at State get the list from the CIA in the first place? If so, why the complaint that CIA never informed State about double agents? If the CIA did send such a list of defectors, CIA was apparently informing State about defectors, but not naming the defectors as a double-agents. Why should they identify double agents to State?
In Farewell to Justice, Joan Mellen states that, in the final interview with Otepka in 2006, she asked Otepka several times the key question: since Oswald was not an employee of State, why was he investigating him? The answer to Mellen was that Otepka had the duty to “correlate the existing files of people whose names were on that list of defectors…” Mellen apparently got a very clear answer to that question from Otepka. Quoting from Mellen, “Otepka’s role was to correlate the existing files of people whose names were on that list of defectors.” Taken literally, that would mean that unless there were an existing file on Oswald, Otepka would know that there was no file on Oswald and he simply would have gone on to the next person on the list. Stated differently, Otepka was correlating existing files to names on the list of defectors. This implies that if there were no existing file on Oswald, then the task of correlation was finished. There was no correlation between the list of defectors which bore the name of Lee Harvey Oswald and existing files. Since Otepka proceeded to investigate Oswald, therefor there must have already been a State Department file on Oswald.
Otepka was in possession of a file on Oswald. Apparently Otepka kept his own, parallel, possibly redundant set of files on many different persons. This filing trove was apparently separate from the State department filing system. In Ordeal of Otto Otepka, p. 52 we read “McLeod’s office instructed Otepka to keep a separate set of files on these 258 questionable cases…” And at page 225, “Digging into the files he kept in a special safe in his office…” At page 47 Scott McLeod found “There were more files outside the file room than inside the file room” Adding all this together, one comes up with the conclusions that 1) Otepka was handed a list [from some uncertain source] of defectors to and/or from the Soviet Union. 2) That one of Otepka’s interests was as to whether an individual was a double-agent as was stated by Lisa Pease in Probe. March-April 1997.
Another interest of Otepka was whether these defectors already had a State Department Security file or [possibly] whether their name was mentioned in any existing SD files.
Otepka apparently kept files in his office on any subject or person whatever, where he thought in his own judgment, the information had any bearing on State Department Security in any way at all, at his own discretion.
That the quote in paragraph one, above, from Jim Hougan is ambiguous when it says the investigation of Oswald was initiated by “him.” Him could refer to either Hugh Cummings of State or Otepka himself.
Adding together all of the above information, the conclusion that makes the most sense is that 1) State either created or received a list of defectors to the USSR, 2) current or possible double-agents would be on that list but not designated as such, 3) Otepka was given the list with a completely open-ended assignment of determining whether those on the list had any bearing of any kind on State Department security, 4) he kept an open file on those he suspected of being double-agents. This would be crucial because having a double-agent in the State Department without the knowledge of State would be the ultimate disaster for Otepka and many others. 5) Since Otepka thinks that he was harassed and fired because of his investigation of Oswald, then Oswald would most likely have been a double-agent.
Stated differently, since the whole issue surrounding the list of defectors was the issue of double-agency, why would anyone, Otepka or otherwise, keep an open file on Oswald unless he was a double-agent or a spy of some sort.
We should also ask the obvious question: if there were double-agents on the list of defectors, which department of the U.S. Government was running them? In World War II, double-agents were run by the FBI, not the OSS or the military. Since the CIA was legally prohibited from spying inside the U.S., then the CIA couldn’t legally run double-agents such as Oswald who would have been living inside the U.S. and doing their double-agent side of work in the U.S. Richard Case Nagell, ostensibly the only double-agent reported in all the JFK assassination literature, was being run by the CIA and the KGB, but not even Nagell himself really knew who his supervisors were on either side. At the end, Nagell suspected he was being misled into believing he was a double-agent. He believed that both ends of the double-agency were actually being run only by a single agency. Nagell had no way to find out for sure.
One thing would be certain. Whichever agency was operating double-agents, that fact, and the identity of the agents would have to be the best kept secret in Washington. If Otepka were keeping his own filing system on persons he believed to be double-agents, then that would create a hideous risk to the lives of those agents. If Otepka betrayed the identity of a U.S. double agent being run by our government and that agent was killed as a result, that situation could easily have landed Otepka a life sentence at hard labor in Leavenworth.
Since unauthorized double-agents with the Soviets in the State Department would likely, if discovered, be covered up, then the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee would have it as a top priority to discover Soviet/U.S. double-agents in the State Department. Otepka was the SISS “informant” in the State Department for this and other purposes. Ergo, the impetus for Otepka’s continuing “hot” investigation of Oswald was most likely being directed by SISS and battled against by Robert Kennedy.
Why would Robert Kennedy want to know about U.S./Soviet
double-agents? 1) He would want to avoid embarrassment of the administration 2) he might have in mind using these agents directly out of the White House to get intelligence or to pick their brains, and 3) the joint relationship between the agents, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. might be used as links which would further the policy of détente with the U.S.S.R.
In conclusion, all of the above information points to the involvement of Robert Kennedy with Oswald in some way long before the assassination. It also points to further involvement of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in the same way with Oswald. This ties in with the use that SISS was making of Otepka as their spy or informant inside the State Department. Oswald could have been a double agent. Since he was married to a girl whose father was high up in the Soviet NKVD, this might amount to the same thing, especially since Oswald had spent 2 ½ years in the Soviet Union.
The timing of the buildup of harassment of Otepka from December 1960 to October 1963 completely parallels the buildup of tension between the Kennedys, anti-Communists in the Congress, disgruntled officers in the military, certain foreign governments and segregationists. All of these forces came together to result in the assassination.
At the same time they were involved with the Otepka battle, the Senate Internal Security Committee was also involved, through Chairman Thomas Dodd, with Oswald’s particular weapons vendors, Oswald’s Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) and Oswald’s Socialist Workers Party SWP.
In his book General Walker, author Dr. Jeffrey Caulfield conclusively shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was busy infiltrating as many as 5 allegedly Communist groups in New Orleans under the direction of SISS Chairman James O. Eastland. This was part of Eastland’s plan to render the Civil Rights movement to be considered illegal due to alleged Communist activities.
Where there is such an overwhelming odor of smoke, there can be little doubt about the existence of the fire in the Oswald-SISS relationship. The marvel is that Oswald got around so much and wore so many intelligence-related hats. One could even argue that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, not German BND General Reinhard Gehlen, who was the real “Spy of the Century.”
In many respects, solving the mysteries of the Otepka case could help lead to a solution for the case of the JFK assassination.
Chapter 40
The Motivation of Jack Ruby
There has never been an adequate explanation for a situation described in Assignment Oswald, First Edition, by James P. Hosty or for the motives or actions of Jack Ruby in murdering Oswald.. In his book Assignment Oswald, FBI Agent Hosty reports that the SAC for Dallas Gordon Shanklin took a phone call with other agents standing by as witnesses. The phone call said that a committee would kill Lee Harvey Oswald and that they could not be stopped in doing that.
It is assumed that if there were a committee who murdered Oswald, that it would be the same committee who murdered JFK. But that is not necessarily so.
Jack Ruby was a devout, practicing member of the Jewish faith. On the weekend of the assassination, he went to the synagogue for spiritual support. When he saw a billboard attacking John F. Kennedy which was signed by Bernard Weissman, he had a strong reaction. Ruby sensed that billboards virtually never have signatures. If you see a political billboard, then there is normally a group, not just one individual, responsible for the message on the billboard and payment for it. When he saw a Jewish name associated with such a shocking billboard, he sensed that something bad was in the air.
Jack Ruby was born Jack Rubenstein in Chicago in 1911. In Chicago, Ruby had actually worked as a courier for Al Capone. Through a freak occurrence, a random researcher came across a memo in the FBI files that Richard Nixon had requested that a Jack Rubenstein be excused from testifying before a committee of Congress because Rubenstein was working as an informant for Nixon.
Ruby moved from Chicago to Dallas in 1947. Around that time, both he and his other family members changed their names from Rubenstein to Ruby. This was apparently due to their wish to assimilate more closely into their community. Ruby did not consider himself any less a Jew for doing this and he attended his synagogue as his chosen place of worship like any other member of his faith.
As most Americans know, Ruby was the owner of a strip club in Dallas called the Carousel Club in partnership with his sister. He also had an interest in a second club in Dallas of a similar nature. Ruby was allegedly involved with organized crime. He made frequent phone calls to known members of the “mafia” as loosely defined. He claimed that he only worked with these people because his girls who worked at his club were affiliated with a union which was controlled by the mafia.
As mentioned above, the billboard bearing the name of Bernard Weissman caused Ruby to become upset with the situation of the President’s visit even before JFK’s plane landed. It is likely that Ruby had contacts not just in mafia circles but in Jewish circles as well, whether in Dallas or elsewhere. Ruby’s concern about the billboard bearing the name of Bernard Weissman was well placed. Bernard Weissman was a soldier who had come from Germany within months OF being stationed in Germany. He was accompanied by fellow enlisted men Larrie Schmidt and his brother Bob Schmidt. It is well-documented that General Edwin Walker and retired General Charles Willoughby had long wished for a program which would foster face-to-face relationships between U.S. soldiers stationed in Germany and ultra-right elements in Germany. Apparently, this effort (to some extent) had succeeded.
On Sunday, November 24, 1963, at around 11:20 a.m., Jack Ruby entered the parking garage of the Dallas Municipal Courts Building and shot Lee Oswald in the abdomen at point blank range. Oswald died soon after.
But Jack Ruby had been stalking Oswald for two days. On November 22, 1963, Ruby spent 8 hours on the upper floors of the police station where Oswald was being jailed and interrogated. At one point, Ruby tried to force his way into an office where Oswald was sitting and had to be restrained. At the famous “midnight press conference” on 11-22-63, Oswald was brought before the press in a press room on the same floor. Ruby corrected a statement made by District Attorney Henry Wade regarding Oswald’s associations. Ruby shouted out that Oswald was in fact a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, rather than the Cuban group mentioned by Wade.
In 1959, Jack Ruby had been involved in gun-running into the island of Cuba during the chaotic rise of Fidel Castro to power. He may have been running guns to opponents of Castro or to Castro and his forces. He could have been selling to both sides.
In between these stints at the Police Station, Ruby went from place to place in Dallas including the Cabana motel in Dallas. Some followers of the “lone gunman theory” use the frantic behavior of Ruby as proof that he killed Oswald acting on an irresistible impulse. This impulse was allegedly driven by a sense of patriotism and/or admiration for John F. Kennedy.
Most assassination researchers now believe that Ruby and Oswald were to some degree acquainted. But it is the nature of this acquaintance and the reason for it which has remained shrouded in secrecy. Ruby and Oswald were seen together at a table at Ruby’s club, possibly more than once and this has been reported by numerous witnesses. Author Judyth Vary Baker, who was likely a girlfriend of Oswald in 1963, claims that Ruby came to New Orleans as a guest of New Orleans mafia boss Carlos Marcello, which places Ruby and Oswald in close proximity.
Most authors who blame the assassination on the mafia, use the role of Jack Ruby as their prime evidence. Since Ruby had mob connections, then he obviously murdered Oswald under orders from his mafia superiors. The problem is this: there has never been any evidence found of any mafia boss or operative being in contact with Ruby the weekend of the assassination for this purpose, despite Ruby’s peripatetic behavior.
What was in Ruby’s mind when he murdered Lee Harvey Oswald and with whom was Ruby in contact just prior to that infamous act? If not the mafia, then who?
One clue is the multitude of anguished statements made to the Warren Commission when he was interrogated about the murder of Oswald.
; Ruby demanded that he be given a lie detector test regarding his statements to the Warren Commission. He was given one, but it was deliberately botched by the Warren Commission so the results were inconclusive. Ruby demanded to be taken to Washington, D.C. His reason for this: he was afraid of being murdered by “anti-Semites.”
On Sunday night, November 24, 1963, there was a meeting in Jack Ruby’s apartment in Dallas. Present at that meeting were five people. These included Ruby’s roommate George Senator, Attorney Tom Howard, newsmen Bill Hunter of Long Beach California, Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald, and a friend of Senator by the name of Jim Martin. A possible sixth person was there as well. Of those six people who were at the apartment, some researchers believe as many as three were murdered in order to obtain their silence. George Senator, the roommate of Ruby apparently knew something very disquieting about the actions of Jack Ruby.
Dorothy Kilgallen’s name was a household word in 1963. She was a journalist and permanent guest on the TV show “What’s My Line?” Kilgallen was an investigative journalist by trade. When Jack Ruby was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Oswald and was being held in the Dallas jail, Kilgallen was granted an interview in a private room with Ruby. After the interview, she boasted to a friend she had “broken the JFK case.” Ms. Kilgallen did not live to see the sun go down on that fateful day. She was murdered and her notes stolen. Other notes which she had entrusted to a friend were also stolen.