CIA admission: Joannides lived in New Orleans while handling DRE

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/ne...ans/#more-8580

This is news.

Thanks to Jeff Morley.

Thanks again for the link, pretty explosive stuff!

WHAT JANE ROMAN SAID
This is the previously-unknown story of three senior CIA officers—Jane Roman, George Joannides and John Whitten—who knew about the activities of accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. It is based on interviews and recently declassified CIA records in the National Archives.


http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_1.htm

^ Thank you, Frankie.

One of the most important admissions in the entire history of these investigations. That was November 3rd, 1994.

Excerpt:

NEWMAN: Problem though, here.

ROMAN: Yeah, I mean, I'm signing off on something that I know isn't true.

NEWMAN: No, maybe. I'm not saying that that is what's going on. You may not even...

ROMAN: I may have not noticed it or anything. And normally I wouldn't be moving the cable.

NEWMAN: Right.

ROMAN: I mean, higher-ups than me. I'm a desk, division chief.

NEWMAN: Well, and Karamessines signed off on there, and Hood for, excuse me, Wood, for chief of WH, exactly.

ROMAN: Hood.

NEWMAN: Excuse me Wood. Hood. Well, this is a problem though. If what we're saying is they slipped this one in ---

ROMAN: Maybe they considered it was so run of the mill that I was authorized to sign off on or they put me down to sign off on. Whoever had--heads up this cable put me in  to sign off on it.

NEWMAN: It's not necessarily--you're not a drafter, huh?

ROMAN: Oh no. I didn't draft it.

NEWMAN: It's just going through you, I guess. You're signing off on a draft, a draft copy, basically.

ROMAN: Well, they're just disseminating information, and I wouldn't necessarily remember at that point other information that had come in.

NEWMAN: OK. Certainly not. I mean, I accept that, although if you do get any recollections on this matter, this sentence, that appear strange to you or maybe didn't register. If you  have any more thoughts, we'd sure appreciate hearing from you about it because this is going to become an issue. But I want to ask you another question about it, without regard now, to whether you remembered it at the time, or realized at the time. Let me ask you today, knowing what you know about the agency, What does this tell you about this file, that somebody would write something they knew wasn't true? And  I'm not saying that it would have  to be considered sinister. Don't misunderstand, if I don't say anything, I tell you you don't have a need to know. But if I tell you something that I know isn't true, that's an action that I'm taking for some reason. But, I guess, what I'm trying to push you to address square on here is, is this indicative of some sort of operational interest in Oswald's file?

ROMAN: Well, to me, it's indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on the need-to-know basis.







Six weeks prior to the assassination.

I wish this story would get more attention. It's sad that some thing like this, and the conformation that Joannides lived in New Orleans is being buried under  rubbish like 'The Smoking Gun'.

The CIA had to have known that Joannides had more than a bit of contact with the DRE, that the DRE played a big part in setting up Lee Oswald in the days after the assassination, and they pulled him out of retirement to be the CIA liaison with the HSCA and then gave him a medal!

I haven't finished reading the Jane Roman story yet, but it's very interesting indeed. Imagine if the public was seeing this instead of the nonsense they are seeing now. There would be public pressure for sure, and the CIA could not go on saying that the records aren't of public interest.
Lucky for them 'Killing Kennedy' is out, huh?