Free eBook The Bishop Hoax

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Chapter 19 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/19-no-hes-not-him.html

This chapter begins the last section of the book and focuses on Phillips and the Maurice Bishop allegations.

Highlights:

Fonzi conducts an unauthorized experiment by bringing Phillips and Veciana together. But the results are not what he had hoped for.

Veciana hatches a scheme to "confirm" his Maurice Bishop bona fides.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Chapter 19 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/19-no-hes-not-him.html

This chapter begins the last section of the book and focuses on Phillips and the Maurice Bishop allegations.

Highlights:

Fonzi conducts an unauthorized experiment by bringing Phillips and Veciana together. But the results are not what he had hoped for.

Veciana hatches a scheme to "confirm" his Maurice Bishop bona fides.

Tracy: A couple of questions.

1) When did Fonzi first come across the name/idea that David Phillips was Bishop and/or that he was the main or key CIA figure behind their role in the assassination. Did it predate the Veciana interview/meetings,
correct? Or was it the sketch done on Veciana's description? I understand that his boss Richard Schweiker pushed this but was he the source for the idea? Fonzi then took it from there?

I don't have the Fonzi book but the Washingtonian magazine piece - which as I understand it was the basis for the book - is very thin on how this connection came about.

2) Did you come across any information that Phillips would be involved in such paramilitary/guerilla type activities? Of the type claimed by Veciana? My understanding is that he was more of a "desk" agent, one involved in propaganda/information warfare and counterintelligence and not in any way a field agent? Certainly not one who knew much about military type strategies. Yes? No?

Thanks again.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Tracy: A couple of questions.

1) When did Fonzi first come across the name/idea that David Phillips was Bishop and/or that he was the main or key CIA figure behind their role in the assassination. Did it predate the Veciana interview/meetings,
correct? Or was it the sketch done on Veciana's description? I understand that his boss Richard Schweiker pushed this but was he the source for the idea? Fonzi then took it from there?

I don't have the Fonzi book but the Washingtonian magazine piece - which as I understand it was the basis for the book - is very thin on how this connection came about.

Schweiker was indeed the source of the idea that Phillips was Bishop. Fonzi had previously entertained the idea of other Bishop suspects such as de Mohrenschildt and J. Walton Moore. Schweiker told Fonzi that he thought the Bishop sketch looked like Phillips on April 11th-just over a month after the first Fonzi-Veciana interview.

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/5-i-have-never-known-man-of-greater.html

The description of Bishop for the sketch was provided by both Veciana and Fonzi.

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/6-it-is-close-but-it-is-not-him.html

2) Did you come across any information that Phillips would be involved in such paramilitary/guerilla type activities? Of the type claimed by Veciana? My understanding is that he was more of a "desk" agent, one involved in propaganda/information warfare and counterintelligence and not in any way a field agent? Certainly not one who knew much about military type strategies. Yes? No?

Thanks again.

Especially later in his career, Phillips was mostly a higher-up who managed others. But even then (Mexico City years for example IIRC) I believe he still managed a few agents or assets on the side. But there is no indication in his records (at least the ones we now have) of anything that supports the Maurice Bishop story.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Schweiker was indeed the source of the idea that Phillips was Bishop. Fonzi had previously entertained the idea of other Bishop suspects such as de Mohrenschildt and J. Walton Moore. Schweiker told Fonzi that he thought the Bishop sketch looked like Phillips on April 11th-just over a month after the first Fonzi-Veciana interview.

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/5-i-have-never-known-man-of-greater.html

The description of Bishop for the sketch was provided by both Veciana and Fonzi.

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/6-it-is-close-but-it-is-not-him.html

Especially later in his career, Phillips was mostly a higher-up who managed others. But even then (Mexico City years for example IIRC) I believe he still managed a few agents or assets on the side. But there is no indication in his records (at least the ones we now have) of anything that supports the Maurice Bishop story.

My understanding on Phillips was that Fonzi seized on him or was suspicious of him in part because of the overthrow of Allende and the report that Phillips was the CIA's man in charge of those efforts to remove him. This was the 1970s era where the CIA was being attacked - often fairly but sometimes not - for the revelations about the "Family Jewels" et cetera.

But again, those efforts were, as I've read, involved funding of the Chilean opposition/propaganda efforts and had nothing to do with paramilitary operations. I don't see anything in Phillip's background indicating he was involved in or knew about such strategies. He was an ex-newspaperman.

Added: Okay, John Newman characterizes Phillips as having a: "Long history of PP (Paramilitary and Psychological Warfare) work for the Agency." But elsewhere in the account (in "Countdown to Darkness") he says PP was "psychological and propaganda" activity not "paramilitary." Anyway, I don't see the paramilitary work but Newman knows more about this stuff than I do.

Anyway, thanks again.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Chapter 20 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/20-gun-camouflaged-into-television.html

Highlights:
Several versions of the 1971 Castro assassination plot that Veciana says he participated in are deconstructed.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Chapter 20 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/20-gun-camouflaged-into-television.html

Highlights:
Several versions of the 1971 Castro assassination plot that Veciana says he participated in are deconstructed.

How you untangle all of this is remarkable. I won't and can't excuse/defend those abuses by the CIA but your work shows that the people they worked with had their own interests, their own moral agency, and often did things on their own without US/CIA direction or approval. The Cold War wasn't hot but it was a war. And US and Soviet surrogates often fought one.

Couple of points.

1. It's hard to believe that Lobo would not have been involved in any CIA-Veciana relationship/connection: either recommending him for the CIA or having the CIA going to him asking about Veciana's character/recruitability. Particularly during that 1959 period when Castro's agents were everywhere and cracking dissent down. Phillips testified that he did talk with Lobo and that Lobo did recommend one person as a possible asset.

2. It's also hard to believe that Phillips would not have heard of Veciana's name during the missile crisis especially since Alpha 66 was causing so many problems with their attacks on foreign ships in Havana harbor. JFK himself ordered the CIA/State and Justice Departments to crack down on them. But Phillips never heard of his name? Granted, time may have led to him forgetting it; but he never heard of him? Cuba was Phillips main task; I would think he'd know all of those anti-Castro groups.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

How you untangle all of this is remarkable. I won't and can't excuse/defend those abuses by the CIA but your work shows that the people they worked with had their own interests, their own moral agency, and often did things on their own without US/CIA direction or approval. The Cold War wasn't hot but it was a war. And US and Soviet surrogates often fought one.

Couple of points.

1. It's hard to believe that Lobo would not have been involved in any CIA-Veciana relationship/connection: either recommending him for the CIA or having the CIA going to him asking about Veciana's character/recuitability. Particularly during that 1959 period when Castro's agents were everywhere and cracking dissent down. Phillips testified that he did talk with Lobo and that Lobo did recommend one person as a possible asset.

Of course, anything's possible but after considering everything the evidence leads me to the conclusion that there was no Bishop at least as Veciana described him. The main points against Phillips as Bishop are the Reston meeting where Phillips showed no reaction upon seeing Veciana (nobody's that good of an actor). The other thing is Veciana never said Phillips was Bishop. That was Schweiker's idea. And when it came time to go under oath, he said Phillips was not Bishop.

2. It's also hard to believe that Phillips would not have heard of Veciana's name during the missile crisis especially since Alpha 66 was causing so many problems with their attacks on foreign ships in Havana harbor. JFK himself ordered the CIA to crack down on them. But Phillips never heard of his name? Granted, time may have led to him forgetting it; but he never heard of him? Cuba was Phillips main task; I would think he'd know all of those anti-Castro groups.

Phillips may have heard of Veciana and simply forgot. But what I think happened is that once Phillips realized what was happening (Fonzi was trying to pin something on him), he decided it was safer to deny that he remembered Veciana in any form.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Chapter 21 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/21-such-man-did-not-exist.html

Highlights:

Jack Anderson and "Mr. X."
Fonzi pursues J. Walton Moore as a Bishop suspect.
Ross Crozier and Bishop.
John McCone and Bishop.
Barney Hidalgo and Bishop.
Rufo López-Fresquet and Bishop.
The truth about the 1979 Veciana assassination attempt.