Epstein wrote what was, at the time, probably the first mainstream critique of the Warren Commission Report, "Inquest" (sold over 600,000 copies), and then two followup books (one on Oswald and one on, as he called him, "con man" Jim Garrison) and dozens if not hundreds of other pieces on the assassination. What was remarkable - as he later admitted - was that he, then a young unknown grad student working on his masters thesis, simply called up Warren Commission commissioners and staffers, arranged a meeting, and interviewed them one-on-one. Just walked into their offices and started asking questions. No limits, no handlers. Everyone that is except Warren. Epstein said, rightly, that would be impossible today.
He was very good at asking questions, challenging the then conventional narrative - on the assassination and other matters - but not so good at answering them. Or giving his answers. It's often hard, to his credit, to tell what *he* was thinking especially on the assassination. That may be good though and it may be that he didn't care what the right answer was but just the wrong one; or the one that he believed wasn't challenged enough. I don't know with certainty who he thought killed JFK although he came across, to me, as believing Oswald did. But he didn't think, it seems again, that it ended there. That is, there was Oswald, yes, but something more. As he said late in life, sometimes the accepted narrative - the "official story" - is wrong but sometimes it's right. The problem is to figure out which is which. Conspiracy theorists would be smart to recognize that distinction, if they can.
His obituary is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/obituaries/edward-jay-epstein-dead.html
Link to archived text of the Ny Times obituary linked to, above,
https://archive.is/4x4vIhttps://www.cia.gov/static/Of-Moles-and-Molehunters-1.pdfAuthor.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Cram....No study exists on Angleton's efforts in retirement to spread his
conspiracy and other theories through writers such as Edward J. Epstein. .
II. Background Essay
......
"The change that occurred in the mid-1970s began when Edward J.
Epstein published a series of articles that later, in 1978, were the basis for
his book Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. The articles, and
especially the book, publicized for the first time clashes that had occurred
within the Agency between the Counterintelligence Staff and the Soviet
Division over the bona fides of a KGB defector named Yuriy Nosenko.
Because Epstein's writings contained so much information about
sensitive CIA and FBI operations, it was generally assumed he had a willing
and knowledgeable source, either a serving officer (considered doubtful) or
a retired senior person with wide knowledge of anti-Soviet operations overseas and in the United States. Neither the articles nor the book was annotated, however. Epstein stated that he had spoken occasionally with James
Angieton, the retired chief of CIA's Counterintelligence Staff, but did not
acknowledge that he was the source.1
Subsequently—in Deception, published in 1988, a year after Angleton's death—Epstein was more
forthcoming regarding his sources He admitted that, from 1977 onward, he had obtained large
amounts of highly classified information from Angieton, N S. Miler, Tennet H Bagley, and others in
the CIA, all of whom shared Angleton's controversial views on the nature of the threat posed by
Soviet intelligence operations. 3
....
Publication in 1978 of Edward J. Epstein's Legend: The Secret
World of Lee Harvey Oswald provided enormous stimulus to the deception
thesis by suggesting that Yuriy Nosenko, a Soviet defector, had been sent by
the KGB to provide a cover story for Lee Harvey Oswald, who the book alleged was a KGB agent. Epstein in effect wrote two books: one focused on
Lee Harvey Oswald's Marine career in Japan, his time in Russia, and his
return to the United States; the second gave Nosenko the key role in an alleged KGB deception operation designed to cover Oswald (and the Soviet
Government) and negate Golitsyn's revelations.
Because Epstein cited so much classified information that could
only have come from someone with intimate knowledge of the Nosenko
case, blame for the leak naturally focused on Angieton and his supporters.
6
Yuiry Nosenko (left). Edward J. Epstein, in his Legend: The Secret
of Lee Harvey Oswald, suggested that Nosenko's defection from the
KGB in 1964 was in reality a mission to provide a cover story for
Oswald (on the right), which would absolve the Soviet Government
of complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy. Thus, it came as no surprise when, 10 years after the former CI chief's
death, Epstein admitted his sources had included Angieton, Bagley, Miler,
and other ex-Agency associates who shared his views. Despite some negative reviews, the book sold well and was important in spreading Angleton's
theory of a super KGB manipulating American society and politics through
its sophisticated deception apparatus.
The theme of Legend was extended in a 1980 novel called The Spike
by Amaud de Borchgrave and Robert Moss. De Borchgrave, soon-to-be editor of the new Washington Times, and Moss were friends and admirers of
Angieton, whose conspiracy theories were consistent with their own. Moss
had been spreading Angieton propaganda for some time, such as the claim
that Golitsyn had provided the lead to Philby. This caught the eye of Adm.
Stansfield Turner, who was then DCI. When he asked the CI Staff about it,
the staff replied from solid knowledge that the claim was false.
The inferior quality and crudeness of The Spike exceed even that of
the Latham novel. ...
7
....
The year 1980 was not entirely one of wine and roses for the
Angletonians because Wilderness of Mirrors, written by David Martin, also
appeared. Now considered a classic of intelligence literature, the book was
the product of more than two years of interviewing CIA retirees, including
Angieton. The latter at first favored the author with many secrets but then
cut him off when he learned Martin was also in touch with Angleton's CIA
critics. One of these was Clare E. Petty, who had worked on Angleton's
staff and accepted his conspiracy theories but by this time had concluded
his boss was either a giant fraud or a KGB agent. Martin originally intended
to publish Petty's view in Newsweek but abandoned that plan when
Angieton threatened legal action.
Wilderness of Mirrors exposed Golitsyn as an unimportant defector
who caused more trouble than he was worth, suggested Nosenko was
genuine, and punched many holes in the Angieton myth. Publication provoked a lengthy and denunciatory review by Epstein in The New York Times
and a long public statement by Angieton claiming Martin had robbed him of
his phrase "wilderness of mirrors." In fact, Angieton had himself lifted it
from "Gerontion," a poem by T. S. Eliot.
Events, however, were weakening Epstein's faith in his master. In
1981, Prime Minister Thatcher was forced by the publication of Chapman
Pincher's Their Trade Is Treachery to admit that her government had investigated Sir Roger Hollis, the former Director General of MI-5, as an alleged
Soviet agent. Mrs. Thatcher stated in Parliament that a high-level investigation of these charges found them to be false.
Some months later Epstein managed to interview Michel
Goleniewski, a defector who had become convinced he was the last of the
Romanovs but otherwise remained a sensible person. Epstein asked if
Goleniewski thought Hollis was a KGB mole, an idea supported by
Angieton. The defector replied in the negative and then listed the Soviet
agents MI-5 had apprehended from the information he had provided, adding, "If the KGB had had a mole at the head of MI-5, you can be sure all
these men would somehow have escaped."
....
The next significant book involving Angieton was Henry Hurt's
Shadrin, published in 1981. While working on Legend as an assistant to
Epstein, Hurt had become aware of the mysterious disappearance of
Shadrin, a Soviet defector. Sensing there was a story there, Hurt began interviewing the missing defector's wife and her lawyer. The Reader's Digest
agreed to provide financial support for the project, which began as a magazine article but quickly grew into a book. Fulton Oursler, then the chief editor of The Reader's Digest, was a man of strong rightwing views and much
influenced by the Angleton-Epstein theories. The inability of the US
authorities to provide an answer to the mystery of Shadrin's disappearance
had provoked wide criticism. Hurt's account not only revived the old
Golitsyn-Nosenko controversy but also made it more current by citing the
appearance of a mysterious KGB man referred to as "Igor."
'At the time, this writer had interviewed Angieton on several occasions in conjunction with a history
being written of the years when he was in charge of counterintelligence at CIA. (The interviews had
ended because it had become evident that his judgment and veracity could no longer be trusted.)
When Angieton queried the writer about whether he was responsible for the leaks to Trento, he was
assured they had come from others. Angieton then proceeded to accuse Admiral Turner of being the
source—a totally unfounded accusations. 9
Angieton doubtlessly contributed information to Hurt, but so did a
number of FBI people who talked more than they should have. In sum,
much classified information was made public that could only have endangered
the safety of Igor, assuming he was genuine. This was a matter on
which Agency people again divided: Angieton believed Igor was not
genuine; others thought his valuable information proved his bona fides. The
Hurt book, however, was essentially propaganda intended to benefit Mrs.
Shadrin. Its attack on the Agency, the FBI, and the new CI Staff did not
help her cause, and the book's many inaccuracies distorted an already confused situation.
....
The Decline of Conspiracism
In the years after Legend was published, Epstein became a specialist
on Soviet disinformation and deception that, along with "active measures"
to which they are related, preoccupied a number of scholars and writers during the 1980s. They were encouraged by the testimony of several Soviet
defectors as well as the indefatigable Golitsyn, who in 1984 added his own
volume, New Lies for Old.
Epstein's Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the
CIA was published in 1988, a year after Angleton's death. Like Legend, its
predecessor, it has two parts. The second part describes various deceptions
practiced through the centuries and can be ignored; it says nothing new. The
first 105 pages, however, are interesting. Therein Epstein repeats the old
theories about Nosenko and, in his acknowledgments, names all his sources
for the past years, including Angieton, Bagley, Miler, and Sullivan. He also
asserts that his informants wittingly gave him sensitive information.
10 "
