A Reply to Jefferson Morley on Bill Harvey
Jefferson Morley used to be a reporter for the Washington Post and yet he couldn't even spell my name right. This was noted by Chad Nagle, a frequent contributor to Morley's Substack, on Twitter and Morley then corrected the web version of his article. Still, Nagle couldn't help himself and left this nice comment:
Nagle suggests that Morley's misspelling of my name was intentional and that I don't "deserve correct spelling." That is a novel intellectual argument, no?
As far as my past belief in a JFK conspiracy, well, I have not only written a whole book about it, but I have posted all of my past articles, dating to my University years, as well.
Morley complains about my article, but he did not even link to it. Whenever I criticize one of his articles, I always link to his Substack. I think it's common courtesy to provide readers with links to the articles under discussion.
I strongly urge readers to read my original post about Bill Harvey. You will notice that Morley doesn't address any of its major points.
Morley claims that "Talbot provided several bricks of evidence about Harvey's role in 1963." This is not true. There is no evidence of Harvey's role in the JFK assassination; Talbot only supplied a second-hand story attributed to Mark Wyatt about being on the same plane as Harvey.
In addition, Morley writes that I deprecated "Wyatt's story and suspicions but he can't dispute that he voiced them repeatedly." In fact, I reported that when Wyatt spoke to Bayard Stockton, he didn't say one word about Harvey being on the same plane to Dallas. Wyatt never went on the record about being on the same flight, and no one else has come forward with that story. Wyatt also did not accept his daughter's encouragement to report his suspicions to the HSCA.
Morley seems upset that the CIA (my supposed co-religionists) has not answered Talbot's questions about Harvey. He finds their non-denials relevant. But why should the CIA answer every single JFK conspiracy question that comes down the pike? Why should they comment on a second-hand story about Harvey being on a flight to Dallas in November 1963? Wouldn't they also consider the allegation hearsay?
It's a nice rhetorical trick that Morley uses all the time -- I've asked the CIA and they haven't replied. They must be hiding something.
Morley also takes offense that I have accused him of offering up another conspiracy theory. Somehow, the allegation that Bill Harvey was in Dallas in November 1963 is not a conspiracy theory. What on earth does he want or expect his readers to think Harvey was doing in Dallas? Buying boots?
The suggestion that Bill Harvey was in Dallas supports Morley's conspiracy theory that JFK was killed by his "enemies" who then made Oswald a patsy for their crime. Tracy Parnell provides the evidence that Jefferson Morley is the textbook definition of a conspiracy theorist.
But has Morley actually asserted a conspiracy?
Indeed he has. In the days when he was more careful with his words, Morley would say that Oswald "probably" killed JFK and implied that he did so unaided. But in his 2020 eBook Morley v. CIA (p. 67), he said that "JFK's enemies" "made Oswald a patsy for their crime." They did this with "covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL [DRE] program." Morley has often said that he "has no theory" of the assassination. It is true that he (like nearly all JFK theorists) has offered no specific theory. There is good reason not to promote a specific JFK conspiracy theory. When you do, you end up with something like this. But Morley's numerous writings through the years have provided enough detail to roughly determine what he believes about the assassination.
Parnell also discusses Morley's theory of the JFK assassination here. Is there a reason why Morley doesn't want to be thought of as a conspiracy theorist? He should embrace it like Dr. Cyril Wecht has. There is nothing wrong in exploring theories of conspiracy, if done responsibly.
Towards the end of his article, Morley asks "Sticking to the facts, is there really no reason to believe the claim that Harvey went to Dallas?"
Exactly, right. There is NO reason to believe the claim.
Morley ends his article saying that the CIA does not "have to obfuscate the historical record of CIA malfeasance in the case of the murdered president because Fred will do the deed. And they don't even have to pay him."
At least Morley admits I am not being paid by the CIA.
But check out these comments on Morley's post:
Somebody must be paying me!
Morley makes a big deal out of the difference between evidence and proof. And then he says:
They [the CIA] don’t deny Harvey was a drunk who hated the Kennedy’s [sic] and who loved Mafia killer Johnny Rosselli.
Where's the evidence for that? Oops, I mean proof.
Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley
There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963.
Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't.
Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong.
Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply.
W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles.
Operation Northwoods can only understood as being part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose.
And a response from me.
There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial.
There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case.
The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination.
Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation.
An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.