The following is from Volume 10 of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATION: -------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SEARCH FOR BISHOP (168) One of the factors utilized in the committee's efforts to locate Maurice Bishop was the description of him provided by Veciana. When he first met him in 1960, Veciana said, Bishop was about 45 years old, about 6 feet, 2 inches tall, weighed over 200 pounds, and was athletically built. He had gray-blue eyes, light brown hair, and a light complexion.(151) Veciana said, however, that Bishop appeared to spend much time outdoors or in sunny climate because he was usually well tanned and there was some skin discoloration, like sun spots, under his eyes.(152) He appeared to be meticulous about his dress and usually concerned about his weight and diet.(153) In the latter years that Veciana knew him, Bishop began using glasses for reading.(154) (169) Shortly after he revealed his Bishop relationship to Senator Schweiker's investigator, Veciana aided a professional artist in developing a composite sketch of Bishop. Schweiker's office provided the committee with a copy of the sketch. Veciana told the committee that he considered the artist's composite sketch of Bishop a "pretty good" resemblance.(155) (170) Prior to the committee's efforts, Senator Schweiker's office, as well as the Senate subcommittee he headed, looked into certain aspects of Veciana's allegations. Schweiker, for instance, requested the Belgian Embassy to conduct a record check for information about a passport issued under the name of "Frigault." The Belgian Embassy said that, without additional identifying information, it could not help.(156) In addition, Schweiker's investigator showed Veciana numerous photographs of individuals who may have used the name of Bishop, among them Oswald's friend, George de Mohrenschildt, who was then a teacher at Bishop College in Dallas. The results were negative.(157) (171) It was Senator Schweiker who focused the committee's attention to David Atlee Phillips, former chief of the Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA Deputy Directorate of Operations, as perhaps having knowledge of Maurice Bishop. Immediately after receiving the Bishop sketch, Schweiker concluded that Phillips, who had earlier testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, bore a strong resemblance to the sketch. (172) When Veciana was shown a photograph of David Phillips by Schweiker's investigator, he did not provide an absolutely conclusive response.(158) For that reason, it was decided that Veciana be given the opportunity to observe Phillips in person.(159) Schweiker arranged for Veciana to be present at a luncheon meeting of the Association of Retired Intelligence Officers in Reston, Va., on September 17, 1976.(160) Phillips was one of the founders of the association. Veciana was introduced to Phillips prior to the luncheon.(161) He was introduced by name but not by affiliation with Alpha 66 or involvement with anti-Castro activity.(162) According to Schweiker's investigator, there was no indication of recognition on Phillips' part.(163) Following the luncheon, Veciana had the opportunity to speak with Phillips in Spanish. (164) Veciana asked Phillips if he was in Havana in 1960 and if he knew Julio Lobo.(165) Phillips answered both questions affirmatively and then asked Veciana to repeat his name.(166) Veciana did and then asked, "Do you know my name?" Phillips said he did not.(167) Phillips was asked if Veciana was on Schweiker's staff.(168) He was told that he was not, but that Veciana was helping Schweiker in his investigation of the Kennedy assassination.(169) Phillips declined to be interviewed by Senator Schweiker's investigator, but said he would be happy to speak with any Congressman or congressional representative "in Congress."(170) Following the encounter of Veciana and Phillips, Schweiker's investigator asked Veciana if David Phillips was Maurice Bishop.(171) Veciana said he was not.(172) (173) Schweiker's investigator expressed some doubt about Veciana's credibility on the point, however, because of Veciana's renewed interest in continuing his anti-Castro operations and his expressed desire to recontact Bishop to help him.(173) In addition, Schweiker's investigator expressed doubt that David Phillips, who was once in charge of Cuban operations for the CIA and whose career was deeply entwined in anti-Castro operations, could not recognize the name of Veciana as being the founder and vociferous public spokesman for one of the largest and most active anti-Castro Cuban groups, Alpha 66.(174) (174) The committee considered other factors in examining Phillips, including his principal area of expertise and operations until 1963. (175) In 1960, when Veciana said he first met Bishop in Havana, Phillips was serving as a covert operative in Havana.(176) From 1961 to 1963, Phillips was Chief of Covert Action in another relevant country. When Oswald visited the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City in 1963, Phillips was also in charge of Cuban operations for the CIA in same country. Phillips had earlier lived in and had numerous associations in another relevant country.(177) He had also served as chief of station in several other places of general relevance.(178) (175) The committee developed other information that further gave support to an interest in Phillips in relation to Bishop. In Miami, its investigators interviewed a former career agent for the CIA, who for present purposes will be called Ron Cross. From September 1960 until November 1962, Cross was a case officer at the CIA's JM/WAVE station, the operational base which coordinated the Agency's activities with the anti-Castro exiles.(179) He handled one of the largest and most active anti-Castro groups.(180) At the time that Cross was at the Miami JM/WAVE station, David Phillips was responsible for certain aspects of the CIA's anti-Castro operations. Cross coordinated these operations with Phillips, who would occasionally visit the JM/WAVE station from Washington.(181) Generally, however, Cross worked with Phillips' direct assistant at the station, who used the cover name of Doug Gupton. (176) In his book about his role in the Bay of Pigs operation, former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt used a pseudonym when referring to the chief of the operation.(182) The chief of propaganda was David Phillips Hunt called him "Knight."(183) (177) When asked by the committee if he was familiar with anyone using the cover name of Bishop at the JM/WAVE station, Cross said he was "almost positive" that David Phillips had used the cover name of Maurice Bishop.(184) He said he was "fairly sure" that Hunt himself had used the cover name of Knight.(185) Cross said, however, that the reason he was certain that Phillips used the name of Bishop was because he recalled sometimes discussing field and agent problems with Phillips' assistant, Doug Gupton, and Gupton often saying, "Well, I guess Mr. Bishop will have to talk with him." Cross said: "And, of course, I knew he was referring to his boss, David Phillips." (186) (178) The committee ascertained that the cover name of Doug Gupton was used at the JM/WAVE station by a former CIA employee. (179) The committee staff interviewed Doug Gupton on August 22, 1978, at CIA headquarters.(187) Gupton said he worked for the CIA from December 1951 until his retirement.(188) Gupton confirmed that he was in charge of a special operations staff at the Miami JM/WAVE station and that his immediate superior was David Phillips. (189) Gupton acknowledged that Ron Cross (cover name) was a case officer who worked for him and that he saw Cross on a daily basis.(190) Gupton said he did not recall whether E. Howard Hunt or David Phillips ever used the name of "Knight." (191) He said he does not recall Phillips ever using the name of Maurice Bishop.(192) When told about Cross' recollection of him referring to Phillips as "Mr. Bishop," Gupton said: "Well, maybe I did. I don't remember."(193) He also said, however, that he never heard the name of Bishop while he was stationed in Miami.(194) When shown the sketch of Bishop, he said it did not look like anyone he knew.(195) (180) Explaining his working relationship with David Phillips, Gupton said he was in contact with him regularly in Washington by telephone and cable, and that Phillips visited Miami "quite often." (196) Gupton said, however, that there were two sets of operations. His set of operations was run out of Miami and he kept Phillips informed of them. Phillips ran another set of operations personally out of Washington and, Gupton said, Phillips did not keep him briefed about them.(197) Gupton also said he knew that Phillips used many of his old contacts from Havana in his personal operations.(198) (181) David Atlee Phillips testified before the committee in executive session on April 25, 1978. He said he never used the name Maurice Bishop.(199) He said he did not know of anyone in the CIA who used the name Maurice Bishop.(200) He said he had seen Antonio Veciana only twice in his life, the second time the morning of his hearing before the committee when Veciana, who had testified earlier, emerged from the hearing room while he, Phillips, was in the hallway.(201) Phillips said the first time he met Veciana was at a meeting of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers in Reston.(202) He said that Veciana was brought to that meeting by an investigator from Senator Schweiker's office but, said Phillips, Veciana was not introduced to him by name but only as "the driver."(203) He said Veciana asked him some questions in Spanish, but at the time he did not know who Veciana was or why Senator Schweiker's office had sent him to the meeting.(204) (182) Phillips also testified that he had never used the name Frigault and had never used a Belgian passport.(205) (183) Phillips was shown the sketch of Maurice Bishop but could not identify it as anyone he knew. He said, however, "It looks like me." (206) (184) In sworn testimony before the committee in executive session on April 26, 1978, Antonio Veciana said that David Atlee Phillips is not the person he knew as Maurice Bishop.(207) He said, however, that there was a "physical similarity."(208) (185) On March 2, 1978, the committee requested the CIA to check all its files and index references pertaining to Maurice Bishop.(209) On March 31, 1978, the CIA informed the committee that its Office of the Inspector General, its Office of the General Counsel, its Office of Personnel, and the Deputy Directorate of Operations had no record of a Maurice Bishop.(210) (186) On August 10, 1978, B. H., a former covert operative of the CIA, was interviewed by the committee in a special closed session. (211) B. H. was a CIA agent from 1952 to 1970.(212) Between 1960 and 1964 he was assigned to Cuban operations.(213) As such, he testified, he was involved in "day-to-day" operations with David Atlee Phillips. He characterized Phillips as "an excellent intelligence officer" and "a personal friend."(214) (187) When asked if he knew an individual named Maurice Bishop, B. H. said: "Again, Mr. Bishop was in the organization but I had no personal day-to-day open relationship with him. Phillips, yes; Bishop, no. I knew them both."(215) (188) Although he couldn't describe Bishop's physical characteristics, B. H. said he had seen him "two or three times"(216) in the "hallways or cafeteria"(217), at CIA headquarters in Langley. B. H. said he thought Bishop worked in the Western Hemisphere Division(218) and that he had a position "higher than me."(219) He could not be more specific. The two or three times he saw Bishop, he said, was between 1960 and 1964 when he himself was in Cuban operations, although, he said, he did not know if Bishop worked in that area also.(220) (189) Asked how, if he did not personally know Bishop, he knew the person he saw at CIA headquarters was Maurice Bishop, B. H. said: "Someone might have said, 'That is Maurice Bishop,' and it was different from Dave Phillips or Joseph Langosch guys that I know."(221) (190) When shown the sketch of Maurice Bishop, however, B. H. could not identify it as anyone he recognized. (191) On August 17, 1978, the committee deposed John A. McCone, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from October 1961 until April 30, 1965.(222) (192) During the course of the deposition, the following questions and answers were recorded: Q. Do you know or did you know Maurice Bishop? A. Yes. Q. Was he an agency employee? A. I believe so. Q. Do you know what his duties were in 1963? A. No. Q. For instance, do you know whether Maurice Bishop worked in the Western Hemisphere Division or whether he worked in some other division of the CIA? A. I do not know. I do not recall. I knew at that time but I do not recall. Q. Do you know whether Maurice Bishop used any pseudonyms? A. No; I do not know that.(223) (193) In view of the information developed in the interviews with B. H. and former Director McCone, the committee asked the CIA to renew its file search for any files or index references pertaining to Bishop.(224). It also asked for a written statement from the CIA indicating whether an individual using either the true name or pseudonym of Maurice Bishop has ever been associated in any capacity with the CIA.(225) (194) A reply was received on September 8, 1978, from the CIA's Office of Legislative Counsel indicating that all true name files, alias files and pseudonym files were again checked and, again, proved negative. "No person with such a name has a connection with CIA," said the reply.(226) Added the Agency: "Quite frankly, it is our belief from our earlier check, reinforced by this one-that such a man did not exist, so far as CIA connections are concerned."*(227) (195) Additional efforts of locate Maurice Bishop were made by the committee in file requests to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (228) and to the Department of Defense. (229) Both proved negative. (230) (196) Although file reviews of Maurice Bishop proved negative, the ---------------------------- *On October 19, 1978, the committee's chief counsel received a letter from the principal coordinator in the CIA's Office of Legislative Counsel. The letter said, in part: "This is to advise you that I have interviewed Mr. McCone and a retired employee concerning their recollections about an alleged CIA employee reportedly using the name of Maurice Bishop. * * * "We assembled photographs of the persons with the surname of Bishop who had employment relationships of some type with CIA during the 1960's, to see if either Mr. McCone or the employee would recognize one of them. "Mr. McCone did not feel it necessary to review those photographs, stating that I should inform you that he had been in error. * * * "The employee continues to recall a person of whom he knew who was known as Maurice Bishop. He cannot state the organizational connection or responsibilities of the individual, not knowing him personally, and feels that the person in question was point ed out to him by someone, perhaps a secretary. He is unable, however, to recognize any of the photographs mentioned above. * * * "In summary, Mr. McCone withdraws his statements on this point. The employee continues to recall such a name, but the nature of his recollection is not very clear of precise. We still believe that there is no evidence of the existence of such a person so far as there being a CIA connection. * * *" (J.F.K. Document No. 012722.) -------------------------------------- the committee learned that Army intelligence had an operational interest in Antonio Veciana during one period.(197) Veciana was registered in the Army Information Source Registry from November 1962 until July 1966.(231) (198) The nature of the Army's contact with Veciana appeared to be limited to attempting to use him as a source of intelligence information about Alpha 66 activities, with Veciana, in turn, seeking to obtain weapons and funds.(232) Veciana acknowledged a nd detailed to the committee these contacts with Army intelligence and said that, aside from keeping Bishop informed of them, they had no relationship with his activities with Bishop.(233) (199) Given the Army's acknowledgement of an interest in Veciana and Alpha 66, the committee made the assumption that the CIA may also have had an interest in Veciana and his Alpha 66 activities as part of its pervasive role in anti-Castro operations during the 1960's. (200) In a review of its own files on March 15, 1978, the CIA noted that Veciana had contacted the Agency three times -- in December 1960; July 1962; and April 1966 -- for assistance in plots against Castro.(234) According to the CIA: "Officers listened to Veciana, expressed no interest, offered no encouragement and never recontacted him on this matter. There has been no Agency relationship with Veciana."(235) (201) The committee's own review of the Agency's files basically confirmed the stated conclusions about the meetings with Veciana in 1960 and 1966. A review of the files pertaining to 1962, however, revealed that on July 7, 1962, Veciana received $500 from om a wealthy Puerto Rican financier and industrialist with whom the CIA had a longstanding operational relationship.(236) Although the files do not explicitly state whether the money originated with the CIA or the industrialist, and even though during this s same period the Agency was using the Puerto Rican, it appears that in Veciana's case the money was provided by the industrialist, and not by the Agency. (202) Finally, to locate or identify Maurice Bishop, the committee issued a press release on July 30, 1978 and made available to the media the composite sketch of Bishop. The sketch was part of a release of several other items, including two sketches and three photographs. The committee warned that it should not be assumed that the release indicated the committee believes the person in the sketch was involved in the Kennedy assassination, only that information resulting from possible citizen recognition of the sketch might "shed additional light on the assassination." The committee asked that anyone who had information contact the committee by mail, not by telephone.(237) (203) By November 1, 1978, the committee received from the general public a total of four written responses relating to the Bishop sketch. The three photographs were identified, the two sketches were not.(238) (204) No definitive conclusion could be reached about the credibility of Antonio Veciana's allegations regarding his relationship with a Maurice Bishop. Additionally, no definitive conclusions could be drawn as to the identity or affiliations of Bishop, if such an individual existed. While no evidence was found to discredit Veciana's testimony, there was some evidence to support it, although none of it was conclusive. The available documentary record was sufficient to indicate that the U.S. Government's intelligence community had a keen interest in Antonio Veciana during the early 1960's and that he was willing to receive the financial support he needed for the military operations of his anti-Castro groups from those sources. From the files of these agencies, it thus appears reasonable that an association similar to the alleged Maurice Bishop story actually existed. But whether Veciana's contact was really named Maurice Bishop, or if he was, whether he did all of the things Veciana claims, and if so, with which U.S. intelligence agency he was associated, could not be determined. No corroboration was found for Veciana's alleged meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald. Submitted by: GAETON J. FONZI, Investigator,