Ttre Formation of the Glark Panel:More of the Secret Team at Work?ty L|rr Peasg

The Clark Fand was the medical pandconvmed alrnost irnmediatdy after RamseyClark had b€m approved for his appoint-ment as Attornsy G€neral in 1967. Thepanel was clearly convmed to put to restthe growing doubts caused by the o<po-sures of Mark lan€, Harold Weisberg, otherresearch€rs ard even i\late 7966, UFEmagazine itself. All of the abov€ talkedabout the evidenc€ of conspiracy, andthe implication is that the m€dicalevidmce would eitho show conspiracy,or els€, signs of tamp€ring. Whatbrought it to a crux was JiIn Ga$ison'sall-out investigation of th€ assassina-tion, which, in 1967, was makingofncial story proponmts v€ry nervous.One of the key questions rais€d by theNew Orleans DA was this: Why hadn'tthe wauen Cornmission membersexamined the autopsy photographs andX-rays?

EofiticafAgendasTo exarnin€ what had b€en brushed ov€r

by th€ Warrm Commission, an officialpanel was creat€d to conduct an inquiryillto the medical evidence. Th€ Panelconv€n€d in February of 1968 to examin€the medical eyid€nce in the cas€. In onlytwo days of work, the Panel reached whatsurely seems to have bem th€ preordainedconclusion: the X-rays ard autopsy photosrevealed no evidence of consptacy. TheReport was held back in what can onty beconstrued as a matter of strat€gic timing.The information was released in early1969, just as the trial of Clay Shaw wasfinally getting undoway aiter two years ofd€lays. To call th€ timing of th€ release ofthe Panel's conclusions. delaved for 1 1months, mere coincidenc€ is stretchingcredulity past the breaking point.

If one goes under the assumption thatthe panel's conclusions were the desiredresult, how could such results be guaran-teed? How were the panelists chosen?

Rams€y Clark w€nt to four members ofthe acadernic community to g€t theirrecommendations on the doctors to us€ forthe panel. Those people then nominated theactual panel participants. Close scrutiny ofthe nominators for the participants revealsa bevy of interestitg charact€rs.

Ar$eIV l0Oo/o Braziliaa?"l am pafticularly concern€d with the

part you may have play€d, if any, inencouraging, promoting, or causing thatoverthrow," the senator asked LincolnGordon, former Ambassador to Brazil, athis confirmation hearings for the office ofassistant s€cretary of stat€ for Inter-Am€rican affairs in 1966.

"The answer to that, s€nator, is simple.Th€ movemmt which overthtew PresidentGoulart was a purely, 1O0 perc€nt-not99.,1,1-but 10O% purely Brazilian mwe-m€nt. Neither the American Ernbassy nor Ipcrsonally played any part in th€ proc€sswhatsoev€r. "

Lincoln cordon may have his ovr.ndefinition of "p€rsonal involv€xnent.,, But tomost, th€ ev€nts indicate that cordonperjured himself bdore Congress. '"IbpSecret" corrununiqu€s from the Joint Chidsof Staff told a different story. The Pmtagonwas relying on Gordon and his staff tod.ir€ct the U.S.'s role in th€ coup. Arrununi-tion was stashed and h€ld, awaiting theokay from Gordon. A carris task forc€compl€te with guided missil€s, tar*s,destroyers, and a hdicopter sat offshoreand waited on instructions from Gordon.

In 1964, Lincoln cordon, together withthe CtA station chid in Brazil, very muchinvolv€d themselves in the plaru for a coupagainst Brazilian Presidmt Goulaft. Th€station chid, General Vernon Walters,would later become, if bridly, DeputyDirector of th€ CLA rnder Nb(on. The CIAhad spread anywhere from $5,ooo,Ooo(according to cordon) to $2O,00O,OOO(according to Philip Agee) to fom€nt a

military coup in Brazil againit a popularPr€sidmt. cordon's cables to Rusk werealso cc'd to J. C. King, Nelson Rockde[er'sgreat friend and CIA Division Chi€f of theWest€rn H€xnisphere. Gordon was bothinforming on the coup's progress as wdl asrequisitioning support in case the CIA-sponsored 'native' coup attsnpt fail€d. Asbackup, the CIA and P€ntagon put together

"Op€ration Brother sam," complet€ withairraft carrier, guid€d missil€s, tarks,d€stroyers, and 6 tons of arffnunitionto be used if ne€d€d. Wh€n it becameevid€nt that th€ military was having notrouble ousting coutart, OperationBroth€r sam was ordercd to perform apre-planned cover action instead.

cordon's involvem€nt did not endwith the coup itself. cordon cabledwashington that the coup had bem "agreat victory for the free world" butsuggest€d "th€ avoidance of ajubilantpostur€." Aft€r a victory parade a fewdays lat€r, Cordon not€d that "the only

unfortunate note was the obviously limit€dparticipation in the nar€h by th€ lowerclass€s." He th€n went on to encourage apopular politician, Juscelino Kr.rbitschek, topersuad€ th€ Brazilian congress to giv€ al€gal stamp to the coup that had beer.etrected.

A(hrestimof CharacterEvaluating the character of this Rhodes

Scholar, O:dord graduate, Harvard profes-so! form€x Ambassador to Brazil, m€ntorto Mcc€orge Bundy and hesid€nt of JohnHopkins Univ€rsity is important, since henominat€d a doctor to the Clark Panel.What sort of practioner would a man likethis nominate? One that might reach av€rdict that would shake the official storyto its roots? Or on€ who had a morewarped view of "patriotism" that wouldallow a cov€r-up to continue for the sake ofa cause?

clohn llannatr atrd tfie CIAJohn A. Hannah. another of the

academics chosm by Ramsey Clark tonominate a doctor for the panel, has twicebeen on record having denied knowledge ofCIA participation in th'o institutions he

anthted. on page 74

E

l[ovember-Deceo.b€r, lgg8 FIOBE

IteGhrf PeleltsSecretTeanmntinudfom page 73headed during the time of the involvement.In April of 1966, Ramparts magazinerwealed that Michigan stat€ tlnive$ity hadbeen running a police training program forthe ClA, a program which also providedcover for key CIA offic€rs. Hafflah, th€nPresident of Michigaa State l-Iniversity,denied all krcwledge of CIA involvement inthe program. But the CIAS Insprctorcmeral, Lyman Kirkpatrick, said th€university had signed th€ $25 ,ooo,ooocontract knowing full well that theprogram was the CIA5.

Thue to form, in the 7O's, Hannah wasonce again denying knowledge of CtAinvolvement, this tim€ from his post asDtector of the Agenry for InternationalDevelopment (AID). Publicly, he denied theCIA had used AID for cov€r anyr rher€ otherthan in taos. In fact AID was providingcov€r at that tim€ to CIA in Thailand. AIDwas later €xposed to have collaborated withthe clA in many other countries as well.

Twice Hannah claimed ignorance of thecu(s involvernent with an institution hehead€d. Again, on€ must wond€r what sortof doctor fbnnah would suggest to head apanel whose conclusions, given hon€stly.might opm a path directly to those he hadprotected in the past.

Ifiore ColdlfarriorgAnother Cold War advocate among the

nominators was J. wallace Sterling.Sterlingwas so mbidly anti-communistthat he w€nt so far as to say that commu-nists should not be allow(d to teach inschools sinc€ it was inconc€ivable that theycould be operating independent of the directcontrol of the Communist Party. Thisdisturbing statem€nt came from a Pr€sidmtof one of the country's most esteem€deducational establishments, starfordilniversity. St€rling's name also shows upin Asia Foundation financial records. TheAsia Foundation has long been acknowl-edged to have provided a conduit for CIAfunds for covert activities.

The Chief Counsel of th€ Clark Pan€land the man who collaborated in thepreparation of th€ Report, Bruc€ Brolr ey,was an employee of th€ Dulles brothers'infamous law firm of Sullivan andcromwdl.

The Justice Department had tried toremove sullivan and Cromwell fromdefending the oil compani€s in an anti-trust

suit brought against them by the JusticeD€partm€nt because of a variety ofquestionable activities.The att€xnpt wasunsuccessful, thanks in part to th€ €ffortsof the newly hired Bruce Brolr ey.

It's clear that the peop-le mentioned sofar have a record of integrity that is, to putit generously, questionable. But what of thedoctors they chose? No one appears to hav€dug into th€ir r€sp€ctive backgrounds to seewhat might come out. At least one of thedoctors has a very qu€stionable incident inhis past.

Tbe Grrlous lteatJr ofelohaPaistey

Russell 5. Fisher. M.D.. was both aprofessor of Forensic Pathology at theUniversity of Maryland, as well as theChief M€dical Examiner of the state ofMaryland. In the latter position he ruled onthe controversial death of a high-lwel CIAofficer named John Paisley. For the fullestaccount of the curious life artd death ofJohn Paisley, see Mdolvs by l4I liamCorson, Susan B. Thento and Jos€ph J.Tf€nto (New York: Crown, 1989.) A shortbut well-writtm summary appears as anappmdix in Jim Hougan's excellent bookSecret Agenda (New York: Random House,1984.)

Paisley was a high ranking CIA officerwith nearly unpreced€nted freedom withinthe Agmry. ofncially reported at th€ tim€of his death to b€ "a lowJevel analyst,"insiders report he was a high-levd counter-int€lligmce op€Iative. Tad szulc oncereported that Paisley was one of Angleton'srecruits, but Angl€ton vehernently andrepeatedly dmied wer having met Paisley.In 1976, Paisley nras the executive dtectorof "Tirm B" . At the tiln€ of Watergate,Paisley was the liaison between the officeof Security and the infamous Nixon WhiteHouse "Plumbers." According to Hougan'ssourEes, Paisley had been approached at on€point by the KGB, report€d this to ClA, andwas told to work with the Soviets a5 adouble ag€nt, feeding th€m disinformahonand reporting back to the CIA- Paisley hadextmsive radio broadcasting equipmmt onhis boat and frequently took to sea for longtrips alone. What he did there we can onlyspe€uLate about.

Paisley was also involved with anindividual wdl klown to students of theJFK assassination: Yuri Nosenko. Paisley'sd€ath came on the he€ls of CIA ofRcer JohnHart's testimony championing Nosenkoand his bona fides to the House SelectCommittee on Assassinations. In th€ words

of his wife, Paisley played a role in the"indescribable debridng" of Nosenko.

The facts of Paisley's death are cuious.Paisley was found floating in ChesapeakeBay a few days after he had mysteriouslydisappeared. He had last been se€n takinghis boat out to sea. His last radio call to afriend had been calm, with no hint ofanlthing sinist€r to cone. The CountyCoroner who conduct€d th€ autopsy, Drceorge w€ems, found that Paisley's deathhad bem caused by a gunshot wound tothe head, behind the left ear. Paisley n'asright-handed, which makes suicidet,(|remdy implausible. In addition, Drweems told r€port€rs that the My hadmarks on the neck which seemed toindicate a rope had been arcund it or theneck had been squeezed in some otherfashion. The body was also w€ighted withtwo straps of diving belts. As one investiga-tor into the cas€ pointed out, shootingoneself and putting on th€ diving belts is acase of serious overkill, pardon th€expression. No rvid(nce ofblood, braintissue or cartridges from a gun werefound on the boat, indicating that th€gun may have be€n shot at a differentlocation and the body dumped from thereinto the sea. -Ib make matters €ven moremuddied, the body was four inches tooshort to be Paisley, was dsvoid of featureswith which he could be positivelyidentified, and his wife was convincedthat the body found was not that of herhusband's.

Incredibly, Dr Russell Fisher, the ClarkPanelist, nrled the d€ath a suicide. The onlyreasonablejustification for such a rulings€€ms to be that to rule Paisley's d€ath amurder instead of a suicide would open acart of worms that could n€cessitate aninquiry into who killed him and why. or,worse, if it wasn't really Paisley who wasit, and whqe was PaislsyT These areaswould have proved highly sensitive andpotentially embarrassing to the clA, whichwas spared such an inquiry by Fisher'sextraordinary ruling.

Knowledg€ of th€ background of menlike Fiiher, Gordon, Harurah, Sterling andBror €y make it incr€asingly difficult toswallow th€ comm€nt from th€ clarkPanel's report that "each has actedwithcomplete and unbiased indzpendmce, free ofpreconceived vians as to the correctness ofthe medical conclusions reached in the 7963Autopsy Re4rt and Supplementary Report."More believable is the conclusion that w€experienc€d yet another manifestation ofthe secr€t Tbam at work. +

FiOB= ![oneober-Deoenberr 1993