It’s the fourth of July, and we’ve reached the end of our week-long journey. So what have we learned? We learned that I consistently wait until around 9 or 9:30 at night to get these bad boys out. We learned that I can’t help but get all wordy even when I say I’m going to keep things brief. On a personal level, I’ve learned that I should probably hold off on making promises that require a week-long effort, especially if it involves sitting in my sweats and writing a blog post on a morning when I really should be sleeping in or having breakfast in bed. (Happy birthday to me!) And, oh yes. We learned that Ron Tammen’s FBI documents have proven themselves to be seismic in their significance.
Today I’m going to present several additional documents I’ve recently found to be interesting. Each will be accompanied by a few sentences of background info, which is more in line with how I wanted these posts to be when I started this series last Saturday. We won’t be coming to any big conclusions right now. Observations, maybe; conclusions, hardly. Here we go!
1. Hey look! It’s L’Allier
In my April 19, 2025, post, we learned all about Rolland L’Allier, the FBI’s French-speaking legal attaché in the 1950s who headed up the Domestic Intelligence Division’s Liaison Section in 1960-62. I raised the question of whether he may have scribbled on the first page of Ron’s FBI records based on his distinctive abbreviated L’A. Here’s his full signature, written in regular pencil, on one of Carlos Marcello’s records.
Click on image for a closer view; L’Alllier’s signature is on the bottom left, as well as the bottom right.
2. Hey look! It’s that Ci notation from a while ago
When we first began discussing the numbers in the upper-righthand corner, I pointed out a notation on a visa application for Marina Oswald. The document originated with the State Department, but this was the FBI’s copy, because it has marks all over it that are distinctively FBI. In the box midway down, on the righthand side, the words “VISA SECURITY CASE” are typed, and above that are the letters Ci and the numbers 8-1. Recently, I found a couple more Ci’s, which are written in blue pencil on Carlos Marcello’s records. It might be a person, but I’m thinking it may also stand for Counterintelligence, which was part of the Domestic Intelligence Division.
Marina Oswald’s Ci
Click on image for a closer view
Carlos Marcello’s Ci’s
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
3. Someone has circled Carlos Marcello’s ST- and REC- numbers on a couple of his documents; also, the word “classifying” is written nearby in blue and underlined in green
I’m thinking that these two docs tell us that the FBI indeed views the ST- and REC- numbers as a unit or complementary pair, just like we’d surmised. For the most part, they belong together. Have I seen an REC- number by itself? I have. Have I seen two different REC-numbers on one record? Not gonna lie, I’ve seen that too. But I’ve never, ever seen an ST- number without an accompanying REC- number. Also, the fact that someone wrote “classifying” nearby indicates that the pair of circled ST- and REC- numbers has something to do with how the FBI’s Classifying Unit, which is in the Records Division, categorized the case.
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
4. Like Ron, Carlos Marcello had a sealed enclosure too, but the word “Sealed” is handwritten.
I don’t see many FBI records with the word “Sealed” on them, which tells me that they’re especially secret. Here’s one for Carlos Marcello.
Click on image for a closer view
5. So far, I’ve found only two people who have the same “SEALED ENCL” stamp as Ron Tammen.
I believe that the sealing of an enclosure was considered a big deal for the FBI, and for someone to have the foresight to use the “SEALED ENCL” stamp means that it wasn’t just an afterthought. I think they meant to seal those contents from the get-go. Here are two people on which the FBI used the same stamp as Ron’s. One you met on Day 2 of this series. The other one was famously kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army on February 4, 1974.
Ron Tammen
Click on image for a closer view
Wayne B. Williams
Click on image for a closer view
Patty Hearst
Click on image for a closer view
OK, I think that covers it for today. Have a happy Fourth, everyone. Get your rest, stay hydrated, and let’s keep fighting the good fight for democracy.
Today we’re going to talk about the notation FD-217, which is scribbled in blue on a bunch of Carlos Marcello’s FBI documents. If you’ll recall on Day 2 of this series, we also saw that someone had written “FD-217” in lowercase cursive next to Marjorie Swann’s 10. In the past, we’ve noted that references to FD-217 are often written near the number in the upper-righthand corner, no matter the number or the person. For Carlos Marcello, it’s written near the number 7. Marina Oswald’s is written near an 8. Sam Giancana’s is written near his 4. Rolando Cubela y Secades (a Cuban revolutionary) has an FD-217 near a 3-1 and 9-1.
Here are two of Carlos Marcello’s FD-217s, which accompany 7s:
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view; note that the FD-217 is super light
It’s important to note that Ron Tammen’s records don’t have an FD-217 written on them. However, because FD-217 appears to be so closely linked to the FBI’s numbering system, I think it’s worth delving into.
One thing that we know for sure about FD-217 is that it’s an FBI form, which is benignly titled “Notification of Bureau File Number.” If I can get my hands on a blank FD-217 form, I think we could learn, once and for all, what their numbering system was all about and why Ron was given a number 10.
Granted, I think I may have already figured out the system. I think that the numbers refer to the FBI’s special agents who served as liaisons with other federal agencies. Based on clues regarding which cases received 10s—for example, those involving presidential candidates, vice presidents, and foreign dignitaries—Ron Tammen’s, Marjorie Swann’s, Frank Sturgis’s, Santo Trafficante’s, Wayne B. Williams’ and everyone else’s 10s appear to pertain to the FBI’s liaison to the U.S. Secret Service. Wouldn’t it be great if we could have the FBI’s confirmation of that hypothesis?
To do that, I decided to submit a FOIA request for the blank FD-217 form. (This next part is a recap of my two FOIA submissions and appeal to the Department of Justice. If you already know this sad story from previous posts, feel free to jump to the DOJ’s response.)
On February 10, 2025, I submitted a simple and straightforward request: “I am seeking a sample copy of FBI form number FD-217.” On February 26, I received their first response, which said the following:
“Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the places reasonably expected to have records. However, we were unable to identify records subject to the FOIPA that are responsive to your request. Therefore, your request is being closed. If you have additional information pertaining to the subject of your request, please submit a new request providing the details, and we will conduct an additional search.”
That same day, I sent in my follow-up, which said: “I suggest you consult the FBI Form Book to locate the form. You can find a link to the description of the 2003-2004 version of the Form Book here: https://www.governmentattic.org/44docs/FBIforms_2003-4.pdf. I’m attaching one page of the Table of Contents, which lists it as being there.”
Here’s the TOC that I included. FD-217 is smack dab in the middle of the page.
Click on image for a closer view
On February 28, they wrote this:
“Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the places reasonably expected to have records. However, we were unable to identify records subject to the FOIPA that are responsive to your request. Therefore, your request is being closed.”
At this point, I was peeved. I submitted an appeal to the Department of Justice. In addition to providing them with the above details, I said this:
“I am appealing this request because their response that the FBI is unable to locate a blank copy of form FD-217 is not credible, particularly after I pointed them to the FBI Form Book and the relevant page in the Table of Contents. If it were classified information, that would be a different situation. However they’re claiming not to know where it is, which is clearly a false statement. Under FOIA law, there is no exemption for information that the FBI simply would prefer I not have access to. Therefore, I ask that you remand my request and order them to provide to me what I’m entitled to receive.”
DOJ response
Would you like to know the DOJ’s response? Here you go:
Click on image for a closer view, p1Click on image for a closer view, p2
To paraphrase their response, they said: the FBI told us they couldn’t find the form, and by golly, we believe them. If you want to try forcing the issue, feel free to sue us, small person, because we know you have limited resources and you have to pick your battles, and we very much doubt that you’ll pick this one.
Mmmkay.
Here are the four take-homes I got from this little charade:
1) The FD-217 form is important.
2) We are on the right track.
3) There’s a course of action they neglected to mention that doesn’t involve hiring a lawyer or going through a complex mediation process.
We’re going to spend the next three days examining several of the FBI’s recently released records on Carlos Marcello, the one-time Godfather of the New Orleans Mafia, and all-around horrible person. In the book Fatal Hour, G. Robert Blakey, who headed the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and coauthor Richard N. Billings allege that organized crime members were responsible for JFK’s assassination, with Carlos Marcello at the helm. Serendipitously, on November 22, 1963, Marcello had been sitting in a New Orleans courtroom on the final day of his trial for fraud against the government. At 3:20 p.m. Central Time, 102 minutes after Walter Cronkite had announced on national television that President Kennedy had died, the jury returned their verdict of not guilty.
Carlos Marcello as a younger man (public domain). To view a photo of him when he was running the New Orleans Mafia, go here.
To be sure, the FBI viewed Marcello as, um, colorful. That’s why it’s so fitting that his recently released records look the way they do.
Today’s short post showcases several of the Marcello records. What’s fun about them is that they’re copies of original documents as opposed to copies of copies. This means that we get to see what the scribbles and stamps we’ve become familiar with on Ron Tammen’s records actually looked like in real life. In addition to scrawled names in graphite gray, some scribbles were written in red pencil and others were written in blue. The stamps were in different-colored inks as well, such as teal and magenta.
An editing pencil of yore
Not only do the colors make it easier to spot a given scribble in question, but I think they may provide clues into which division made them.
And so, without further ado, I give you several of Carlos Marcello’s FBI docs.
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
Do any scribbles and stamps jump out at you as looking familiar? And did you notice that MSL makes an appearance on one of them? What other thoughts do you have?
This next update will probably be discouraging for you, but that happens in research too. Plus we’re ramping up to more…um…colorful revelations later this week, so we’re bound to have at least one slow day, right? Welcome to your slow day.
Do you remember MSL, the person who (ostensibly) wrote “Removed from Ident files” on Ron’s missing person documents on June 4 and 5, 1973? For years, I’ve tried to identify who that person was. If they’re still alive (which is growing less likely), imagine the intel that person could share about why they removed his documents from the Ident files, as well as, gosh, just what was up with the mysterious Missing Person File Room? Unfortunately, to this day, the name of the person with the initials MSL remains unknown.
Click on image for a closer view
With that said, I may have found a few clues regarding their career trajectory at the FBI.
MSL shows up in two ways on Ron’s documents. The first was in 1967, when Ron’s father wrote to J. Edgar Hoover to ask him if the soldier pictured in his newspaper could be Ron. It was MSL who, with assistance from someone with the initials mjb, wrote J. Edgar Hoover’s response to Mr. Tammen on October 11, 1967.
Click on image for a closer view
This aligns well with an MSL whose initials are typed at the bottom of Teletypes that are sent from FBI Headquarters to designated field offices and attaches in the early 1960s. For this reason, I think that MSL worked in the FBI’s Communications Section from at least August 1961 up through at least October 1967.
MSL’s initials are written in the top center of page 1; click on image for a closer viewMSL’s initials are typed in the last line of page 2; click on image for a closer view
The next time we bump into MSL is in June 1973, when Ron’s documents are removed from the Ident files. I think MSL was fairly high up the chain of the Identification Division by this time, because, on a document dated May 22, 1973, they initialed the line next to Fletcher Thompson’s name. Thompson was the head of the Identification Division.
Click on image for a closer view
Our final encounter with MSL is on March 3, 1975. They’ve added their initials to an addendum of a memo with the important subject head of SENSTUDY 75. SENSTUDY 75 was the FBI’s nickname for the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. You and I know it better as the Church Committee, named for its chair, Senator Frank Church. MSL initialed the document behind the initials JH, or John Hotis, of the FBI’s Legal Counsel Division. John B. Hotis was a highly regarded official who’d held a number of supervisory roles for the FBI. He worked as a special assistant to William Webster when he was director of the FBI, and, in 1987, when Webster moved over to the CIA to direct that agency, he took Hotis with him.
Click on image for a closer view
I’m thinking that MSL must have been a pretty big deal by 1975 to be working for John Hotis.
As it turns out, that’s also the year that I think MSL may have retired or found a job outside of the FBI. Or, just my luck, if MSL was a woman, she may have gotten married in April, May, or June and changed her name. Whatever happened to MSL, I think it happened sometime after they initialed the SENSTUDY 75 memo and before the July 1 edition of the FBI telephone directory was printed. They’re not in it.
I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking: how do we know that the MSL who worked for John Hotis in 1975 is the same MSL who worked for Fletcher Thompson in 1973 or the MSL who worked for the Communications Section from at least August 1961 through October 1967, and possibly later.
All I have to go by is MSL’s initials and how they wrote them. For Ron’s documents, MSL is written in all caps, but for the others, everything is in lowercase. What makes me think it’s the same person is the “m.” Whether it’s lowercase or capitalized, that “m” always has a little flourish in the front.
********************************
1962: Communications Section
Click on image for a closer view
********************************
1973: Identification Division
Click on image for a closer view
********************************
1975: Legal Counsel Division
Click on image for a closer view
It has crossed my mind that MSL might have been a special agent versus an administrative staff member. If so, they should be included in the FBI’s “Dead List,” which is a compilation by the Records/Information Dissemination Section of deceased FBI officials as well as random famous people and criminals. Unfortunately, there are no individuals with the initials MSL in the 2022 version, which I believe is the latest online version, and the most comprehensive listing available.
I know, I know…I could be wrong. We could have three different people with the initials MSL for all I know. However, in all my searching, I’ve yet to find anyone—anyone—with those initials. I’m no math whiz, but wouldn’t that increase the chances that it’s the same person?
Hello! Today’s post has to do with a three-letter notation in the top righthand corner of ten of Ron’s FBI documents. In past posts, we’ve learned that Hank Greenspun, former publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, has the same notation on two of his FBI records from July 1973. We’ve also discussed that Hank Greenspun has Watergate ties, since the same people linked to the Watergate burglary had planned to break into Hank’s office in Las Vegas in early 1972. Their plan ostensibly fell through.
The notation we’re discussing today is “Hac,” which is written with an always slanty, sometimes loopy, sometimes angular, “H,” and my news is as follows: I’ve found another person who has those three letters on her FBI records. What’s more, you already know her. That person is…
Marjorie Swann!
That’s right, the pacifist bookkeeper from Connecticut whom the FBI labeled as “subversive” has an unquestionable, undeniable “Hac” written in the top righthand corner of one of the FBI records in her file. She isn’t named specifically on the document, but the New England Committee for Non-Violent Action (NECNVA) is. According to an October 1975 document from the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Marjorie Swann had co-founded the organization. Plus, I’ll say it again: the record is in her file.
Click on image for a closer look
Marjorie’s Hac resembles Ron’s and Hank’s Hacs so much, that I could swear they’re written by the same person.
Here’s Marjorie’s Hac:
Click on image for a closer look
Here’s one of Hank Greenspun’s Hacs, which resembles Marjorie’s:
Click on image for a closer look
Here’s one of Ron’s Hacs, which resembles Hank Greenspun’s Hac, which resembles Marjorie’s:
Click on image for a closer look
But that’s not all. In a former post, I’d speculated that one of the top contenders for the person whom I believe was the author of Ron’s Hac was Russell H. Horner, of the FBI’s Intelligence Division. In 1974, which I believe was the year of his retirement, Horner was chief of the Special Records and Related Research Unit. That may sound deadly dull to you, but it’s not. He oversaw some of the most sensitive records the FBI had to offer, including those having to do with the FBI’s highly controversial electronic surveillance program as well as their highly confidential Administrative Index, successor to the Security Index. To have “R.H. Horner’s” scribble on your document in the 1970s meant…wow. I imagine it was super significant.
Well, guess what? Russell Horner was following Marjorie Swann and her NECNVA closely. You can see his slanty, loopy signature in the upper righthand margin of the following document as proof:
Click on image for a closer look
Here it is blown up:
Click on image for a closer look
What does all of this mean? We still don’t know. And I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong. But if Russell H. Horner had written “Hac” on one or more of Ron’s ten pages, then all bets are off regarding what the FBI knew about Ron, not to mention how they obtained that knowledge.
But then there was also Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. His Southern Christian Leadership Conference was granted its fair share of 10s too, even though their principal activities were hosting meetings and planning sit-ins and marches, which, the last time I checked, are one hundred percent legal.
You may recall from my last post that I’d also hypothesized that the numbers in the righthand corners referred to FBI agents whose job responsibilities involved communicating with certain federal agencies. These agents were called FBI liaisons, and they were housed in the Division of Domestic Intelligence during the 1950s to early 70s. I’m still holding onto that hypothesis.
This brings us to today’s announcement. Today, I’m going to reveal the federal agency whose FBI liaison, I believe, was alerted to Ron’s documents along with all of the other documents that were given 10s in their righthand corners. But before I do, I’m going to share several more 10s with you.
Assassination of Senator and Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy
Click on image for a closer view.Click on image for a closer view.
Bomb threat against the U.S. Supreme Court
Click on image for a closer view.Click on image for a closer view.
Bomb threat against Frank Sinatra and the Fontainebleau Hotel
Click on image for a closer view.
Extortion/death threat against Secretary of State Dean Rusk
Click on image for a closer view.
Memo from Secret Service Director James Rowley to the FBI seeking info about Frank Sturgis
Click on image for a closer view.
That last one was a clue, because, you guys? I think the 10s signify the United States Secret Service, aka USSS. In other words, I think whoever put the 10s on Ron’s missing person docs felt it was necessary that the FBI’s liaison to the Secret Service have a look at them.
Why do I think this? I believe this based on the other documents we’ve found with 10s on them. Clearly, the Secret Service needs to be in the loop regarding potential threats to a U.S. President, Vice President, President-elect, Vice President-elect, and immediate family members. They also protect major presidential candidates, former Presidents and Vice Presidents, visiting foreign heads of state, and so on. According to Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3056, protecting these people are the primary responsibility of the Secret Service.
Information concerning attempts, threats, or conspiracies to injure, kill, or kidnap persons protected by the USSS or other U.S. or foreign officials in the U.S. or abroad.
Information concerning attempts or threats to redress a grievance against any public official by other than legal means, or attempts personally to contact such officials for that purpose.
Information concerning threatening, irrational, or abusive written or oral statements about U.S. Government or foreign officials.
Information concerning civil disturbances, anti-U.S. demonstrations or incidents or demonstrations against foreign diplomatic establishments.
Information concerning illegal bombings or bomb-making; concealment of caches of firearms, explosives, or other implements of war; or other terrorist activity.
Information concerning persons who defect or indicate a desire to defect from the United States and who demonstrate one or more of the following characteristics:
Irrational or suicidal behavior or other emotional instability.
Strong or violent anti-U.S. sentiment.
A propensity toward violence.
Information concerning individuals who may be considered potentially dangerous to individuals protected by the USSS because of their background or activities, including evidence of emotional instability or participation in groups engaging in activities inimical to the United States.
Obviously, they made some judgment calls.
The one that convinced me that we were dealing with the Secret Service was #5, illegal bombings or bomb-making, since so many bomb-related FBI docs of this time period carry 10s on them.
So there you have it. In addition to the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, I think the Secret Service had an interest in Ron Tammen. If we’re right about this, what do you think it was about Ron that they could have found so interesting?
Hello! It’s April 19, a rather momentous date on the calendar, wouldn’t you say? After all, April 19 marks the first day of the Revolutionary War (250 years ago today!). Also the first fatalities of the Civil War were incurred on April 19 (164 years ago today!), as were the deaths and imprisonment of Cuban exiles on day 3 of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion (64 years ago today!). Plus, let’s not forget about the inauguration of the White House bowling alley (78 years ago today!). (I threw in the last one to help lighten the mood.) But you’re not here to discuss any of those events, and neither am I. We’re here to discuss updates on Ron Tammen, who, 72 years ago today, went missing from Miami University on the night of April 19, 1953.
Some of you may be wondering what JFK, the number 10, and an intelligence official with a chic-sounding surname might have to do with Ron Tammen, and to you I say: You must be new here! Thank you for visiting my website, fair and noble recruits! It’s wonderful to have you along, although I’m afraid you have some serious catching up to do. As for you regulars, it’s good to see you too! I think you can guess by the headline where we’re going today. I’m referring, of course, to the missing person documents that the FBI had been keeping on Ron, and all of the stamps and scribbles they’d made on them—stamps and scribbles that I believe hold bona fide clues into what happened to him.
Because the topics we’ll be covering today are, oh, I don’t know…all over the map and occasionally venturing into the weeds, you might say?…I think it’d be best if we did this as a Q&A, which, for you newcomers, happens to be my favorite format. I’ll try my best to keep you in mind as we go. However, if I happen to ramble on about something and you have no idea what I’m talking about, feel free to ask in the comments box at the end.
Lastly, you can click on any of the documents included below for a closer view.
OK! Here we go!
Q: Did you find anything that might pertain to Ron in the latest release of JFK documents?
A: I believe you’re referring to our fairly recent discovery that some of Ron’s stamps and scribbles are the same as those found on a number of people who were investigated for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Indeed, I’ve been searching the documents that were made public last month for any of the aforementioned scribbles and stamps and the results have been intriguing.
As of today, I’ve found three FBI documents that fit the bill: one of the documents has an ST-102 stamp, just like Ron’s; one of them has a big number 10 in the righthand corner, just like Ron’s; and one has a series of numbers in the righthand corner, including the number 10 (just like Ron’s), plus, as an added bonus, the names of several FBI agents, two of whom appear to be associated with the number 10.
(For you newcomers, here’s a link to Ron’s FBI documents, so you can see the ST-102 stamps and number 10s. Note that all of the important stuff is on the early documents, ending 5-22-73.)
Here are the new documents I found:
ST-102 stamp
May 1963 CIA document containing a list of members of a “Provisional Government of the Republic of Cuba in Arms”; source is a Cuban exile; ST-102 stamp is on page 2
Number 10
January 1967 FBI memorandum on Santo Trafficante, Jr., a powerful mob boss who oversaw businesses in Florida and Cuba
Series of numbers that includes a 10 (1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11)
July 1969 National Security Agency (NSA) document on communist nationals traveling to Latin American countries; COMINT stands for communications intelligence
Q: Whoa.
A: Right? I don’t want to get all presumptuous just yet, but there seems to be a theme taking shape here, doesn’t there? And if I had to put that theme into words, I’d say that the same people at the FBI who happened to be keeping an eye on Ron (for whatever reason) were also tracking people affiliated with Cuba—be they pro-Castro, anti-Castro, or mobsters who did a lot of business in Cuba.
Bear in mind that Ron’s documents don’t just have commonalities with Cubans and their associates in the mob. His records have signs and symbols that are shared by famous and infamous people with no Cuban ties as well. You’ll see examples of some of these other people later in this post.
Q: That NSA document seems important. What can you tell us about the names of the FBI agents written on it?
A: When I initially saw the numbers next to several people’s names, I thought that they might be referring to divisions of the FBI, which would have been very mundane and super boring. In other words, I thought that the numbers 9, 10, and 11 were in reference to FBI Divisions 9 (Special Investigative Division), 10 (Inspection Division), and 11 (Legal Counsel), and those people were cc’d. But I don’t think that anymore. Let me correct that: I still think the people listed were cc’d, however I now know that every single person on that list whose name I’m able to decipher was employed with Division 5, or Domestic Intelligence, at that time. That is very exciting news.
Here’s why I’m excited: it now appears that the Domestic Intelligence Division was assigning the numbers to its own people. Maybe the numbers—from 1 to 11—represent traditional units or sections, maybe they represent special teams or squads of some sort, or maybe they represent certain individuals. I believe that these are the groups or individuals who were cc’d in the top right corner of some people’s FBI documents, including Ron Tammen’s.
Here are the last names of the people I’m confident about, along with their full name and one or more of their areas of expertise within Division 5:
Nasca Vincent (Vince) Nasca Expert on Cuba, Cuban exiles
*Note that there’s a 5 in front of Nasca’s name, which I think may pertain to the division number. I don’t know why they felt the need to do that, but I think it’s interesting that it appears before his name while the other numbers appear at the end, following a dash. You can see Nasca’s name on the May 1963 CIA document as well.
Harrell Eugene R. Harrell Expert on non-Soviet communist countries; also worked on the Daniel Ellsberg case in 1971
F.X. O’Brien Francis X. O’Brien Expert on South America
A.W. Gray Arbor W. Gray Expert on internal security, i.e., communists and revolutionaries labeled as “new left”
Branigan William A. Branigan Expert on counterespionage, Russian intelligence
Wallace – 9 Howard H. Wallace Expert on counterintelligence
McGuire – 9 James F. McGuire Worked the night desk, and also worked on Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination investigation (MURKIN)
Of course, wouldn’t you just know that two names of which I’m not 100 percent certain are next to the number 10? I do have my guesses though, which are:
Tansey – 10 Fred Anthony Tansey Midnight supervisor who took part in a wide range of international cases, including the JFK assassination investigation.
Schwartz – 10 Leon Francis (Frank) Schwartz In 1969, when the NSA document was produced, he was working as a liaison with the U.S. Air Force and representing the FBI on the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB). He would become the liaison to the CIA in 1972.
For readers who aren’t sure that this is Frank’s name—if it looks a little too short to you—trust me, I thought it looked a little too short too. However, I think someone else had written the names since they appear to be in the same handwriting, and if so, I wonder if the writer had misspelled Schwartz. It looks as though they’d forgotten to include the c and possibly the t. But what makes me think it’s still Frank is the distinctive, sloppily printed initials over the name, especially the F in the center which connects to a lazy S. Those have Frank’s name all over them.
Here are several examples of Frank’s initials for comparison:
In addition, I’ve checked the FBI’s “Dead List” for every FBI agent with names like Shultz, Schultz, Shay, Sheehy, Skelly, plus any other permutations, and zero possibilities have turned up. The most promising contender was an agent named Henry A. Schutz who’d played a large role in the JFK assassination investigation. However, he was in the General Investigative Division, which is Division 6, not 5 or 10, so I’m thinking it isn’t likely to be his. If Frank Schwartz turns out to be the formidable number 10, that would be consistent with another mark on Ron’s documents: the “lf” mark in the right margin of four of them. In past posts, I’ve proposed that the lf’s were made by Schwartz as well.
R.K.? Doerz? – 11
This last one has me stymied. The FBI’s Dead List and old routing slips weren’t much help either. Of course, I’ll keep at it, but if you’d like to try your hand at figuring out who it might be, feel free!
Q: What do you think the purpose of the numbers was?
I think the numbers in the righthand corner were for internal communication purposes—strictly for FBI staff, and perhaps only for certain key FBI staff. Maybe group 10 dealt with some of the more hot-button cases. Maybe they gave him a 10 for another reason. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to get into the heads of the FBI guys who assigned the numbers, at least not today.
That said, there are a few things we can definitively say about Ron’s 10s:
They came from Domestic Intelligence. We already concluded that Ron’s docs had been floating around the Domestic Intelligence Division when we found his “See index” notation. This just confirms it. Don’t you just love it when we’re right?
Whatever their meaning, those numbers carried a lot of weight to officials within the FBI. Remember all of the 8s that had been given to Lee Harvey Oswald’s docs? Most were written at the top of FBI documents but others were written at the top of other agency documents that had been sent to the FBI, such as those of the State Department or Naval Intelligence. I think we can now conclude that it was the FBI, and only the FBI, that was using the 1-11 numbering system on the documents they produced or acquired.
Sometimes the cases were international while others were domestic. For example, in cases where the State Department had asked the FBI to conduct a security check for someone’s visa application, the FBI would write the number at the top of their copy or, in the case of Marina Oswald’s visa application, in a relevant box. Fittingly, Marina’s 8-1 follows the letters Ci, which likely signifies the Counterintelligence Section within Domestic Intelligence.
One other thing I’ve discovered is that I now believe the numbers were included as part of the FBI’s distribution list for that document. So again, you know Marina Oswald’s visa application that was marked 8-1? I now think that it means that whomever in Domestic Intelligence had been assigned the number 8, that Intelligence staffer or staffers received one copy of Marina’s visa application. A standalone 8 with no dash would indicate that they received one copy as well. If it had said 8-2, they would have received two copies. I think I’ve seen one 3 after a dash, but I’ve never seen a number bigger than that—usually it’s just 1’s and 2’s.
Q: How did you arrive at that conclusion?
A: I remember the exact moment. I was looking through some old FBI documents, which should surprise exactly no one by now. Some of my very best days are spent looking through old FBI documents. (Paradoxically, some of my most mediocre days are spent looking through old FBI documents too. To be honest, I don’t think that I’ve ever experienced a really bad day when reading old FBI documents.)
The documents in question were Message Relay sheets. I was looking at the black-and-white digital versions, but the originals had been made of either a green bond or yellow paper. From what I can tell, these brightly colored cover sheets were used to accompany important memos and teletyped messages that were to be relayed from one of the FBI’s field offices, be it domestic or foreign, to one or more other parties by way of FBI Headquarters. Printed on the Message Relay sheets was a list of federal agencies and officials (e.g., Vice President, President, CIA Director, Attorney General, Secret Service, Secretary of State, etc.) with a square box next to each agency. The boxes would be checked for each intended recipient. At the top of the sheet were two blank areas reserved for Special Agents in Charge (SACS) of the domestic field offices, and Legal Attachés (Legats), stationed in the FBI’s foreign offices. The agent who was filling out the sheet—the message relayer—would write in the names of the recipient offices by hand.
As I was going through the documents, I noticed that the message relayers were also writing the same dashed numbers on the Message Relay sheets that I’d been tracking on the other FBI documents. What’s more, the dashed numbers were written in the same general vicinity where the SACS and Legats were to be written, after the word “TO.” And that’s when it hit me.
“They’re people!” I said to myself.
“They’re people who aren’t already represented on the checklist!” I added.
As for who these people might be, I do have a thought. It has to do with the special agents whose official job responsibilities are to serve as the point of contact for federal agencies, not to mention the FBI’s legal attachés. These employees of the Domestic Intelligence Division are called liaisons. Although I haven’t located a document that tallied the number of liaisons in 1969, the year of the NSA document, it appears to have been 11. (A document from July 1970 stated the number indirectly, and I had to do some math, which is why I’m hedging a little.)
The liaisons would have needed to be kept in the loop regarding anything that the federal agencies whom they covered had received from FBI Headquarters, and yet they weren’t represented on the checklist. That supports our fledgling theory. However, there are aspects to this theory that don’t mesh well with the list of agents on the NSA document. For example, Frank Schwartz was a longtime liaison, but I can’t tell if Wallace, McGuire, or Tansey were. Also, on the NSA document, they’d written down two names each for numbers 9 and 10, and liaisons tended to operate solo. Nevertheless, I think it’s a possibility worth keeping in the backs of our minds.
Here’s one of the Message Relay sheets with the numbers 2-2 and 8-2 near the Legats column.
Here’s a Message Relay sheet in a slightly different format that includes an elusive 10. I’ll tell you who the subject is later. It’s pretty wild.
Q: I remember that you’d also noticed that the term “FD-217” was sometimes written near the numbers in the righthand corner, although it isn’t written on Ron’s documents. Any idea what that’s about?
A: I’m really glad you brought this up. Did you happen to notice the FD-217 on Santo Trafficante’s FBI doc above, next to his 10? I continue to think the reference to FD-217 pertains to the numbers in the upper righthand corner.
As I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, the term “FD-217” is in reference to a special FBI form that I’ve been trying to get my hands on. My hope is that it carries instructions regarding what number to assign to a particular document.
This should be an easy request, but the FBI has already demonstrated that they have no intention of giving me what I’m requesting. Even though the FD-217 form is listed in the Table of Contents of the FBI’s Book of Forms, and I have pointed that out to them, they claim that they can’t find it. That takes a whole lot of chutzpah, wouldn’t you say? In my appeal to the Department of Justice, I wrote:
“I am appealing this request because their response that the FBI is unable to locate a blank copy of form FD-217 is not credible, particularly after I pointed them to the FBI Form Book and the relevant page in the Table of Contents. If it were classified information, that would be a different situation. However they’re claiming not to know where it is, which is clearly a false statement. Under FOIA law, there is no exemption for information that the FBI simply would prefer I not have access to. Therefore, I ask that you remand my request and order them to provide to me what I’m entitled to receive.”
I’m hoping the DOJ does the right thing and remands my FOIA request and the FBI sends me the form ASAP. Irrespective of how they respond, I will be posting all responses in full on this website. I look forward to hearing from them soon.
Q: What if it turns out you’re wrong about what the numbers mean?
As long as we get to the answer, I’m OK with being wrong sometimes. Also, regardless of its meaning, I feel confident that Ron’s 10 was assigned to him by someone in the Domestic Intelligence Division.
Domestic Intelligence.
That is soooo not nothing.
Q: Speaking of Ron’s 10s, you mentioned that you’ve found others?
A: Yes! Here’s my list to date, some of which you’ve already seen. I’ve decided to group them alphabetically by topic. Some 10s are large and jump out at you right away. Others are smaller or very light. Some occur on their own, while others are present in a series. Most are in the top righthand corner, though some are in the right margin. Some are representative samples for a given case. Admittedly, a few are judgment calls. Not all “10” documents are negative…but all seemed to have the FBI as well as one or more federal agencies on high alert. Here you go!
Assassination Attempts (Other than U.S. President/VP)
Pierre Trudeau
Author Seeking Interview on Sensitive Topic
Ron Kessler seeking interview regarding FBI involvement in 1964 DNC Convention
Bomb Threats
Federal Building, Madison, WI
Bomb threat against Princess Diana and Prince Charles
(Note: I’m including two Message Relay sheets plus the first page of the document that followed each. The second Message Relay sheet is the one that I spoke of earlier.)
Brainwashing/Cults
Margaret Singer, professor and cult/brainwashing expert
(Note: A large number of Margaret Singer documents marked with the number 10, plus some 9’s, can be found on The Black Vault website.)
Communist Nationals
NSA COMINT Report on travel of communist nationals to Latin American countries
Cuba/Cubans/Cuban exiles
Frank Sturgis, U.S. citizen and self-proclaimed soldier of fortune who first assisted Castro, then Cuban exiles
George Spellmeyer, U.S. citizen and owner of fishing boat found traveling between Havana and Cuban prison
Felix Padron Sanchez, et al
Extortion Victims
List of congressmen, senators, agency heads, etc., who received a threatening letter
Frank Sinatra, who received a threatening letter from the same person
Kennedy Assassination
Lee Harvey Oswald activities in New Orleans
Mass Murderers
Richard Speck
Sharon Tate et al (aka Charles Manson murders)
(Note: These two are judgment calls, but I thought they were worth including. The 10 in the top document, near several people’s initials, is small and underlined. The bottom 10 is in the right margin. The 1 is light, but if you zoom in close, you can see that it extends past the 0, showing that it is separate.)
Mobsters with Cuban Ties
Santo Trafficante
Salvatore Amarena, et al
Racial Matters
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Sabotage/Sedition, etc.
Kent State students investigated for burning down the ROTC building on May 2, 1970
(Note: I think that the agent who signed the top document looks like our friend Russell H. Horner. In a former post, I suggested Horner may have been responsible for the “Hac” notations written at the top of several of Ron’s documents. I’m still waiting on the FBI to send me his personnel file.)
Vice President – Travel Itinerary
(Note: I think it’s interesting that a memo concerning the VP’s international travels is assigned the same number 10 as two memos that concern potential assaults on the VP. I think this could be consistent with our “liaison” theory.)
White House
Sensitive records obtained illegally between 1969 and 1971 through electronic surveillance at request of President Nixon
Q:
A:
Q: I’m kind of speechless. I need to think on this a little more before I ask what I want to ask.
A: Totally fine. It’s a lot. We can move on to the next topic and circle back later.
Q: So who was this L’Allier person, and why do you think he was involved in Ron’s case?
A: Rolland Octave L’Allier was born in Somerset, Wisconsin, on March 2, 1910. His father, Eugene L’Allier, whose parents were both French-Canadian, had been a farmer in Somerset, which appeared to be a magnet for French-Canadians with a yen for farming. Many of their neighbors were also French-Canadian farmers. Tragically, Eugene died much, much too soon—when Rolland was just 2 years of age. As it turned out, his mother remarried another French-Canadian farmer in Somerset (as I said, there were a lot of them), so life didn’t appear to have changed too drastically for him. I think being around so many French-Canadians led Rolland to gravitate to Canada and Canadians, particularly the French-speaking ones. (I know the feeling. I love them too.) According to Rolland’s obituary, he’d attended St. Lawrence College, in Ontario, as well as the University of Montreal.
In 1941, when Rolland was 30, he and his wife, who was French-Canadian by birth, and their young son were living in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was working at the St. Paul Milk Company, though that would soon change. In October of that same year, he would be hired by the FBI and he and his young family would move to the Washington, D.C. area. I’m sure he had a great story to tell his friends about how he’d been living the dream in the milk business in St. Paul, and then, seemingly out of the blue, he was recruited by the FBI, but unfortunately, I haven’t had the chance to hear it.
Rolland L’Allier at a conference at the Harry Truman Presidential Library; photo in public domain
Despite the little I know about Rolland’s early years, I’m positive that he spoke exquisite French. From 1951 through 1959, Rolland was the FBI’s legal attaché in Paris, which sounds like the FBI’s plummest of job opportunities. He would have been the perfect choice. He had a slender build and a likable face. He looked super French, he probably sounded super French, and he had this amazing name that probably rolled off his tongue like a true Quebecois. I’m sure the Parisians ate him up like a profiterole.
In 1960, Rolland L’Allier was 50 years old. He’d been employed with the Bureau for nearly 20 years, which was generally retirement time at the FBI. It appears he wasn’t ready to retire just yet though—he had a little more petrol left in his Renault (so to speak). He moved back to the States, and was named chief of the FBI’s Liaison Section, the section in Domestic Intelligence that we’ve already heard quite a bit about today. He was in charge of all of the liaisons, including Sam Papich, who was a longtime liaison to the CIA before Frank Schwartz. In his position, L’Allier needed to be apprised of everything that the liaisons were learning from and sharing with the federal agencies and legats because he needed to alert the people at the top of the FBI. It was a heavy duty post. Put simply: he knew a lot about what other agencies in the federal government were doing and it was his responsibility to bring his bosses up to speed.
In 1962, L’Allier was tapped to become the first director of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library in West Branch, Iowa. This might sound weird at first, but it actually makes sense. In his role as chief of the Liaison Section, he’d raised concerns with the FBI leadership regarding what restrictions were being placed on documents that were being made available at the National Archives. He was particularly concerned that not enough restrictions were being implemented for some classified documents. When he was named to his new post, the people at the National Archives likely felt that they were putting the nation’s classified documents in good hands.
I forget the second part of your question. What was it again?
Q: How does a guy with those credentials come into contact with Ron Tammen’s missing person documents?
Oh, right. First let’s do a quick recap of his timeline. From 1951 through 1959, he was in Paris as the FBI’s legal attaché; from 1960 to 1962, he was stationed at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., overseeing the liaisons; and from 1962 through whenever he ended his term as director of the Hoover library, he was in Iowa. By my calculations, there’s a tiny window when I think Rolland L’Allier came into contact with Ron’s missing person documents, and that window is between 1960 and 1962.
Here’s why I think he intersected with Ron’s documents: Rolland L’Allier had a distinctive way of signing his name to FBI documents. Actually, he had two ways. One way he signed them was with a printed L and an accent mark. Like this:
His jazzier signature—his signature signature, in my view—was a large loopy L, an oversized accent mark, and a small, printed capital A to the right of the L, sometimes at a jaunty angle. Here are a couple good examples:
Now, take a look at the signature in the upper righthand corner (near the 10) of page one of Ron’s missing person documents.
There’s the big loopy L, the oversized accent mark, and, the most telling part, what appears to be a small capital A at a jaunty angle. There’s also a squiggly line, which I’ll be addressing below. For now, concentrate on the L, the accent mark, and the A.
Let’s zoom in a little further on that A:
There are three prominent lines: two slanted lines that come together to form the point of the A (at a jaunty angle) and a third horizontal line that crosses them. I believe that Rolland L’Allier signed page one of Ron’s missing person documents alongside the phrase “all files” and the partial date of “5/28.” (Incidentally, don’t you just love the “all files” note? It sounds as though they had enough info on Ron Tammen to fill several file folders, if not an entire filing cabinet! I’m kidding, but it does seem weird.) As mentioned above, there’s also that squiggly line after the A.
Some readers may think that it can’t be L’Allier due to the 5/28 date, which, because it’s lacking a year, implies that it was signed on May 28, 1953, two days after Cleveland had sent in their report about Marjorie’s phone call, and well outside of L’Allier’s 1960-62 window. But perhaps the 5/28 represents a different year or signifies something else? I mean, how many files could there have been on Ron Tammen on May 28, 1953? It was still at least three months before Ron’s Selective Service file would be opened. By my count, there should have been precisely one. So something seems fishy there.
Also, that squiggly line was not generally part of L’Allier’s M.O., which might lead some people to rule him out as being the signer on Ron’s document. Not me though. The way I see it, Rolland might have added that squiggly line for pizzazz. Or, as shown above, occasionally he would sign his initials over his full name, which sometimes looked a little like a squiggle at the end. Like this time, for example:
Maybe a portion of his full signature had been erased. I’m not sure. All I can say is that the big loopy L plus the accent mark plus the small capital A have all the hallmarks of L’Allier’s signature on Ron Tammen’s documents. I think it’s him.
Q: What do you make of all this?
Oh, gosh, so many thoughts. First, I think we can all agree that Ron Tammen was alive and well after he went missing and the folks in the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division were keeping their eye on him, for whatever reason. I think we can also safely say that Ron wasn’t leading the tranquil life of a bond salesman, which had been his supposed dream job.
Second, something that I haven’t mentioned to you yet is that Rolland L’Allier was extremely familiar with the CIA, not only when he was overseeing the liaisons, but also when he was the legal attaché in Paris. I’ve learned through newly declassified portions of a famous 1961 memo from Arthur Schlelsinger, Jr. to President Kennedy that the U.S. Embassy in Paris, where L’Allier had been stationed for 9 years, was also home to 123 CIA agents—one hundred twenty-three!—all of whom occupied the top floor of the Paris Embassy. So…there’s that.
Third, if it is L’Allier’s signature on Ron’s missing person documents, and if he signed it between 1960 and 1962, then that would coincide with a significant time period in our nation’s history when the United States and Cuba were butting heads, including, most famously, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the CIA’s attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. If Ron was somehow, I don’t know, involved with any of that, it might help explain why Ron’s documents share so many similarities with Cubans, Cuban exiles, and mobsters who were operating out of Florida and Havana, such as Santo Trafficante. Also, don’t forget that James W. McCord, Jr., the former CIA agent and Watergate burglar who shares a few stamps and scribbles with Ron, had close ties to Cuban exiles as well.
How about you guys? What do you make of all this?
Q: Before we go there, I have a question about all of those 10’s you found that match Ron’s.
A: Sure, go ahead.
Q: If the FBI considered Ron to be somehow dangerous, adding him to the Security Index, and lumping him into the same category as mobsters and cases involving extortion, bomb threats, assassination attempts, and mass murderers, why have they been running interference for him by not disclosing his whereabouts for over seven decades? In a sense, haven’t they been putting us all in harm’s way?
A: GREAT question. If anyone from the FBI, DOJ, or CIA would like to weigh in, the floor is now open. Or, feel free to reach out to me through the contact form on this blog site and I’ll protect your identity forever.
******
COMING NEXT WEEK: For anyone in the Oxford/Hamilton/Cincinnati/etc. area, I’ll be discussing Ron’s story at the Butler County Historical Society next Saturday, April 26. If you’ve been a little too busy to keep up with the blog or you’ve been wanting to hear a condensed version of the most important details of the case, this is your opportunity. There will also be some breaking news. The 1 p.m. session is sold out, but there are still some open seats for 3:30 p.m. They do require reservations. It’s free for BCHS members and $5 for nonmembers, payable at the door. Hope to see you there!
On October 1, 1973, Spiro Agnew was on vacation. His mind probably wasn’t entirely on the sand, sun, and fun, though. Spiro was in some serious legal trouble. In a mere 9 days, he’d be stepping down as vice president of the United States and pleading no contest to federal income tax evasion charges, which included paying a $10,000 fine, serving on probation for three years, and being disbarred from practicing law in the state of Maryland. It could have been a lot worse though. When he was governor of Maryland, he’d accepted kickbacks for some high-dollar engineering contracts, and he likely was grateful to be able to settle on the lesser charges.
But, as I said, his looming humiliation was still 9 days away. Monday, October 1, was set aside for golf. He’d golfed on Sunday too.
Here are the deets, as told in an FBI report: At about 8 a.m. Pacific Time, a couple Secret Service guys were “standing guard” on the Frank Sinatra Compound of the Tamarisk Country Club in Rancho Mirage, CA, when they “heard what they believed to be a shot. They also heard what they believed to [be] an incoming round whine through the trees about twenty feet up causing birds in the trees to fly.”
That almost sounds like two shots, but whatever.
The Secret Service as well as deputies of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office checked the area but found nothing. Nevertheless, the Secret Service guys could have sworn it was a gunshot. And I don’t know about you, but if anyone knows what a gunshot sounds like, I’d put my money on someone in the Secret Service.
Unfortunately, the report doesn’t say whether the vice president had been in the vicinity or not, though my guess is that he was. Why else would two Secret Service guys be standing guard if Spiro weren’t there? Also, 8 a.m. Pacific is 11 a.m. Eastern Time, which is a perfect hour for an East Coast guy to hit the links. Plus, the report said that he’d left Rancho Mirage between noon and 2 p.m. that day, so I’m thinking he was on the golf course when it happened.
I’m sure it was scary. The report ended with the line “This matter is being closely followed.”
The next day at 4:52 p.m. (it doesn’t say whether it was Pacific or Eastern Time), another report was submitted by the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office. In it, they make the wildly ridiculous claim that “construction equipment in vicinity” was starting up at around that time and “most probable noise was from that area rather than a gunshot.”
Again, I have to believe that if anyone knows the difference between the high-decibel impulse sound of a gunshot and the grueling, grinding background noise of a bulldozer or backhoe, it would be a guy from the Secret Service. Plus, since when does heavy construction equipment make a whining sound that travels through the trees, 20 feet above the ground, disturbing the birds? They must have forgotten about that part.
You may recall my recent post where I discussed how a possible plot to kill Spiro Agnew in February 1973 was given the MCT-49 stamp, the same stamp that Ron had received on his FBI documents sometime in June of that year.
That was interesting, but this is even better: the FBI document that describes a possibly close call between Spiro Agnew and nearby gunfire? Here it is:
Click on image for a closer view.
I told you I’d let you know if I found another 10.
(P.S. Note that it also has the “fd-217” written nearby, which is an FBI form that I’m currently seeking through FOIA. My hope is that it will help explain the meaning behind the 10s on Ron’s FBI docs.)
Happy Valentine’s Day, a day of celebration for the oligarchs of candy making, flower arranging, teddy bear stuffing, and the manufacture of paper doilies. A day when Americans of all stripes—young and old, short and tall, single and buddied-up—are pressured into dipping into whatever leftover savings they have from the holidays to shower the objects of their affection with, um, more objects…preferably of the pink and frilly variety. Call me cynical, but what if, instead of shelling out more cash in a mandatory declaration of love for someone, we just did some really kind deeds for them…plus anyone else who happens to be in their vicinity? What if, instead of giving that one special person a box of assorted chocolate goodies that will last a moment on their lips and a lifetime on their hips, we treated them to goodies of a different type—something for their brains to chew on for a while? What if we treated them to new knowledge?
And so, dear reader, in honor of St. Valentine, Patron Saint of “affianced couples, bee keepers, engaged couples, epilepsy, fainting, greetings, happy marriages, love, lovers, plague, travellers, and young people,” I’ll be treating you to an assortment of brand new bits of information concerning Ronald Tammen’s case that I haven’t disclosed to anyone yet. Some are big, some are small, some are deliciously decadent, while others could be likened to those weird maple cream-filled ones, which I suppose is better than nothing. But I think all are important in some way. So go ahead—indulge!
Goodie #1: I was wrong about Ron’s two missing person numbers…but only partly.
Back in November 2022, I wrote a blog post about Ron Tammen having two missing person numbers—one that I believed was assigned in 1953 and the other in 1973. I came to this conclusion when I discovered on page one of Ron’s FBI documents the words “MP #17699 Posted 6-2-53,” followed by the letters “Jh.” I knew that Ron’s missing person case number was 79-31966 (79 is the classification number for missing persons), so I figured that this other missing person number—#17699, minus the 79—had been assigned to him on day one, in 1953, and that, for whatever reason, the FBI had found reason to retire it at some point. I also claimed rather boldly that the new number had been assigned in 1973, after the Cincinnati Field Office had sent in the man from Welco Industries’ fingerprints and asked them to compare them to Ron’s prints.
Well, it turns out that my inference was incorrect about MP #17699. I learned this when I found that Richard Cox, who’d disappeared from West Point Academy on January 14, 1950, had been given an MP# too—#13550—even though his actual missing person case number was 79-23729. Interestingly, Cox’s MP# and Ron’s MP# had had been written by the same person—a person with impeccable penmanship whose initials appeared to be Jh.
Ron Tammen’s MP#Richard Cox’s MP#
I then consulted some old issues of the Law Enforcement Bulletin, the FBI’s publication for law enforcement officers around the country, and found that all those sad missing faces had MP numbers too. Apparently, that was a thing that the FBI did for missing persons. They’d assign a missing person number when the Identification Division’s Posting Section posted the notice for law enforcement. But the case number—the one that starts with the 79—was reserved for when the missing person documents were filed in the FBI’s Central Records System.
Here are a couple examples:
So I got that part wrong, and I hate when that happens. I’m very sorry for the error.
Here’s what I don’t think I got wrong: Ron’s missing person case number—79-31966—falls chronologically within the same timeframe as people who went missing in the early 1970s. Specifically, his number falls between Don L. Ray, who disappeared in December 1972, and Ronnie Durall York, who disappeared in January 1975. (You can find the list on my blog post.) Granted, there are some inconsistencies in the case numbers, especially three cases that fall immediately after York’s. I think those discrepancies may have something to do with when a person had been reported to the FBI as missing. I don’t know. But, by all appearances, the Cincinnati Field Office didn’t have access to Ron’s missing person case number when they wrote up their report on May 9, 1973, which they absolutely should have. Instead, they referenced his Selective Service violation number, a case that had been dismissed in 1955. Therefore, even if the number that I thought was Ron’s first missing person case number is incorrect, I still think Ron’s missing person case had been assigned a number that had been retired before the Cincinnati Field Office had contacted FBI Headquarters in May 1973…or perhaps he’d never even had a missing person case number until 1973, which would be even weirder.
Goodie #2: Do you remember the misleading photo that a Cincinnati paper had published in April 1953 identifying some jock in a West Point sweatshirt as Richard Cox? I recently learned something else that’s intriguing about that photo.
This past Halloween, I posted a write-up on a photo that had been published in the Cincinnati Times-Star FAMILY Magazine that was supposed to be Richard Cox. It’s definitely not him. In my write-up, I concluded that, by April 1953, when the Cincinnati paper published Gilson Wright’s story, the search for Cox had been called off by the U.S. Army and the FBI for over three months, and, for whatever reason, someone in the press office of the Army and/or West Point had decided to send a doctored photo of the wrong guy.
Richard CoxNot Richard Cox; used with permission
Recently, I found that the Associated Press had published the same doctored photo as early as March 1950. That seems really early.
What could it mean?
I suppose it could mean that 1) It really is Richard Cox and he was just having a bad hair day, not to mention a bizarro face day (it’s not him, so I’m ruling this one out from the get go); 2) the Cincinnati newspaper had acquired its photo from the Associated Press and just neglected to credit them (also a no, since the AP would have demanded credit, and besides, it’s just good journalistic protocol); or 3) the aforementioned press officer had sent the misleading photo to the AP sometime before March 18, 1950 (the dateline of the accompanying article), at a time when every person who was working the case in the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, West Point Academy, and the FBI would have looked at that photo and known instantly that it was definitely NOT Richard Cox.
Here’s what’s strange about the photo: the AP wire service already had a perfectly great photo of Cox in his military uniform which they’d published shortly after he’d disappeared. The Cleveland Plain Dealer had published the AP’s accurately identified Cox photo on February 6, 1950. A month later, the AP opted to go with a more casual photo of a guy in a West Point sweatshirt who looked nothing like Richard Cox.
Goodie #3: Even though FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had instructed his agents to call off their search for Richard Cox in January 1953, the FBI was keeping track of him well into the 1970s.
As I announced on August 30, 2024, Richard Cox, who, like Ron, was missing, had been added to the FBI’s Security Index at some point. We know this because we can see the phrase “see index” written on his FBI document from January 31, 1950. To be added to the Security Index meant that the FBI considered you somehow dangerous or a threat to national security and they were tracking your whereabouts every six months or so. That would be especially hard to do if the person had, in fact, vanished.
Recently, when I reexamined the handwriting of Richard Cox’s “see index” and I compared it to other people’s “see index” notations, I found one that looks remarkably similar to Cox’s. As it so happens, I’m quite sure that it was written by the same person who wrote the phrase on one of Charles McCullar’s documents in 1976.
Here’s Richard Cox’s:
And here’s Charles McCullar’s:
I’m aware that people often worked for 20 or 25 years with the FBI, but there’s no way that I can see the same person making nearly identical marks on documents for that length of time. People change. They move to other jobs. If he (I’m guessing it was a he) is anything like me, his handwriting would have deteriorated over time—certainly after 10 or 15 years. But the “see index” notation on Richard’s and Charles’ docs practically look as if they were written on the same day. That tells me that Richard Cox continued to hold an interest for the FBI well into the 1970s despite the fact that the FBI’s search for him had been terminated by J. Edgar Hoover in 1953.
J. Edgar Hoover discontinued their search for Richard Cox on January 14, 1953.
It’s important to remember that, after 1971, the Security Index had been renamed the Administrative Index, though its purpose was pretty much the same as before: keeping tabs on the people they perceived to be subversives. I also happen to think that, except for using a lowercase i instead of the capital I above, the handwriting on Richard Cox’s and Charles McCullar’s documents look a lot like the handwriting on Ron’s and Hank Greenspun’s docs, not to mention Tom Peasner’s.
Goodie #4: I’m pretty sure I now know what the first phrase says at the bottom lefthand corner of Ron’s 5-9-73 missing person document.
During the Walking Tour Afterparty in October 2024, we played a game that involved figuring out what certain words said on Ron’s FBI document from 5-9-73. Only one person ventured some guesses (shoutout to whereaboutsstillunknown!) and during various quiet moments since that party, I’ve sat staring at those inscrutable letters, which have defiantly stared right back at me.
The phrase that I’ve finally figured out is “Not ____ matter” with four letters occupying the space between Not and matter. Whereabouts and I agreed that the last three letters are FPS, and I thought the first letter was an O, indicating an office within an agency perhaps. Now I see that it’s not an O, but an L, as in “Not LFPS matter.” At the FBI, LFPS stands for the Latent Finger Print Section, which makes sense, since the stamp that’s scribbled over on that same document is LFP. I’d mentioned on that same post that I thought it was odd that they’d send Ron’s docs to the Latent Fingerprint folks, since they had a perfectly fine set of ten prints from when Ron was fingerprinted in the second grade. So it appears that the Latent Fingerprint folks thought it was odd too.
I think the first phrase is “Not LFPS matter.” Not sure what the rest says but I’ll keep staring.
Goodie #5: Major Hughes, the guy who fast-tracked Louis Jolyon West’s move from Lackland Air Force Base to the University of Oklahoma, was an actual guy, and not a pseudonym for Sidney Gottlieb, as I’d theorized.
In my blog post from August 2023, I discussed how Louis Jolyon West had been lamenting his situation at Lackland Air Force Base because he’d felt that his immediate boss at the base would seriously impede his work on Project Artichoke. But, according to a letter from Brigadier General H.H. Twitchell to West in September 1954, it was the problem-solving skills of a man referred to as Major Hughes who greased the wheels so that West could transition out of Lackland that December, 1 ½ years earlier than what he’d originally been obligated to.
I’d theorized that Major Hughes might have been a pseudonym for Sidney Gottlieb, since we know that Gottlieb had a fondness for pseudonyms (see Joseph Scheider, Joseph Schneider, and Sherman Grifford), but it appears I was wrong about that too.
In his book “A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments,” H.P. Albarelli, Jr., has included a whole chapter on a mysterious guy named Allan F. Hughes. As Albarelli describes, Allan Hughes was formerly with the Army Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) and was an expert in electronic surveillance and interrogation. He worked for Sidney Gottlieb’s Technical Services Staff from 1953 to 1955, and, in fact, he was one of the persons in attendance at the 1953 cabin retreat in which Frank Olson was given LSD. (The itinerary posted on the Frank Olson Project website lists A. Hughes as one of the participants.) From what I can tell, no one has said outright that “Major Hughes” is in fact “Allan F. Hughes,” or vice versa, but it does seem probable. (If you know of a website, article, podcast, or anything else that makes that claim, please let me know.) Needless to say, I’ll be looking more into Allan Hughes, as he seemed to run in the same circles as James W. McCord, who, as we’ve discussed many times on this blog, has FBI documents with the same scribbles and stamps as Ron Tammen.
If Allan F. Hughes turns out to be Major Hughes, we can state definitively that Major Hughes is not Sidney Gottlieb’s pseudonym since both men attended the cabin retreat where LSD was given to Frank Olson.
Goodie #6:I’ve learned a little more about the numbers written in the upper righthand corner of State Department and FBI documents, including someone else who received a 10.
On November 22, 2024, I blogged about the number 10 that sits in the upper righthand corner of ten pages of Ron’s FBI docs, and we discussed how another person sporting the 10 was Frank Sturgis, of CIA fame among others. Today, I’d like to share a few additional updates about the numbering system and another person who shares the number 10:
FD-217 Recently, I’ve found several documents in which the term “FD-217” is written adjacent to the number in the upper righthand corner, usually in the same handwriting. FD-217 is an FBI form and, although it has a benign-sounding title: Notification of Bureau File Number, I’m wondering if perhaps it’s the source of the number in the righthand corner. Unfortunately, I can’t find this form anywhere online, whether completed or blank. Also, I’ve found no other forms that are cited near the upper-corner numbers, so it seems important. I’ve submitted a FOIA request for this form to see if I can learn anything more about the numbering system. In the meantime, here are a few of the documents in which someone has written FD-217 near the various numbers.
Louis Henry Jones, FD 217, 5Samuel M. Giancana, FD-217, 4Michael McLaney, FD-217, 7-1Redacted, FD-217, 4
A mark that Ron has in common with the redacted case
In the above report dated 8-29-74, which has a redacted title, someone’s initials (I presume) appear next to the 4 and the FD-217. Those initials look like Lei or maybe it’s a Lu with a dot over the u. It’s hard to tell. Guess who else has one of those Lei/Lu-dot things near his 10? Ron. This is the first time I’ve ever seen another one of those marks other than Ron’s.
Page one of Ron’s FBI docs — note the Lei/Lu with a dot that seems to match the redacted doc above
I have a seventh goodie that I was planning on sharing with you, but I’m seeking someone’s OK first. So, stay tuned. I’ll post it separately as soon as I’m able.
I guess that’ll do it for now. Happy Valentine’s Day, everyone!
**************************
2-15-2025
ADDENDUM:
You guys? I believe I’ve found another FBI document that has FD-217 written near the upper-corner number, which is an 8. This is an important one. The document’s subject is Marina Oswald and it’s dated July 25, 1962. That’s one month after she’d arrived in the United States with Lee and their daughter. It’s not perfectly written. The F appears to be backwards, or maybe it’s written in cursive. The left arm of the D is invisible except for a dot, and the 2 has been cut off as well. But I’m seeing FD217…are you?
Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available. The letters and numbers are difficult to make out, but I believe there’s an F (backwards or cursive), a capital D, and a 17 at the end. I believe the smudgy mark that looks like an equal sign is a 2 that’s been cut off.
Here it is blown up. See the dot in the left arm of where a capital D would be? Also, I think the two parallel horizontal lines are part of a 2 that’s been cut off.
Before we get into my next post, I’d like to say a little something about the election we recently endured:
If you know anything about me, you probably know how I’m feeling right about now. I haven’t exactly been keeping my beliefs hidden on some of the key issues over the years:
On Hitler and Nazis/fascists and the people who wish to emulate them? They make me sick. They’re the most morally repugnant and spiritually bankrupt people on the planet.
On LGBTQIA+ rights? 100% for. I believe sexual orientation has a genetic component, and I also think that people should just mind their own business and let everyone live their lives.
On science and medicine? I have the highest regard for scientists and medical professionals. During Covid, I advocated for masking and, when the vaccine was available, getting one.
Here’s what I personally plan to do to make it through the next four years: I will continue to seek the truth about Ron Tammen, which will include submitting lots of new FOIA requests and fighting the good fight in whatever form it takes. I will continue to trust my eyes and my ears when conducting my research, even if someone in a position of authority tries to tell me something entirely different. During my off hours, I will continue to volunteer at the local food bank and clothing room to help people who are struggling, be they Americans by birth or, if the words on the Statue of Liberty still have any meaning at all, immigrants and refugees. I will treat the people and pets I encounter from day to day with kindness and respect. I will call out racism, fascism, antisemitism, and misogyny whenever and wherever they rear their despicable heads, and, as an added bonus, I won’t be taking any crap from bullies and narcissists. And finally, because I’m footing the bill, if someone should ever attempt to submit a comment that runs even the slightest bit counter to the principles I’ve described above, they will be granted exactly 0.00 column inches on this blog site. Their views are not welcome here. Everyone clear on that? OK, moving on. I won’t be taking questions.
The number in the top right corner
As you know, I’ve been spending a lot of time trying to figure out the meaning behind the marks on Ron’s FBI documents, and, thankfully, all those hours have paid off. First and foremost, we’ve learned that Ron had been on the FBI’s Security Index, which not only tells us that the FBI and DOJ knew he was still alive (there was no need to put him on the Security Index if he was dead), but they were keeping close tabs on him because they thought he was either A) dangerous or B) a threat to national security. When I first made that discovery, it became my go-to talking point whenever someone asked me how my research was coming along. It’s kind of like when my nephew at the age of three or four had just seen The Empire Strikes Back and felt the need to tell everyone in his universe the most jaw-dropping revelation of the film. (He was too young to understand the importance of spoiler alerts.) But make no mistake: in this girl’s opinion, the finding that Ron Tammen was on the FBI’s Security Index is tantamount to learning that (spoiler alert!) Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father. Strike that. It’s way bigger because it’s true.
One mark that’s taking me a little longer to figure out is the number that appears near the top righthand corner of ten of Ron’s documents, always hovering near the letters Hac. Today we’re going to discuss that number and a few other people that have one, including a person who is well-known in JFK circles. This is a fitting topic for today because this is also the 61st anniversary of the day that’s etched on every Boomer’s brain. It’s the day when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated while riding on the back of a black Lincoln Continental convertible waving to onlookers in downtown Dallas.
The number we’ll be discussing is 10.
Click on image for a closer view
To begin with, the FBI guys of yore were incredibly prescient for choosing to jot down the seemingly more sensitive marks by hand as opposed to giving them their own stamp. While I’ve found that Google and other search engines recognize the letters and numbers on FBI stamps, they don’t pick up on handwritten scribbles. As a result, I’ve had to conduct assorted searches regarding various iterations of related topics and read through the results page by page until I’ve found whatever scribble I’m looking for that day, be it a “Hac” or a “Ph” or an “lf “or a “see index” and now, a 10.
Well, I have good news. Not only have I found several 10s, but I’ve found some 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and so on up to 10 and even an 11 and possibly a 15. Although I’m still not sure about what each number means, I do have some thoughts regarding their overall significance and who may have assigned the numbers.
The number that got me started on my learning curve was 8, which had been assigned to none other than Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina. Similar to the placement of Ron’s 10, the Oswalds’ 8 usually appears in the upper right corner of their respective documents. Sometimes the 8 appears alone, like Ron’s 10, while other times it appears with a dash and a 1 (e.g., 8-1). And although I haven’t seen this with the Oswald documents, other people’s 8s were sometimes followed only with a dash (e.g., 8-).
Here are some examples of Lee and Marina Oswald’s 8s:
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
The document that seems to shed the most light is dated 9/12/61. Someone from the State Department’s Division of Security was seeking information about Marina Oswald from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. The Oswalds were still living in Minsk at that point; they didn’t return to the U.S. until June 1962.
Click on image for a closer view
About midway down the page, we see that the office seeking the information was the Visa Office. To the right of that box is another box that seeks to know “REASON FOR REQUEST OR TYPE OF PROGRAM” under which is typed in all caps “VISA SECURITY CASE.” And directly above those words, someone has handwritten the letters “Ci” and the number 8-1.
Ostensibly, it appears that the 8-1 has something to do with visas and any security-related issues that pertain to obtaining one. Otherwise, why would someone have made those notes inside the box? Judging by the fact that Marina was Russian, I think it’s safe to presume that the FBI and State Department were on high alert about her, so the 8-1 is likely a red flag.
As for what the Ci means, I’ve come up with a couple possibilities. I wonder if it either refers to the CIA , shortened to Ci, or perhaps counterintelligence, which was part of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division back then. The FBI file number for this case begins with the number 105, which is the classification for foreign counterintelligence, so that tracks. The CIA was heavily involved with the visa-granting procedure too, and, like the FBI, it was often the recipient of requests for security information from the State Department. Could it be that the CIA assigned the numbers based on some sort of code or scale, and then communicated those numbers to the FBI, State Department, etc., when the agencies were in need of their input? That way, the CIA wouldn’t have to share everything that they knew about someone—they could distill their intel down to a number that signifies the person’s degree of risk, kind of like how the National Hurricane Center categorizes hurricanes. Another possibility is that the State Department sought the security information from the other agencies and they themselves assigned the numbers. I’ve noticed that the State Department uses hyphens a lot in their recordkeeping.
To err on the side of caution, I think we can state for now that Marina’s 8-1 was indeed a red flag, and may have communicated sensitive information to the State Department’s Visa Office. I think we can also conclude that 8-1 pertains to national security, since that was one of the main purposes for the State Department’s Security Division. Also, if a person’s FBI document has a number in the righthand corner, I think we can presume that they were being investigated by the FBI plus at least one other federal agency, such as the CIA or State Department, since I don’t think the number was assigned by the FBI. Despite those inferences, we also know that Marina was granted the visa, because Lee was permitted to return home in June 1962, accompanied by Marina and their new baby. As concerned as everyone seemed to be, the State Department eventually gave the OK.
It bears mentioning that, from what I’ve ascertained, the Oswald documents were given the 8s and 8-1s only if they were dated before November 24, 1963, the date when Jack Ruby assassinated Lee Oswald on national television. Like the FBI’s Security Index, it appears those 8s were only good while Oswald was alive. After he was killed, the info that the 8s contained was no longer relevant.
I’m posting three other documents with an 8 or an 8- or an 8-1 on them. One is about Thomas Peasner, who you may recall I wrote about on this website. The document is dated around the time that he’d been interviewed by military intelligence about his ostensible communist leanings. The other documents concern people tied to Cuba, including the CIA’s attempts to send “hoodlums” to assassinate Fidel Castro.
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
In the FBI’s eyes, Ron was a 10. So was Frank Sturgis.
Here’s why I feel the need to talk to you today. We already know that Ron has been linked by stamps and scribbles to James W. McCord, one of the Watergate burglars, and a former operative for the CIA and Project Artichoke. Now we have a tie to Frank Sturgis, another of the Watergate burglars, who also has been linked to the CIA. Sturgis was frequently referred to as a soldier of fortune, and in the late 1950s and early 1960s, he inserted himself into some high-level antics between the United States and Cuba, including, it’s believed, the Bay of Pigs. In short, Frank was a pill. He also went by the name Frank Fiorini.
Credit: Frank A. Sturgis; Nixon Presidential Library
Here’s the document I’ve found in which Frank is given a 10-1.
Click on image for a closer view
Interestingly, Frank was given a 4-1 on another document, which matches the 4-1s that can be found on Hank Greenspun’s documents describing an alleged burglary plot in Greenspun’s Las Vegas Sun office in early 1972. As you probably recall, Hank Greenspun and Ron Tammen have similar Hac notations on their FBI records.
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
In addition, another document of Frank Sturgis’ has a 1- beneath the 4-. I’ve found another 1- on a document describing five people found in Phillip Seib’s office at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., the night of the Watergate burglary. Frank Sturgis was one of those people. That document also appears to have a Hac written at the top, though the word is illegible and looks like it has a couple extra letters. I have a theory on what it says, but for now, you have to admit, the H looks similar to the Hacs on Ron’s and Hank Greenspun’s records.
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
According to researchers Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield, Frank Sturgis was one of three so-called “tramps” who were pulled by Dallas police from a railroad boxcar shortly after Kennedy’s shooting. They were then marched across the square to the Criminal Courts Building as cameras flashed. The authors assert that E. Howard Hunt and someone who went by the name of Dan Carswell were the other two tramps.
But that’s not all.
Two other documents that carry the elusive number 10 are as follows:
An assassination plot in April 1969 against Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, father to the current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau— The 10 is preceded by a 7 and 4. The threat was made by way of several phone calls from someone in Oklahoma City. (The records are heavily redacted, so it’s tough to tell what actually happened.) I don’t believe it ever made the newspapers.
An investigation into the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and whether the organization was being influenced by communists—Martin Luther King, Jr., was the organization’s president from its start in 1957 until his assassination in 1968.
Click on image for a closer viewClick on image for a closer view
Look, I realize there are discrepancies, and I also know that some very above-board people were saddled with a number in the upper righthand corners of their FBI docs. But I do know similarities when I see them, and it does appear that Ron was being tied to some famous names having to do with Watergate and, OK, I’ll say it, the assassination of JFK and other assassination plots. And so I have to ask: when do these similarities to Ron’s documents become totally predictable and not at all surprising?
