|
STEPHEN M. ST. JOHN
POST OFFICE BOX 449
ROCKEFELLER CENTER
NEW YORK, NY 10185
Tel/Fax: 212 534 5024
Mobile: 917 519 2905
E-Mail: metatron.metatron@verizon.net
26 May 2003 Mr. Arthur
Schlesinger 455
East 51st Street
New York, NY 10022-6474
Dear
Mr. Schlesinger,
I write to take
up once again the matter of former Central Intelligence Agency Chief of Counter-Intelligence James Jesus Angleton's possible
use of the identity of Thomas Stearns Eliot as a persona or "legend" for deep-cover intelligence missions.
Two
recent events seem to confirm or at least point in this direction; namely, the publication of two books, A Look over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency,
by Richard McGarrah
Helms (New York: Random House, April 2003) and The Fifty Year Wound: How America's Cold War Victory Shapes Our World by Derek Leebaert (Boston: Little
Brown, March 2002; paperbound: Boston: Back Bay Books, May 2003).
Of Angleton Helms wrote: "As a young man, Jim was bone thin, gaunt, and aggressively intellectual in aspect. His not entirely coincidental resemblance to T. S. Eliot was
intensified by a European
wardrobe, studious manner, heavy glasses, and lifelong interest in poetry."(p. 153) And Leebaert wrote: "Tall and thin, he looked like an impeccably tailored T. S.
Eliot." (p. 429)
Helms is clearly pushing to the extreme by laying open the tantalizing suggestion that this is a case going beyond mere resemblance of two individuals; whereas Leebaert,
of Hunts of Texas
oil provenance, is positioning himself as one with inside knowledge yet safe behind a bland and pointless statement in the event the story behind the resemblance goes
out of control. We can
safely assume that Helms, in his twilight years when he wrote this posthumously published memoir, was not motivated to go out on a limb like this for the sake of sales or
attention. Leebaert,
on the other hand, is straddling the fence like a fox with nose in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Other than
for your kind reply of 18 January 2002 ("I like too
the Eliot/Angleton 'separated at birth' conceit") to my 9 December 2001 note broaching this subject with you (after a
chance meeting on the 2nd Avenue bus on
3 November 2000 as I was doing
my Census Bureau rounds), these observations of Helms and Leebaert are the only ones that follow along the general lines of what I suggested about Angleton and Eliot -
that they are really one
and the same person - in a major fax campaign initiated by me on
26 March 2001 which targeted all embassies in Washington, all missions to the United Nations in New York, the White House and other Executive Branch offices, Congress, the
media, and private individuals.
I have three blips on my radar screen, so to speak, each with different characteristics! Well, maybe there are four blips.
Inasmuch as these fax messages
suggested that JFK's attempts to end Israel's nuclear weapons program caused his assassination, with Angleton-Eliot lurking in the background, it is well worth
noting that soon thereafter
some startling news came out of Israel which I somehow sense may be connected to my own sudden and unexpected letting the cat out of the bag. On 28 March 2001,
on the third day of my major
fax campaign, the Israeli Defense Ministry dispatched a security detail to arrest on charges of high espionage 75 year old Yitzhak Yaakov, who is regarded as the father
of the Israeli technology
industry and known as "Mr. Security" for his role in developing Israel's nuclear weapons program - a role that surely brought him into frequent contact with Angleton
(maybe even Angleton-Eliot
with his wig on in a London theatre!).
Think about it! Who else could possibly know that Angleton was posing as Eliot? Very few indeed! What exactly did Helms have in mind when he said that the resemblance
between Angleton and
Eliot was "not entirely coincidental"? Can you imagine the consternation in Israel when its mission to the United Nations forwarded my fax? I wonder how the Israeli
security detail broke the
news - my fax - to Yaakov. Then again, the arrest of Yaakov could be sheer coincidence. But what else on earth can explain it? And why has the press in the USA been
so quiet about it?
So how, I am sure you have asked yourself, would this low level bureaucrat know about such things? Princess Diana told me so! How would this low level bureaucrat
come to meet Princess Diana?
Well, I am also the author of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem and for just over two decades now have
sought the patronage of the British royal family. My intermittent letter writing, first to the Queen, then to the Foreign Ministry, then to Lord Caradon (Hugh
Foote), then to Prince
Charles, and then finally to Diana brought me kind acknowledgments but no results to speak of - until one late night when out of the blue and with barely ten minutes notice, I had a private audience with Princess Diana inside
an automobile that she
drove to a designated spot here on the Upper East Side of New York. My heart pounded so hard when I walked to her car that I became concerned about a trick or a trap but
kept going. Once inside
in the passenger seat I calmed down as we began to talk. She had quite obviously read my peace proposal and was deeply interested in it. It was when she discussed
Part VIII, which calls
for a regional solution, from the Nile to the Euphrates, to the problem of weapons of mass destruction, that I brought up JFK's firm stance against Israel's nuclear
weapons program and how
such opposition very likely triggered his assassination. I mentioned the suspects including Angleton and to this she replied "I've heard of him. I've
heard that he would pose as T. S. Eliot
on his visits to London" or words to that effect. In consideration of the brevity of our meeting and the focus on my peace proposal, for which Princess Diana offered
her encouragement
to persist in this endeavor, and for which I was very
deeply thankful, I did not want to press the matter by asking her how she heard that Angleton would pose as T. S. Eliot. I figured that if she wanted to tell me she
would have told me. I
sensed that maybe there would be another, better time when I might ask about her source. Princess Diana also voiced her concern about keeping
our meeting secret
but made no demands. I have kept this matter secret until just before the illegal, immoral and ill-advised invasion of Iraq. In this regard you will
please find attached a flyer that I made and distributed (about 2,000 copies) on the corner of 1st Avenue and 44th Street for about a week right after the invasion began. I totally discombobulated
a British delegation
that had a rendezvous with a van at this corner; they were reading my flyer while waiting inside the van and from time to time looking out at me with expressions of
shocked disbelief! American
diplomats coming out of the mission at the corner of 45th Street looked troubled by my presence but resigned to it because I was within my right. The news
of Diana's death left me quite literally stunned and saddened. I remembered how, when I had learned about her relationship with Dodi Fayyad in the press,
which happened after our
meeting, I thought to myself, this woman means business! She is involving herself in the Middle East to the extent that she is actually going native by marrying an Egyptian.
I imagined her calling
press conferences in Cairo and maybe even Damascus and Beirut and Amman and Jerusalem (who wouldn't go to them?!?), but would always return to the firm belief that
she would work behind the
scenes with heads of state. It seems that none of her biographers uncovered her ambition that I, for one, clearly saw. I think she quietly planned to rise above her
circumstances and act
as she believed a Princess should really act - promoting treaties made of paper, ink, perfume and sound ideas! Even ideas drawn from improbable sources. On 4
September 1997 I went to the British Consulate on Third Avenue where I entered these remarks into one of the many condolence books set out on tables in the lobby: Of all the
royals in the world,
Princess Diana, who embodied the qualities of
beauty, intelligence, human compassion and a very strong sense of noblesse oblige, promised to be the best and most effective advocate of my Eight Part Peace Proposal for
Greater Jerusalem. Now,
much to my sorrow and everlasting regret, her grace and charisma and great potential to help to promote the peace of the brave, and thereby recreate a brave new world,
are lost to this world
forever. Even so, the memory of Diana will always be an inspiration to me and to countless others. In pondering the vicissitudes of this world, and the unfortunate
manner of the princess's
death, it is well to remember that the true throne is founded upon the Rock by a terrible yet merciful God. Requiescat
in pace.
And so it was that years later I began to probe with my fax campaign after satisfying myself that photos of Angleton and Eliot and a few other circumstances all tended to suggest that Diana's remark about them may be true.
Now the published statements
by Helms and Leebaert only add momentum to the idea. Why I am shunned and not given attribution for making this unique and original observation before the international
community with my
fax campaign is easily explained: I tie in the JFK assassination which the powers that be are afraid to hear! In closing,
and still touching on the death of JFK, I have encountered
a JFK assassination researcher on the Internet named Morgenstern. He argues that the body presented for burial was not the body of JFK, but rather the body of
Dallas Police Officer Jefferson
Davis Tippett, who was slain in Dallas within the same hour as JFK. When I first heard about this theory and spoke with Morgenstern years ago by phone, I thought it
was bizarre and crazy.
Now, having gone over the matter again on the Internet, I am willing to have an open mind about it. Among the circumstances cited by Morgenstern in support of his theory
is a quotation attributed
to you when the body was shown. I don't have
the exact words at hand as I write this, but I recall that you were described as upset and said that the body didn't look like JFK at all or words to that effect.
Is this true? Please, have
patience. Even after all these years it is not a pleasant recollection to make. Did you have any doubt at the time that the body you saw in the coffin was that of our
fallen leader, JFK?
I mean, did you have any feeling or sense of doubt regardless of your ability or lack thereof to explain it now or then? Please respond at least
to the point raised in the preceding paragraph.
Of course, any other comments will be most welcome too. And please forgive me if I have gone on too long. Our nation does indeed have a murky past, a shaky
present and a highly
questionable future; I guess you could say I'm just trying to shine a light to see, to know and to understand. Very
truly yours, Stephen M. St. John
|
