logo
How a pair of Palos Verdes altar boys grew up to be Soviet spies

How a pair of Palos Verdes altar boys grew up to be Soviet spies

Yahoo29-05-2025

Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee were childhood friends, altar boys raised in the Catholic pews and prosperous suburbs of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
By the mid-1970s, Boyce was angry about the Vietnam War and Watergate. He was a liberal, a stoner and a lover of falcons. Lee, a doctor's adopted son, was a cocaine and heroin pusher who was spiraling into addiction.
How they became spies for the Soviet Union is a story emblematic of 1970s Southern California, where the state's massive Cold War aerospace industry collided with its youthful anti-establishment currents.
Everyone agrees it should never have been possible.
In the summer of 1974, Boyce, a bright but disaffected 21-year-old college dropout, got a job as a clerk at the TRW Defense and Space Systems complex in Redondo Beach. He won entree through the old-boys network: His father, who ran security for an aircraft contractor and was once an FBI agent, had called in a favor.
Boyce made $140 a week at the defense plant and held down a second job tending bar. TRW investigators had performed only a perfunctory background check. They skipped his peers, who might have revealed his links to the drug culture and to Lee, who already had multiple drug busts and a serious cocaine habit — the white powder that would inspire his nickname.
In "The Falcon and the Snowman," Robert Lindsey's account of the case, the author describes Boyce beginning the day by popping amphetamines and winding down after a shift puffing a joint in the TRW parking lot. Falconry was his biggest passion. "Flying a falcon in exactly the same way that men had done centuries before Christ transplanted Chris into their time," Lindsey wrote.
Boyce impressed his bosses and was soon cleared to enter the steel-doored fortress called the "black vault," a classified sanctum where he was exposed to sensitive CIA communications pertaining to America's network of espionage satellites. The satellites eavesdropped on Russian missiles and defense installations. Among the goals was to thwart a surprise nuclear attack.
Reading CIA communiques, Boyce didn't like what he saw. Among its other sins, he decided, the U.S. government was deceiving its Australian allies by hiding satellite intelligence it had promised to share and meddling in the country's elections.
"I just was in total disagreement with the whole direction of Western society," Boyce told The Times many years later. He attributed his espionage opportunity to "synchronicity," explaining: "How many kids can get a summer job working in an encrypted communications vault?"
Soon he made his life's "biggest, dumbest decision." He told his buddy Lee they might sell government secrets to the Soviets. Lee talked his way into the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, where Russians fed him caviar and bought classified documents with the toast, "To peace."
Lee's KGB handlers devised protocols. When he wanted to meet, he would tape an X to lampposts at designated intersections around Mexico City.
For more than a year, thousands of classified documents flowed from the TRW complex to the Soviets, with Boyce sometimes smuggling them out in potted plants. In exchange, he and Lee received an estimated $70,000.
At parties, Lee showed off his miniature Minox camera and bragged that he was engaged in spycraft. In January 1977, desperate for money to finance a heroin deal, he flouted KGB instructions and appeared unannounced outside the Soviet Embassy. Mexican police thought he looked suspicious and arrested him.
He held an envelope with filmstrips documenting a U.S. satellite project called Pyramider. Under questioning, Lee revealed the name of his co-conspirator and childhood friend, who soon was also under arrest. Boyce had just returned from a hawk-trapping trip in the mountains.
The espionage trials of the two men presented special challenges for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. The Carter administration was ready to pull the plug on the case if it meant airing too many secrets, but a strategy was devised: Prosecutors would focus on the Pyramider documents, which involved a system that never actually got off the ground.
Joel Levine, one of the assistant U.S. attorneys who prosecuted Boyce and Lee, said only a fraction of what they sold to the Soviets ever came out at trial.
"I was told these other projects should not be revealed. It's too costly to our government, and you can't base a prosecution on them either in whole or in part," Levine said in a recent interview. "You just gotta stay away from it."
For federal prosecutors in L.A., hanging over the case was the memory of a recent humiliation: the collapse of the Pentagon Papers trial, as a result of the Nixon administration's attempt to bribe the presiding judge with a job. It had caught prosecutors by surprise.
"We were afraid it would ruin our reputation forever if something like that were to happen," Levine said. "So we made it very, very clear right from the get-go that if we smelled something like that was afoot, we would walk into court and have the case dismissed on our own."
The defendants had sharply different motives. Lee was in it for the money, Richard Stilz, one of the prosecutors, said in a recent interview. But "Boyce was totally ideology. He wanted to damage the United States government," Stilz said. "He just hated this country, period."
The defendants got separate trials. A rift that had been growing between them deepened with their mutually hostile defenses. Lee's defense: Boyce had led him to believe he was working for the CIA, feeding misinformation to the Russians. Jurors convicted Lee of espionage, nonetheless, and a judge gave him a life term.
Boyce's defense: Lee had blackmailed him into espionage by threatening to expose a letter he had written, while stoned on hashish, alleging secret knowledge of CIA malfeasance. Jurors convicted Boyce as well, and a judge gave him 40 years.
In January 1980, at a federal prison in Lompoc, Boyce hid in a drainpipe and sprinted to freedom over a fence. He was on the run for 19 months. He robbed banks in the Pacific Northwest until federal agents caught him outside a burger joint in Washington state.
He was convicted of bank robbery and got 28 more years. In 1985, the same year a popular film adaptation of "The Falcon and the Snowman" was released, Boyce testified on Capitol Hill about the despair attending a life of espionage.
"There was no thrill," he said. "There was only depression, and a hopeless enslavement to an inhuman, uncaring foreign bureaucracy.... No American who has gone to the KGB has not come to regret it."
He spoke of how easily he had been allowed to access classified material at TRW. "Security was a joke," he said, describing regular Bacardi-fueled parties in the black vault. "We used the code destruction blender for making banana daiquiris and mai tais."
Cait Mills was working as a paralegal in San Diego when she read the Lindsey book and became fascinated by the case. She thought Lee had been unfairly maligned, and she spent the next two decades fighting to win him parole.
She got letters of support from the prosecutors and the sentencing judge attesting that Lee had made strides toward rehabilitation. He had taken classes in prison and become a dental technician. He won parole in 1998.
She turned her attention to freeing Boyce, with whom she fell in love. She wrote to the Russians and asked how much value there had been in the stolen TRW documents and received a fax claiming it was useless. He got out in 2002, and they married. They later divorced but remain close. Both live in central Oregon.
Stilz maintains the damage to America was "enormous."
"In a murder case, you have one victim and a person dies," Stilz said. "In an espionage case, the whole country is a victim. We were so far advanced over the Russians in spy satellite technology. They leveled the playing field. That's probably the most important point."
He gives no credence to the Russian government's claim that it derived no value from the secret information. "Of course they'd say that," Stilz said. "What do you think they'd say? 'Oh yeah, it allowed us to catch up with the United States in terms of spying.' They're not gonna say that."
Cait Mills Boyce said that Boyce and Lee, childhood best friends, no longer speak, and that the silence between them wounds Boyce.
"He said, 'I love that man; I always loved him. He was my best friend.' It hurt him so badly."
She said Boyce, now in his 70s, lives a solitary life and immerses himself in the world of falconry. "His entire life, and I kid you not, is falconry," she said. "He will die with a falcon on his arm."
Part of what pushed him into the world of espionage, she thinks, was the challenge. "I think his uncommon smarts led him down a whimsical path that ended up being a disastrous path, not just for him but for everybody involved," she said.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Set to Square Off With New German Chancellor Merz on Trade, Ukraine
Trump Set to Square Off With New German Chancellor Merz on Trade, Ukraine

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Trump Set to Square Off With New German Chancellor Merz on Trade, Ukraine

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump will meet Thursday with new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for the first time since Merz swept into power vowing to distance Germany from the United States. The centrist conservative German leader won an election in February with a promise to establish "independence" from Washington, signaling a potential break between the U.S. and one of its most important European allies. "Merz will be trying to create a positive working relationship, but he probably won't just come into the Oval Office and endorse Donald Trump's view of the world," said Jeff Rathke, the president of the American-German Institute, a think tank in Washington. The White House meeting between Trump and Merz will take place amid a backdrop of tensions between the U.S. and Europe over issues ranging from free speech to trade to Russia's war in Ukraine. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz takes part in the Bundestag's topical hour on transatlantic relations. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz takes part in the Bundestag's topical hour on transatlantic relations. Kay Nietfeld/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images Berlin and Washington have maintained a close relationship for decades, with Germany — the largest economy in Europe — serving as a key ally on economic and national security issues. Former President Joe Biden and Merz's predecessor, Olaf Scholz, maintained close ties even as they debated how to best aid Ukraine in its fight with Russia. But Merz signaled a new approach after winning the February election and forming a coalition government with his center-right Christian Democratic Union party and Scholz's center-left Social Democrats. Merz told the U.S. not to meddle in German domestic politics after Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized Germany's intelligence agency for labeling the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) group a "right-wing extremist organization." Billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk had sparked an uproar in Germany by backing the AfD last year. "That is our business. We decide that, not the American government," Merz told reporters after he was sworn in last month. The episode followed Merz's election night promise to upend the transatlantic partnership. "My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.A," Merz said at the time. "For Germany the partnership with the U.S. dating back to the Cold War has been a cornerstone of its policy," said Garret Martin, an expert on transatlantic relations at American University. "Real independence, depending on how you define it, would be a major shift." Merz's approach will be tested on issues like aiding Ukraine in the war with Russia. Trump is eager to end the conflict, but he has been far more critical of Ukraine than Russia since returning to the White House. More recently, the president's tone has shifted somewhat, marked by social media posts in which Trump wondered aloud "what the hell happened" to Vladimir Putin, who had gone "absolutely crazy." It's also unclear if Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress will approve more military aid for Ukraine once the current tranche of funding runs out later this year. From left, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk speak at the Presidential Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday May... From left, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk speak at the Presidential Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday May 10, 2025. More Stefan Rousseau/Pool Photo via AP In contrast, Germany and other EU nations have promised to continue aiding Ukraine even without a negotiated peace in sight. Germany is the third-largest provider of aid to Ukraine, trailing only the U.S. and European Union as a whole. Merz has also joined other foreign leaders in criticizing Trump's trade war, a topic that will be front and center when the leaders meet at the White House. The administration is negotiating tariff deals with individual countries as well as the EU. The German leader would be wise to avoid provoking Trump on tariffs, said Emily Kilcrease, the director of the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. "Germany and Europe can work with the U.S. to address some of the concerns that [Trump] has raised," Kilcrease said. There are other areas where it may be easier for Trump and Merz to find common ground. Earlier this year Germany changed its debt rules to ramp up defense spending, an initiative backed by Merz that was passed before he took office. Trump has long urged NATO members to meet their defense spending obligations and may welcome Merz's efforts to boost Germany's defense industry. Under Merz, Germany has also taken steps to toughen its immigration system to reduce the number of asylum-seekers entering the country. The changes have been challenged in court, like many of Trump's own immigration policies in the U.S. "Immigration is an area where I imagine Merz would try to placate and court Trump," Martin said. FILE - Vice President JD Vance, right, speaks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, as President Donald Trump listens in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. FILE - Vice President JD Vance, right, speaks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, as President Donald Trump listens in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. Mystyslav Chernov/AP The two leaders are scheduled to attend a lunch together Thursday and also meet separately with a small group of advisers. Analysts said not to expect the public fireworks that marked Trump's meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa. "Merz is not coming here to pick a fight," Rathke said. Germany understands "there are major tectonic shifts underway on the international scene, but they also want to preserve the transatlantic relationship to the extent they can."

Nato set to approve new military purchases as part of a defence spending hike
Nato set to approve new military purchases as part of a defence spending hike

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Nato set to approve new military purchases as part of a defence spending hike

Nato defence ministers are set to approve purchasing targets for stocking up on weapons and military equipment to better defend Europe, the Arctic and the North Atlantic, as part of a US push to ramp up security spending. The 'capability targets' lay out goals for each of the 32 nations to purchase priority equipment such as air defence systems, long-range missiles, artillery, ammunition, drones and 'strategic enablers' such as air-to-air refuelling, heavy air transport and logistics. Each nation's plan is classified, so details are scarce. 'Today we decide on the capability targets. From there, we will assess the gaps we have, not only to be able to defend ourselves today, but also three, five, seven years from now,' Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte said. 'All these investments have to be financed,' he told reporters before chairing the meeting at Nato's Brussels headquarters. US President Donald Trump and his Nato counterparts will meet on June 24-25 to agree to new defence investment goals. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said that 'to be an alliance, you've got to be more than flags. You got to be more than conferences. You need to keep combat ready capabilities'. Spurred on by their own security concerns, European allies and Canada have already been ramping up military spending, including arms and ammunition purchases, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. At the same time, some allies balk at US demands to invest 5% of their gross domestic product in defence – 3.5% on core military spending and 1.5% on the roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports needed to deploy armies more quickly – when they have already struggled to grow their budgets to 2% of GDP. The new targets are assigned by Nato based on a blueprint agreed upon in 2023 – the military organisation's biggest planning shake-up since the Cold War — to defend its territory from an attack by Russia or another major adversary. Under those plans, Nato would aim to have up to 300,000 troops ready to move to its eastern flank within 30 days, although experts suggest the allies would struggle to muster those kinds of numbers. The member countries are assigned roles in defending Nato territory across three major zones – the high north and Atlantic area, a zone north of the Alps, and another in southern Europe. Nato planners believe that the targets must be met within five to 10 years, given the speed at which Russia is building its armed forces now, and which would accelerate were any peace agreement reached to end its war on Ukraine. Some fear Russia might be ready to strike at a Nato country even sooner, especially if Western sanctions are eased and Europe has not prepared. 'Are we going to gather here again and say 'OK, we failed a bit', and then maybe we start learning Russian?' Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovile Sakaliene said. Swedish Defence Minister Pal Jonson also warned that while Russia is bogged down in Ukraine right now, things could quickly change. 'We also know after an armistice or a peace agreement, of course, Russia is going to allocate more forces closer to our vicinity. Therefore, it's extremely important that the alliance use these couple of years now when Russia is still limited by its force posture in and around Ukraine,' Mr Jonson said. If the targets are respected, the member countries will need to spend at least 3% of GDP on defence. Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said his country calculates in the medium term that 'we should spend 3.5% at least on defence, which in the Netherlands means an additional 16 to 19 billion euro (£13-16 billion) addition to our current budget.' The Netherlands is likely to buy more tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and long-range missile systems, including US-made Patriots that can target aircraft, cruise missiles and shorter-range ballistic missiles.

The man who orchestrated a British medical scandal
The man who orchestrated a British medical scandal

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

The man who orchestrated a British medical scandal

Joanne Briggs's debut, The Scientist Who Wasn't There, is an astonishingly original memoir about truth, identity and the ethics of science. It's thrilling, unsettling – and really rather odd. Winner of the inaugural Bridport Prize for Memoir in 2023, the award that cinched the book's publication, it explores the enigmatic – if not completely bizarre – life of Briggs's father, Professor Michael Briggs, a man whose illustrious, globe-trotting scientific career concealed a vast labyrinth of deception. Born in Manchester, Professor Briggs became a research scientist who worked at NASA, an advisor to the World Health Organisation, and a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry. On paper, his was a classic rags-to-riches story: he was a self-made, charismatic visionary who surfed the post-war technology boom. But in 1986, his career imploded when a Sunday Times exposé linked him to the hormone pregnancy test Primodos, which worked by triggering menstruation in non-pregnant women, and was alleged to have caused serious birth defects. It seemed Professor Briggs had been faking results. Things get stranger. Professor Briggs not only appears to have forged his qualifications, laundered research funds and bullied sceptical colleagues and anyone who doubted him – he may also have been a spy. He appears to have worked for the British government, possibly connected to Cold War intelligence gathering; may have been involved in espionage in East Berlin, and then somehow got caught up in the making of Stanley Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey. His death abroad, aged 51, was so sudden that Briggs speculates that there may have been some kind of cover-up. What begins, then, as a daughter's ostensibly simple search for the truth about her absent father, soon becomes a forensic and yet also fantastical investigation – part legal inquiry, part philosophical meditation. A trained lawyer, Briggs approaches the evidence as a prosecutor would: poring over professional records, interviewing colleagues and meeting with the victims of her father's lies and misconduct. Primodos involved high doses of synthetic hormones and though the causal link has never been confirmed, women who used it reported children with defects such as spina bifida, limb abnormalities, and heart issues. Briggs reveals that her father manipulated or suppressed data about these effects while being professionally involved with the pharmaceutical company producing it. But the book is also wildly surreal: Briggs imagines conversations with her father in which they debate the boundaries between science and science fiction, and the book eventually resolves into musings and reverie. The overall effect, frankly, is dizzying – pleasantly so. Briggs often hints that she herself doesn't know the difference between fact and fantasy; in a rather cryptic, ambivalent author's note, she writes: 'My memory of the past is as much made up of dreams, impressions, false beliefs, fantasies, feelings and notions as it is of facts [...] which I hope makes my memoir authentic. But is that a true story? Well, yes, it is to me.' True or not, the book defies neat categorisation. It's certainly a book about a very peculiar, unsavoury man, but it's also a vivid depiction of a world in which ambition and imagination collide, with devastating human consequences. Briggs does, at various points, express deep moral ambivalence about writing the book: she wrestles with the ethics of exposing her father's legacy, particularly given the trauma already borne by his victims. She describes a childhood overshadowed by confusion, secrecy and emotional neglect, but also moments of awe and admiration for her father. Their relationship, as reconstructed here, was fraught and complex – marked more by absence than presence, but never entirely devoid of connection or longing. The Scientist Who Wasn't There is not only an indictment of one man's lies and deceit and his descent into moral oblivion, therefore, but a study of duplicity; personal, institutional, even national and international. Briggs slowly assembles a counterbalanced, complex kind of truth, one that acknowledges the impossibility of total objectivity but which nonetheless insists on the value of the attempt. 'He only ever travelled in one direction,' Briggs writes of her father. 'Forwards, away from the smoke of burning bridges.' She, in contrast, with admirable insight and considerable nerve, turns back – to sift through the still smouldering ruins. The Scientist Who Wasn't There is published by Ithaka at £20. To order your copy for £16.99, call 0330 173 0523 or visit Telegraph Books Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store