Gaeton Fonzi and the Veciana Allegations

[W. Tracy Parnell]

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Please note what TP has done.  Right out of the John McAdams cardsharp page.  I said that Phillips was running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign.  He replies with the above.

To those who can see through the shell game, the evidence of Phillips--along with McCord-- running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign is right in John Newman's book, as are the documents showing that.

This perfectly sets up the reasons for the association and also the meeting at the Southland Center. In fact, one can go as far as saying that some of the flyers Oswald was passing out that summer originated from the 1961 CIA purchase.

That was an assumption on my part and I stand corrected if I mischaracterized what you were saying. However, the fact that the meeting was at Southland is just an assumption on Fonzi's part and not based on anything that Veciana said in the March 1976 interviews, his HSCA testimony or the Dick Russell interview. And Veciana could be expected to remember the Southland building because of its unusual height and he admits this in his book. But he never mentioned the height of the building and only said in the March 2 interview that it was "blue or white." In the March 11 interview, he said it was "blue," and in his HSCA testimony he said it had "blue marble or blue ornaments."  Now, of course, Veciana is making all sorts of claims but I think his early statements are more indicative of the truth in this case.

[George Sawtelle]

Paul

You said paper thin argument. You are being gracious. It's not paper thin, it's zero. He really has no argument.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul

You said paper thin argument. You are being gracious. It's not paper thin, it's zero. He really has no argument.

I'll try and explain this one more time. It isn't even an argument.  Gaeton Fonzi, who wrote the HSCA Volume X section on Veciana stated:

The committee's interest in the relationship between Antonio Veciana and Maurice Bishop is of course predicated on Veciana's contention that he saw Bishop with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas a few months before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

[Paul Brancato]

2 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I'll try and explain this one more time. It isn't even an argument.  Gaeton Fonzi, who wrote the HSCA Volume X section on Veciana stated:

The committee's interest in the relationship between Antonio Veciana and Maurice Bishop is of course predicated on Veciana's contention that he saw Bishop with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas a few months before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Thanks George - grace is not usually my strong point.

Mr. Parnell - I don't think you can read Fonzi's statement and assume that the only interest He has in Phillips is whether or not he was seen by Veciana with Oswald. That is not what he says - clearly. 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I have listened to the Fonzi interview with Specter. I can see two plausible reasons for Specter's poor answering of Fonzi's questions. Firstly Specter may have failed to remember the salient arguments. This is highly unlikely, anyone who puts forward a contentious suggestion is sensitive to its weaknesses and rehearses the defence. Secondly Specter may have genuinely no coherent answers to challenges of the SBT.

It certainly seems plausible that an objective view could be formed by Fonzi , that the SBT was unlikely. Its a tiny step to then becoming a conspiracy believer. When Fonzi describes meeting Specter for the last time, and suggests Specter may be looking for absolution, I suppose you could make the case he fabricated the meeting's contents. That would be a fairly incredible attack on Fonzi.

[Paul Trejo]

Oh, there was a conspiracy all right -- and the placement of holes in JFK's clothing is an important proof that the JFK throat wound could never have been the result of that shot in JFK's back.

Let's stick to the thread purpose -- however.   I think of Gaeton Fonzi's work with Silvia Odio as some of the best work in JFK research in the past 50 years.

However -- on the topic of Antonio Veciana meeting David Atlee Phillips and Lee Harvey Oswald briefly in Dallas in September 1963 -- I agree with Tracy that Gaeton Fonzi seems to have lost his sense of objectivity, and was grasping for a CIA-did-it CT.

The more obvious interpretation -- that Phillips, Oswald and Veciana were all working on a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro -- never even occurs to Gaeton Fonzi.  Yet Veciana was obsessed with killing Fidel -- and that was the single purpose of his group Alpha 66., and why Veciana knew Phillips (as Maurice Bishop) in the first place.   Phillips was well known for his plots to kill Fidel Castro.

IMHO, David Atlee Phillip's manuscript, The AMLASH LEGACY (1988) was his vehicle to air his guilty conscience about his very real connection with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 -- in the context of a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[George Sawtelle]

Paul

Veciana says Oswald didn't stay long when Veciana walked up to Phillips and Oswald. Phillips didn't introduce Veciana to Oswald. It's possible Phillips wanted Veciana and Oswald to work together on an operation at a future date.

Anything Fonzi may have said about the purpose of the Veciana/Oswald meeting would have been speculative (obvious interpretation?????). Phillips didn't provide the reason for the meeting and Veciana did not ask. 

Criticizing Fonzi for not speculating doesn't make sense.

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul

Veciana says Oswald didn't stay long when Veciana walked up to Phillips and Oswald. Phillips didn't introduce Veciana to Oswald. It's possible Phillips wanted Veciana and Oswald to work together on an operation at a future date.

Anything Fonzi may have said about the purpose of the Veciana/Oswald meeting would have been speculative (obvious interpretation?????). Phillips didn't provide the reason for the meeting and Veciana did not ask. 

Criticizing Fonzi for not speculating doesn't make sense.

George,

I agree with everything that you said there except the final sentence.

Fonzi wasn't merely speculating calmly, he was pushing for a CIA-did-it CT and kept going back to it without further evidence.  Again and again.

Fonzi fell for the CIA-did-it CT nonsense, so he had no choice but to start making stuff up.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[George Sawtelle]

Paul

You said Fonzi should have mentioned assassination of Castro as the reason for the Veciana sighting of Oswald with Phillips.

I'm talking about speculating on that meeting only.

As far as Fonzi is concerned the evidence he uncovered led him to his CIA did it theory ...

(1) Veciana told Fonzi he saw Oswald with Phillips

(2) The CIA failed to mention Veciana attack on Cuba but disclosed their attacks on Cuba with the mafia to the Church committee. Paul Hoch speculated that the CIA failed to mention the Veciana attack because the CIA did not want to disclose their relationship with Veciana which convinced Fonzi that the Veciana operation against Cuba was sanctioned and financed by the CIA.

In the nutshell, that is basically why Fonzi started on the CIA did it theory.

[Paul Trejo]

On 4/17/2017 at 9:37 AM, George Sawtelle said:

Paul

You said Fonzi should have mentioned assassination of Castro as the reason for the Veciana sighting of Oswald with Phillips.

I'm talking about speculating on that meeting only.

As far as Fonzi is concerned the evidence he uncovered led him to his CIA did it theory ...

(1) Veciana told Fonzi he saw Oswald with Phillips

(2) The CIA failed to mention Veciana attack on Cuba but disclosed their attacks on Cuba with the mafia to the Church committee. Paul Hoch speculated that the CIA failed to mention the Veciana attack because the CIA did not want to disclose their relationship with Veciana which convinced Fonzi that the Veciana operation against Cuba was sanctioned and financed by the CIA.

In the nutshell, that is basically why Fonzi started on the CIA did it theory.

George,

Yes, Fonzi should have mentioned the assassination of Castro as the reason for the Veciana sighting of Oswald with Phillips.

Fonzi did arrive at a CIA-did-it theory, but he did not show exactly *how* this occurred -- he just suspected it -- and then like a bulldog he would not let go of that theory.  But he never supplied the material evidence.

He should have admitted -- after several years -- that failing to obtain evidence was the best reason to seek a different CT.

So, by the numbers:

(1) Veciana told Fonzi he saw Oswald with Phillips.  I take this to be a historical fact.  

The sighting occurred in September 1963 -- in Dallas -- probably around the time that Loran Hall and Larry Howard took Oswald around to see Silvia Odio (e.g. 11/24/1963)

(2) The CIA failed to mention Veciana's Alpha 66 attacks on Cuba, but did admit that they used the Mafia to attack Cuba (to the Church Committee).  

This, to me, only means that the CIA was largely a WASP organization, and Latinos were second class citizens at best, and so there was little or no difference between Alpha 66 and the Mafia -- as far as the CIA  rank and file were concerned.

(3) Some say that the CIA concealed the Alpha 66 attacks as CIA secrets.  This fact, you say, convinced Gaeton Fonzi that the Alpha 66 was sanctioned and financed by the CIA.

IMHO, you're absolutely correct about that, yet my point is that this has nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

Therefore, IMHO, there was nothing solid that Fonzi had with which to pursue a CIA-did-it CT.  It was only his gut feeling; and that's not good enough.

Veciana's Alpha 66 was under contract to the CIA.  That's true.  HOWEVER --  it's ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that just because Veciana saw Oswald with DAP in Dallas in September 1963, that the CIA "must have" killed JFK.  

It skips several levels of logic, and evades a logical chain of evidence. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 29, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Fonzi did arrive at a CIA-did-it theory, but he did not show exactly *how* this occurred -- he just suspected it -- and then like a bulldog he would not let go of that theory.  But he never supplied the material evidence.

The composite sketch of Maurice Bishop identified as David A Phillips by his niece.

Anyone mention this yet?

http://jfk-online.com/daphscavec.html

 

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The composite sketch of Maurice Bishop identified as David A Phillips by his niece.

Anyone mention this yet?

http://jfk-online.com/daphscavec.html

 

Definite a must-read.

[Paul Brancato]

Fonzi, from his inside position, and with his considerable skill and zeal, arrived at the conclusion that some part of the CIA was complicit. It was a logical conclusion, and nothing Trejo presents, ever, contradicts it. His only point, which he belabors infinitum, is that we still don't have a conclusion, which in his mind could only be read as meaning that people who find CIA operatives, like Morales or Phillips or others (do I have to name them all, agents, assets, etc.?)  likely conspirators have been barking up the wrong tree for a long time. There is no inherent logic, obviously, in this position. Lack of a conclusion is not the fault of researchers and theories, it's the fault of those that are still hiding the truth, and the intelligence services of the US are clearly at the top of that list, and in fact have the ability to obstruct investigators, such as by placing Alan Dulles on the WC, or assigning George Joannides to liaise with the HSCA without  bothering to mention his history with the DRE and Miami Station. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

15 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Definite a must-read.

Yes, please do read the HSCA volume X report on Veciana by Fonzi. And then read the original interview notes I have made available to see how the story morphed:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/gaeton-fonzi-and-veciana-allegations.html

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Yes, please do read the HSCA volume X report on Veciana by Fonzi. And then read the original interview notes I have made available to see how the story morphed:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/gaeton-fonzi-and-veciana-allegations.html

David Atlee Phillips' niece made a very positive ID on the Maurice Bishop composite.

Your faith in co-incidence is notable.