Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, my sincere apologies for misreading you. The Cohen book sounds interesting.

[Ron Ecker]

The fact is that LBJ had all kinds of resources to turn to in getting rid of JFK. He was practically stumbling over them. Which makes it seem very unlikely that he would turn to a homicidal bungler like Mac Wallace for the job. (Who would you pick, Mac or Mossad?) But truth is of course stranger than fiction.

On Johnson and Israel, Cohen has this to say in his book (pp. 195-196):

"Johnson was less preoccupied than Kennedy with nuclear weapons proliferation. . . . Johnson already had close ties with prominent Jews who felt strongly about Israel's security. . . . Johnson also lacked Kennedy's interest in nuclear proliferation. . . . A confrontation with Israel on the nuclear weapons issue was therefore less likely (under Johnson) than it had been during Kennedy's years."

[Tim Gratz]

The problem Ron is how would LBJ know that the Mossad would cooperate?

If it had refused, it could have exposed LBJ's perfidy (assuming he in fact did do it). If the Mossad had saved the life of JFK, I think JFK would have owed the Mossad a rather large favor.

But LBJ knew that Wallace was (assuming the truth of what has been posted) a rather loyal murderer. LBJ knew he could turn to Wallace with no fear of Wallace going to the authorities.

[Ron Ecker]

LBJ knew he could turn to Wallace with no fear of Wallace going to the authorities.

What LBJ had to fear was the authorities going to Wallace.

[Ron Ecker]

Here's a link (found through Internet Archive) to a presentation Piper made on his book.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030419131149/...iper/piper.html

[Mark Stapleton]

The fact is that LBJ had all kinds of resources to turn to in getting rid of JFK. He was practically stumbling over them. Which makes it seem very unlikely that he would turn to a homicidal bungler like Mac Wallace for the job. (Who would you pick, Mac or Mossad?) But truth is of course stranger than fiction.

On Johnson and Israel, Cohen has this to say in his book (pp. 195-196):

"Johnson was less preoccupied than Kennedy with nuclear weapons proliferation. . . . Johnson already had close ties with prominent Jews who felt strongly about Israel's security. . . . Johnson also lacked Kennedy's interest in nuclear proliferation. . . . A confrontation with Israel on the nuclear weapons issue was therefore less likely (under Johnson) than it had been during Kennedy's years."

Ron,

What I'm concerned with is the way the ground rules for the entire gamit of security negotiations changed after JFK was assassinated. Suddenly it was Israel calling the shots. Kennedy was resolute in his determination to halt Israel's nuclear advance, fearing widespread escalation in the Middle East. In March 1963, he asked Bundy to issue a Presidential directive to Rusk, requesting him to look for "some form of international or bilateral US safeguards"(p.118). The request was the origin of NSAM 231, "Middle Eastern Nuclear Capabilities":

The President desires, as a matter of urgency, that we undertake every feasible measure to improve our intelligence on the Israeli nuclear program as well as other Israel and UAR advanced weapon programs to arrive at a firmer evaluation of their import. In this connection he wishes the next formal inspection of the Israeli reactor complex to be undertaken promptly and to be as thourough as possible.

In view of his great concern over the destabilising impact of any Israeli or UAR program towards nuclear weapons, the President also wishes the Department of State to develop proposals forestalling such programs, in particular we should develop plans for seeking clearer assurances from the Governments concerned on this point, and means of impressing upon them how seriously such a development would be regarded in this country.

There's no ambiguity about this decree, as it specifically mentions formal inspections of Israel's facility. To say Ben Gurion was alarmed is an understatement. JFK never got the thourough inspections he wanted. Instead, Ben Gurion stalled. In April 1963 Egypt, Syria and Iraq signed an Arab Federation Proclamation, calling for the liberation of Palestine. On April 25, Ben Gurion wrote a seven page letter to Kennedy warning of this development, comparing the liberation of Palestine to the Holocaust and calling for a joint US-Soviet declaration to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of all Middle Eastern states (p.120). According to Cohen, Ben Gurion's campaign upset many of the senior staff at the Foreign Ministry. The substance and tone seemed exaggerated, or in senior diplomat Gideon Rafael's words "hysterical". Washington also viewed it as an over-reaction and didn't see the April 17 proclamation as an immediate threat to Israel. JFK just turned up the heat. IMO, Israel and the US were on a collision course in relation to Dimona. Ben Gurion resigned in June and his successor, Levi Eshkol, continued the obfuscation in relation to Dimona.

After November 22, everything changes. On December 5, Israel informs the US it may undertake an inspection of Dimona in mid-January but the ground rules were set out by Israel. Cohen states on p.188, "The Israelis managed to limit the visits to one day, run by a single team of no more than three AEC scientists. They insisited the visits always be conducted on Saturdays (the Jewish sabbath) or other national holidays when almost all the Dimona employees were gone and it was easier to control the visit. The team was always closely escorted by its Israeli hosts. The team asked to bring its own measuring instruments (such as radiation measuring instruments) but the Israelis denied their request. It was also not permitted to collect samples of any kind for later analysis". Inspection teams claimed the one day format was insufficient for conducting even a modest inspection and that more backup data was required but were told these were the Israeli ground rules and they could not be altered without jeopardizing the entire arrangement.

Cohen continues, "equally significant was the Israeli control of the visits' frequency. Fuel from the Dimona reactor could be discharged every six months or less, and subsequently reprocessed to extract plutonium of weapons grade quality. This was the reason for Kennedy's insistence on semiannual visits. The US Government also pressed this issue with Israel on numerous occasions, but never prevailed."

After JFK's assassination, the Johnson administration participated in the charade of nuclear inspections and also conducted large scale sales of tanks, Skyhawk jets and Hawk surface-to-surface missiles to Israel and merely paid lip service to JFK's initial insistence that any sale of arms be connected to comprehensive inspections of the Dimona facility.

I can't help being suspicious in light of the fact that JFK's death was a huge obstacle removed on Israel's road to military self sufficiency.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, as I have said before, all you have presented here is MOTIVE.

You cannot be suspicious on the basis of motive alone.

As I have said, countless people, including Jackie, had arguable motives to kill JFK. Does that mean we should suspect them? No. I include Jackie only because no one really thinks she had anything to do with it and her inclusion simply demonstrates how specious it is to put someone on the suspect list because of motive alone.

Now if you are aware of any reports of Mossad agents in Dealey Plaza, that would be another story.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

You cannot be suspicious on the basis of motive alone.

How far would any homicide investigator in any town in America or in the world get on a murder case if he wasn't suspicious of all who had motives to kill the victim, until such time as investigation could eliminate suspects (or "persons of interest") from the list, via alibis or other circumstances?

Isn't that what the Agatha Christie and other classic murder stories are all about? Mansions or ships full of suspects, each with a motive to kill?

Sure, "countless people" could have had a motive to kill JFK. That's why a homicide investigator also has to use common sense in examining the facts of a case. Which is why Jackie Kennedy was never a suspect in the public execution of her husband.

If an organization like the Mossad had a motive to kill JFK, why in the world shouldn't they be near the top of the suspect list, right up there with the CIA? They do the same kind of work. Does either one have an alibi? If so, what is it? We know, of course, how the CIA has lied and obfuscated through more than one investigation, as if it's proud to be a suspect and actually works at it. What about the Mossad? As far as I know, neither the Mossad, Dallas visitor Rabin, nor any other Israeli official has ever been asked a single question about the JFK murder. No one would even want to suggest such inquiry, of course, lest the "anti-Semitic" card be immediately played.

But then there has never been a real investigation anyway. So there still is, and may always be, a suspect list, and IMO the Mossad is rightfully on it. Whether or not you or I personally think the Mossad was involved doesn't change that fact.

"I suspect everyone, I suspect no one." - Inspector Clouseau

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

How far would any homicide investigator in any town in America or in the world get on a murder case if he wasn't suspicious of all who had motives to kill the victim, until such time as investigation could eliminate suspects (or "persons of interest") from the list, via alibis or other circumstances?

Ron, respectfully, I do not think that is how homicide investigations proceed. I think typical homicide investigations proceed such as on CSI, checking the crime scene for clues, etc.

Moreover there is a difference between an investigation in 1963-1964 and this Forum. If the Mossad did it, which I highly doubt, there is no way now to prove it. Therefore, all that positing Mossad involvement accomplishes is to is cast innuendos and suspicions on Israel. Which, of course, is Collins' agenda, as is clear from all of his other writings on Isreal and Jewish questions.

But get back to 1963-1964. How in the world would any investigating body go about questioning any state that had policy differences with JFK? Or how could the HSCA have done that?

One would hope that the CIA had had human assets in the intelligence agencies of other states, our own moles, if you will, to pick up rumours of any activities adverse to our interests. But that would have offended the goody two-shoes on this Forum who live in never-never land and have no conception of what a serious life-and-death game was being played at the height of the Cold War.

[Mark Stapleton]

Ron wrote:

How far would any homicide investigator in any town in America or in the world get on a murder case if he wasn't suspicious of all who had motives to kill the victim, until such time as investigation could eliminate suspects (or "persons of interest") from the list, via alibis or other circumstances?

Ron, respectfully, I do not think that is how homicide investigations proceed. I think typical homicide investigations proceed such as on CSI, checking the crime scene for clues, etc.

Moreover there is a difference between an investigation in 1963-1964 and this Forum. If the Mossad did it, which I highly doubt, there is no way now to prove it. Therefore, all that positing Mossad involvement accomplishes is to is cast innuendos and suspicions on Israel. Which, of course, is Collins' agenda, as is clear from all of his other writings on Isreal and Jewish questions.

But get back to 1963-1964. How in the world would any investigating body go about questioning any state that had policy differences with JFK? Or how could the HSCA have done that?

One would hope that the CIA had had human assets in the intelligence agencies of other states, our own moles, if you will, to pick up rumours of any activities adverse to our interests. But that would have offended the goody two-shoes on this Forum who live in never-never land and have no conception of what a serious life-and-death game was being played at the height of the Cold War.

What a strange post. Are you saying that if a researcher believes the Israeli Govt/IDF/Mossad may have been involved, then that reseacher shouldn't proceed because it might offend someone--in this case Israel? If focussing on Mossad offends Israel then what about the focus on the CIA, KGB etc? Maybe we should call off the entire assassination debate because too many people might get offended. Or are you saying Israel should be declared a suspicion-free zone? Anyway, you sound like you only want the assassins revealed if they fall within an acceptable list of suspects. If that's right then why are you participating in the Forum?

Also, you say that all that exists is motive. How do you know they didn't possess means and opportunity? Israel is a small country outnumbered by hostile neighbours, some very large, but has survived in relative prosperity for over fifty years. It's the only Middle Eastern country to have developed nuclear weapons and has arguably the best intelligence agency in the world. It also has powerful allies in America. It's got means. As for opportunity, I would think that the impressive array of powerful groups and individuals who also wanted JFK gone would be united in this urgent cause, and would arrange to give them that opportunity--if they thought they could do it.

You've got to look at this thing from Ben-Gurion's perspective. He proclaimed the State of Israel in 1948. He knew the geopolitical realities of Israel, which made him obsessed with its security. Six years into his plan for the ultimate deterrent and only a year or two from achieving nuclear status and after a couple of sham inspections in "61 and "62, suddenly this pain in the ass gets serious. JFK sends nasty letters warning of dire consequences and backs it up with issuing NSAM 231, telling the State Department and Foreign Office to get it done. Kennedy was worried that any flexibilty in his non-proliferation rhetoric might harm his chances in the upcoming discussions with the Soviets about nuclear test bans and arms control but underestimated what the nuclear project meant to Israel and Ben-Gurion in particular. Ben-Gurion spent 13 years as chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, the governing body of the Jewish community in Palestine, before founding the nation himself. In 1963 the biggest threat to his country's security is now Kennedy, not the Arabs. He resigns obviously knowing that many American domestic interests also want Kennedy gone, so what will he do? IMO, he'll lend them a hand. Ben-Gurion's resignation from the Knesset doesn't mean he slips into insignificance. He's the founding father of Israel and still strongly influences Israel's security decisions.

[Ron Ecker]

Mark,

I would only add that while Israel had MMO, given the extent of the suspect list (with LBJ and all his crooked connections looming large), Israeli help wasn’t needed. I doubt that Israel would have moved on its on without first ascertaining if there was already a plot in the works. And if one looks for any trace of foreign hands in the assassination and cover-up, they appear to be French, if only as false sponsors (and Cuban according to the Russo and Gratz School, or RAGS – a theory in tatters). It’s remarkable how completely the Mossad covered its tracks if it did the job. (Compare 9/11, in which there are several clues that the Mossad had foreknowledge.) Rabin’s visit to Dallas is certainly interesting but, like Nixon’s, could have been a courtesy call and nothing integral to the plot. In sum, while the Israelis are a suspect, I rather doubt that they did it. They didn’t have to.

Ron

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark,

I would only add that while Israel had MMO, given the extent of the suspect list (with LBJ and all his crooked connections looming large), Israeli help wasn’t needed. I doubt that Israel would have moved on its on without first ascertaining if there was already a plot in the works. And if one looks for any trace of foreign hands in the assassination and cover-up, they appear to be French, if only as false sponsors (and Cuban according to the Russo and Gratz School, or RAGS – a theory in tatters). It’s remarkable how completely the Mossad covered its tracks if it did the job. (Compare 9/11, in which there are several clues that the Mossad had foreknowledge.) Rabin’s visit to Dallas is certainly interesting but, like Nixon’s, could have been a courtesy call and nothing integral to the plot. In sum, while the Israelis are a suspect, I rather doubt that they did it. They didn’t have to.

Ron

Ron,

You're right, Ron. There's no way Israel could have carried out the assassination by themselves and there were so many others out to get JFK that Israel's non-involvement is a distinct possibility.

The reason I think they might have been an active participant is because of LBJ. He's the only one I'm certain was involved. He had close ties to Israel, reversed JFK's hard line on nuclear inspections, sold arms to them unconditionally and covered up the USS Liberty scandal. To me it has the smell of payment for services rendered. It just seems to fit, however I wouldn't be surprised if I was totally wrong. This case has so many bizarre and confusing tentacles, nothing surprises me now.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Lee Forman]

Nice post Mark.

Personally, I have spent time on Nazi, Neo-Nazi, Rightwing and other sites, because I want to know what they think, what they believe, etc. Some may be surprised to learn some of their ideology as relates to Zionism and the Holocaust - which we are now seeing espoused publicly by Iran, coincidentally.

As with efforts I had attempted to make underscoring the bizarre coincidence of named or alleged homosexual suspects in the conspiracy - apparently a dangerous topic, politically. As opposed to crediting Garrison's allegations of a 'Homosexual thrill killing' I instead question his motives for coming up with such an absurd notion. The key is most likely in tapping into an underground [esp in 1960s] network, programs like QK/ENCHANT, and individuals of a sexual orientation that would make them assets when dealing with a larger geographical scale, certain Foreign countries, etc.

Similarly, we have the black by-standers as seen in Croft, the black employees of the TSBD, and what appears to have been the use of primarily dark skinned Cubans in the operation in Dealey Plaza. Due to the need to be Politically Correct, it's necessary to handle the situation with kid gloves, even though in the 1960s racism was the order of the day for Texas and much of the South. I'd like to learn more about Motorgate personally, and if this was a factor in Portugal's having been named as an ally in the Wanted For Treason poster. And I still believe that any of the black employees, and black eye-witnesses that 'testified' [if you want to call it that, after reading Roger Craig's account] before the Warren Commission - requires additional scrutiny - since they may have seen a different form of coercion than a non-black witness or employee.

So when we come to topics like 'Opium Lords,' which clearly has a lot of merit [i am still in the process of reading 'The Politics of Heroin - CIA complicity in the Global Drug trade'] - it seems some are a bit too quick to damn the writer of Opium Lords as anit-semitic [a term that actually refers to peoples of the Semite region, and has nothing to do with being Jewish], and therefore off-limits.

There is also the scribblings of Gary Wean, who admittedly, did apear to have a racist tilt to his writing - however I don't see that as a reason to throw out the baby. Even in a PBS special, and in the Politics of Heroin, I have been learning what a powerful force Meyer Lansky represented. To separate him from his religious background or beliefs would not be appropriate, in my opinion.

http://www.markdankof.com/mossadmurdersjfk.htm

Quoting from Larry Hancok's 'Someone would have Talked,' page 65:

Homer Echevarria was an activist in the exile anti-Castro movement....the FBI turned over their ongoing investigation of Echevarria to the Secret Service because after November 22, it appeared to be 'primarily a protective matter.' The reason being that on November 21, an FBI informant had heard Echevarria say that..."We now have plenty of money - our new backers are Jews - as soon as they (or 'we') take care of Kennedy..."

The implication in Opimum Lords was that financing and planning support also came from Louis M. Bloomfield, of Montreal. I've posted on that before - and I don't know why the original poster couldn't find references I've made to Collins before. Click Search and put in Final Judgement, or Piper for Chrissake.

A collusion of financial backing, largely from Jewish interests, with ties to Zionism and Israel [Canada, Las Vegas, Hollywood, etc.], funding Maffia contracted specialists - shooters possibly through OAS channels, from the Island of Corsica, planning from certain 'Nuclear' interests, money from Trujillo, in addition to very upset and betrayed Cuban exiles [some shooters], all under the direction of US intelligence - too far fetched? Where was that article that spoke of the rightwing immediately turning on the Jewish factor immediately after the assassination? Or some of Mae Brussel's assertions concerning Weissman? Ruby's ramblings in prison? Jim Phelp's DoeWatch and claims about Oak Ridge? CIA ties to Maffia that go back to 1941 or earlier, as opposed to Rosselli and Castro in 1962? What's Venona have to do with all of this? Who was Robert Graham, aka Art Greenbaum? Tall, glasses, a philanderer 'long suspected leftist is actually confirmed rightist, in deep cover, working plausible denial bit with one of nation's leading and best-financed foreign policy-making firms.' Who could that be?

http://www.markdankof.com/mossadmurdersjfk.htm

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. In turn, Lansky’s role as a committed Zionist and fund-raiser for the State of Israel involved direct, palpable links between his criminal empire, his Miami-based banks, and the Banque de Credit International (BCI) in Geneva, Switzerland. This latter entity served as the European-based money laundering center for Mr. Lansky’s global activities. BCI in turn, was headed up by an Israeli banker, Tibor Rosenbaum, former Director for Finances and Supply for the Israeli Mossad. Piper then demonstrates that BCI was a chief share holder in a Rome-based corporation called CMC/Permindex, whose chairman of the board was none other than Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, Canada, a major fund-raiser for Israel and known asset for Israeli intelligence. CMC/Permindex, in turn, proves to be a major point of intersection which brings the shadowy Bloomfield into direct or indirect contact with Clay Shaw (the chief target of the Jim Garrison JFK investigation in New Orleans), Guy Banister, James Jesus Angleton, FBI Division 5 chief William Sullivan (who spearheaded the FBI investigation for the Warren Commission and served as FBI liaison and friend of Angleton), ex-Cuban President Carlos Prio Socarras (provable gun-running business partner of Oswald assassin Jack Ruby), Ernest Israel Japhet (chairman and president of Israeli Bank Leumi), Shaul Eisenberg (a key figure in Israel’s nuclear bomb development and participant with Rosenbaum in the Swiss-Israel Trade Bank), elements of the French nationalist Secret Army Organization (OAS), CIA agent Theodore Shackley (the CIA’s chief of station in Miami during the CIA-Lansky assassination plots against Fidel Castro), and Abe Feinberg, New York Jewish businessman used by Ben Gurion as the liaison for secret meetings with President Kennedy to resolve the dispute of the latter two over Dimona. It is thus the BCI and CMC/Permindex players and links which Piper employs to show that the players, alliances, and assets were firmly in place to bring those with motive, means, and opportunity together in a plot which culminated in Dallas.

What about Vanunu?

Israel killed JFK,says Vanunu

July 26, 2004 14:27 IST

In a startling accusation, nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has alleged that Jerusalem was behind the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, who was exerting pressure on the then Israeli head of state to shed light on the Dimona nuclear plant.

In defiance of a ban on talking to the media and meeting with foreigners, Vanunu is said to have made the accusation in an interview to London-based Al-Hayat newspaper.

As per the interview published in newspaper's Arabic supplement Al-Wassat yesterday, Vanunu said according to "near-certain indications", Kennedy was assassinated due to "pressure he exerted on then head of government, David Ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor".

"We do not know which irresponsible Israeli Prime Minister will take office and decide to use nuclear weapons in the struggle against neighboring Arab countries," he is quoted to have said, adding, "What has already been exposed about the weapons Israel is holding can destroy the region and kill millions."

The whistleblower, who was released in April after 18 years of imprisonment on charges of treason for divulging state secrets, also said that the reactor in Dimona, could become a second "Chernobyl", Israili media reported. He said an earthquake could cause fissures to the core and that would cause a massive radiation leak threatening millions.

Vanunu warned that Jordan should test the residents along the border with Israel for exposure to radiation and give them pills just like the Jewish state decided to do for its citizens.

Sunday Times reporter held in Israel

Criticising the visit of head of the Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed el-Baradei, to Israel early this month, he said, "He (Baradei) should have refused to visit Israel (because) he was not allowed to inspect the nuclear reactor."

It was not yet clear how al-Hayat did the interview, which the publication claimed is the first with Vanunu since his release. If it turns out that he in fact gave such an interview in violation of the conditions laid down for his release, severe sanctions might be imposed on him.

An Israeli Justice Ministry statement said "the statements that Vanunu made will be examined and if it is determined that he violated the law or his restrictions, then steps against him will be considered."

"The opinions on Vanunu are divided," said Ra'anan Gissin, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Some say let him speak and it adds to the ambiguity policy, while others say the more he speaks the more he raises tensions, particularly in the current atmosphere."

Brushing aside the latest allegations, he said that serious people understood that Vanunu was speaking nonsense and his comments on JFK were not worthy of a reaction.

Trying to be objective and 'historically' correct is more important than trying to be 'Politically' correct, IMO. Nuclear would be a very significant, perhaps a primary, factor in wanting Kennedy removed. And Israel, and relationships back in the States and Canada, should continue to be examined.

[Ron Ecker]

Lee,

Interesting post. Meyer Lansky remains something of a shadowy figure to me. With all the emphasis being on Trafficante, Marcello, Giancana, and Rosselli, I've never read much about Lansky. I guess I'll have to.

So much to read, so little time. I may eventually just come to the conclusion that everybody got together and did their part in getting rid of JFK.

Ron

Edited February 7, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Mark Stapleton]

Lee,

Lotta stuff in that post. I agree that its necessary to focus on all possibilities and this business about observing political correctness and not making statements which offend certain groups is just crap which obstructs the research.

Lansky's interesting, too. He had a lot more power and influence than many realise. According to Luciano (and not publicly refuted as far as I know), he, Lansky and Costello helped deliver the Democratic nomination to FDR over Al Smith way back in 1932 so Lansky's influence could have reached almost anywhere, IMO.

The idea that Louis Bloomfield was contracted to mastermind the assassination is a possibility, IMO. Montreal seems to bob up a bit. Garrison relates the story of Jules Rocco Kimble, who travelled with Ferrie and Shaw in a Cessna to Nashville, Louisville, Toronto and Montreal. When Ferrie landed in Montreal, Shaw disappeared and Ferrie and Kimble stayed overnight in a Montreal hotel. Next day Shaw turns up with a "Cuban or Mexican" for the return trip to N.O. Very odd.

As for Vanunu, I wish he would elaborate but I doubt he will ever be permitted to speak freely.