Jump to content
The Education Forum
Myra Bronstein

How did the capture of a live Lee Oswald change the plot?

Recommended Posts

Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive.

Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald.

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive.

Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald.

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

I don't like speculations like this, because speculation is not research.

However, some researchers speculate that Officer Baker was assigned to

kill Oswald in the building, but plans went awry when he was accompanied

by Truly...and could not shoot a man simply drinking a Coke, with a witness

present. If this was the scenario...case closed...dirty little commie scum

who was well framed shot while escaping by hero cop...no investigation

needed, no Warren Commission...and a mad scramble for Plan B. I theorize

that Oswald had been instructed that in case of trouble, go to the theater

to be killed...but again, too many witnesses. Plan C...Ruby. I doubt that

there was a Plan D, which seems to be your question.

Jack

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myra,

Thanks for starting a new thread on this very important subject.

I'll take the liberty of posting here our ongoing exchange as it appears on the "Could This Be David Morales" thread. Your comments are in red.

_______________________________________________________

A slightly nuanced take on multiple guns in DP, in the guise of an informed but by no means provable hypothesis -- at least right now.

The "Castro did it" gambit was not affected in the slightest by LHO's capture. Its sole purpose was to hinder investigation by promulgating the fear, as expressed by Earl Warren and others, that getting to the bottom of the hit inevitably would lead to nuclear holocaust.

Don't forget the function of the Kostikov incident. Soviet as well as Cuban involvement in the assassination was "documented" early on for anyone too eager to get to the bottom of things. Or to the top, if you prefer.

(Castro was then, and is now, an indispensable enemy. Like bin Laden. If eliminated, their value to the war machine is nil. No control, no excess, without threat.)

Under no circumstances could evidence of multiple gunmen be hidden from honest investigators -- hence the presentation of Oswald acting alone becomes the essential, viable fallback position. Recall the scene in JFK when one of Garrison's investigators is approached by an FBI agent and told that of course we know it was a conspiracy.

What then of the anti-Castro boys? How would they be controlled when it became obvious that a retaliatory invasion of Cuba would not take place?

Bribery, blackmail, and mortal threat.

There was one, and only one, target on November 22, 1963.

Thank you Charles.

This is an area that confuses me horribly; it's exactly what I wanted to discuss.

In 'Deep Politics' Peter Dale Scott spends a lot of time talking about the cover story (Oswald/LN dunnit) versus the justification for the cover story (commies dunnit it/we could all die in a mushroom cloud). He doesn't use my terminology; frankly I think he uses confusing terminology so I'm paraphrasing. I hope I'm accurately reflecting his premise; I don't have the book in front of me.

So, Charles, it sounds to me like you're describing the same premise Scott described. The Castro/commie dunnit back story told to those not in on the plot, to justify the Oswald cover story. Am I accurately paraphrasing your premise?

If so, are you saying that (in your opinion of course) an invasion of Cuba in "retaliation" for JFK's assassination was not part of the original plot? It's just what the Cubans were told would happen to get them to go along and do the wet work(?)

So glad you brought this up...

With my "only an hypothesis" caveat restated up front:

Yes.

I'm not sure how I further can clarify the foundation of my thinking other than restating:

1. Castro's value to the assassination's prime movers and their surrogates -- or, if you will, to the Great Game -- is ZERO if he's gone.

2. Not even a botched LHO murder would have been enough to nullify a full-fledged plan to invade Cuba after a Castro patsying.

To me, no other explanation makes sense.

And yes, it is fair to note that I'm in agreement with Professor Scott on this issue.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks Charles. This is helping a lot.

I'm inclined to agree with this hypothesis, albeit with reservations and questions.

For one: I would think that the mob, Roselli for example, would have been deceived along with the Cubans into believing that

they'd get their capitalist Cuba back after helping the gov't kill the President. Either that or they simply hated JFK enough to help kill him regardless. But the mob's eagerness to reclaim their Cuban businesses seems like an issue with this scenario.

Also (I asked this on another thread and it's still hanging out there), do you feel that there was a time when the CIA genuinely wanted to topple Castro?

If so then when did they change their policy from wanting to nail Castro to wanting him preserved as the boogeyman close to home?

Do you have opinions on these issues/questions?

The "only an hypothesis" caveat is still in effect.

Just brainstorming here...

On edit:

And if this hypothesis is true then it seems like the plotters had the cover story ready from the start. But there is the school of thought that the cover story evolved separately from the murder plot, and that contradicts this. I'm not expressing this very well...

Myra,

The Mob's Cuban businesses (gambling, prostitution, infrastructure control, etc.) in the agregate were small potatoes compared to the international drug trade that was threatened by JFK's telegraphed intentions to withdraw from Southeast Asia and thus likely eliminate the Golden Triangle from the game board. Recall that in the time period under scrutiny Trafficante and others were working to eliminate the Corsican middle men and deal directly with Asian principals (see The Great Heroin Coup as a worthy primer).

Such a paradigm shift would bring about major changes at all levels of the drug operation.

Castro's value, then, as a diversionary bogeyman is enhanced. And we cannot dismiss the possibility that powerful elements within the Cuban government may have been complicit in the development and/or protection of Caribbean smuggling routes that would play immensely significant roles in the new system.

Your question about the intentions of the CIA raises a very important issue. We appreciate KUBARK as a monolithic entity and as a policy setter at our peril. The most influential criminal factions within the agency were/are never more than highly paid tools of the institutions (catch me in the right mood and I'll use the word "families") that had most to gain by maintenance of the Cold War and its multiple profit-generating, power-preserving aspects.

Helms, Angleton, King, Shackley, Meyer, Dulles ... Do you think they would break wind without first clearing it with their bosses?

Were aspects of the post-hit plot improvised in response to unforseen circumstances? I'd be shocked if they weren't. Maybe this metaphor works:

The basso continuo, or figured bass, is a key element in Baroque music, much of which was written with a melody line and with simple bass line figures under it.

The keyboardist would have to play that line and improvise harmony based on the figures.

I'm ham-handedly trying to indicate that an assassination plot of immense complexity by definition would anticipate and provide for the addressing of the unanticipated.

The plotters went for Baroque, and scored.

Hypothetically, of course.

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive.

Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald.

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

I am among those who contend Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive, but am not among those who suspect he was to be killed "while resisting arrest," or anywhere near the crime scene.

If we comb through the fragments on display in the official documentary record, we find residual traces of what I contend was the intended plot, which was in some ways markedly different from events that actually transpired.

Oswald's dalliance with the FPCC culminated in precisely the result that was intended. He was identified in the media at the time as a pro-Castro firebrand, trying to do the unthinkable by recruiting FPCC supporters in New Orleans. Had it been a genuine effort on his part to actually recruit members, he presumably wouldn't have listed incorrect addresses on the recruiting leaflets. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets without being arrested, he did so only for about 15 minutes, just long enough to be photographed and noticed. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets and was arrested for clashing with Bringuier and his cohorts, even the arresting officer opined that the fracas had been staged. Rather than represent the FPCC, Oswald disobeyed every legitimate direction received by him from the NYC FPCC HQ. Instead of building a local chapter, his only achievement was registering on the local media radar, including filmed TV footage and a radio debate.

Leaving aside questions of impersonation for a moment, Oswald's approaches to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City were equally fraudulent and self-defeating. According to the testimony taken from staff at each, Oswald seemed wholly ignorant of travel restrictions imposed on US citizens traveling to either country. Yet the real Oswald was well aware of all the bureaucratic red tape that this entailed, for he had already experienced same in his travels to the USSR, and in his repatriation. To bolster his eligibility for a travel visa, the Mexico City Oswald purportedly presented a brand new CPUSA membership card [LHO was not a member], which embassy staff found odd, since special allowances were made for CPUSA members, none of whom had ever needed to brandish a card to receive that special consideration. Oswald also allegedly presented a New Orleans newspaper article with a photograph of him being arrested. No such genuine newspaper article was ever published, according to the extant record. Again, this was not a genuine attempt to receive a travel visa; it was merely an opportunity to register him as a visitor to enemy embassies, and during once such visit to meet with a Soviet named Kostikov who would only later be "unmasked" as an expert in assassination and murder.

The incidents at Redbird airport in Dallas were staged for a purpose. An "Oswald" was sighted there prior to the assassination, as part of a group seeking to charter an airplane for 11/22/63. A plane sat idling for an hour or more on the Redbird tarmac in the early afternoon of 11/22/63, then eventually left. Subsequently, special attention was paid to an incoming small aircraft in Mexico City, and the alleged transfer of a single passenger to a Cubana Airlines flight that had been delayed there, as though waiting only for that passenger. According to an obscure little footnote in Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much," after the assassination CIA had discovered luggage at the Mexico City airport for one Lee Oswald.

When Oswald was arrested, I suggest that there was no ID in his wallet containing the name "Hidell." Had there been, one might have expected any of the arresting officers - several of whom were contemporaneously interviewed by the media - or any of the DPD hierarchy to have mentioned that fact. Upstanding citizens don't use an alias, and those who carry false ID are immediately suspect for that fact alone. Despite the received history on this aspect of the case, it wouldn't be for a full 24 hours that the name "Hidell" was first uttered by those who arrested Oswald and purportedly found "Hidell" ID on his person a the time.

In fact, I suggest that all the so-called "Hidell" ID was actually discovered in the wallet located at the Tippit crime scene. This is why the name "Hidell" entered the nomenclature of the crime only after the rifle had been traced back to a mail-order buyer using that name, via Oswald's PO box. It was only when Captain Fritz was confronted by two wallets, both ostensibly belonging to the same suspect, that this became problematic, as we'll soon see.

Taking the foregoing into account, let us assume that shortly after the assassination, the man known as Lee Harvey Oswald simply vanished. What would have been left behind, and what inferences would have been drawn from that residue?

The wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have disclosed that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, who also used the alias "Hidell," had killed a policeman. In tracking down this man's whereabouts, DPD would have discovered - as they did - incriminating photographs of Oswald posing with weapons. After the rifle had been found in the TSBD, it would have been traced back to Klein's in Chicago, and from there to a buyer named "Hidell" at Oswald's PO box. In short order, Oswald's masquerade as a FPCC radical would have surfaced, along with his criminal arrest in New Orleans, and the subsequent TV and radio appearances in which he advocated strongly on behalf of Castro.

Soon thereafter, sources within the US government would have disclosed that Oswald had made approaches to two enemy embassies in Mexico City, and CIA would have revealed - as it did - that one person Oswald met there was in charge of Soviet assassination plotting in the western hemisphere.

At which point, it would have come to the public's attention that a light plane had left Redbird airport shortly after the assassination, that a plane of similar description had landed in Mexico City, and that a single passenger had deplaned and entered a waiting Cubana Airlines flight bound for Havana. Conveniently, that passenger would have been identified as Lee Oswald, based on luggage that had mistakenly been left behind there. [so central to the plot was this airplane story that even after Oswald's capture, the tale was subsequently retro-fitted so that the mystery passenger morphed into several other Cuban actors with purportedly strong Castro allegiances.]

Had Oswald simply disappeared and left behind this breadcrumb trail of evidence, what inescapable conclusions would have been drawn, and what would have been the official US response?

The assassination didn't transpire precisely as had been planned. Yes, it succeeded in killing the President. It failed, however, to deliver the ancillary benefits of placing direct blame upon the Havana despot, as had been hoped.

The single most critical failure in achieving that end was Oswald being arrested with his own wallet in his own pocket.

It has long been my contention that if Oswald was framed, as the majority here seem to argue, then it is by locating and examining the elements of that frameup, pre- and post-assassination, that we can identify both the methods employed and those responsible for executing it.

When I had a chance to discuss this in person with Peter Dale Scott, whose own hypothesis is slightly different, he asked me "If the purpose was to incite a military response against Cuba, why didn't it happen?" I replied that Oswald's arrest had derailed the most critical aspects of the plan, for the same reasons outlined above. Exemplifying intellectual impartiality, he agreed it was worthy of further consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive.

Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald.

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

I am among those who contend Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive, but am not among those who suspect he was to be killed "while resisting arrest," or anywhere near the crime scene.

If we comb through the fragments on display in the official documentary record, we find residual traces of what I contend was the intended plot, which was in some ways markedly different from events that actually transpired.

Oswald's dalliance with the FPCC culminated in precisely the result that was intended. He was identified in the media at the time as a pro-Castro firebrand, trying to do the unthinkable by recruiting FPCC supporters in New Orleans. Had it been a genuine effort on his part to actually recruit members, he presumably wouldn't have listed incorrect addresses on the recruiting leaflets. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets without being arrested, he did so only for about 15 minutes, just long enough to be photographed and noticed. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets and was arrested for clashing with Bringuier and his cohorts, even the arresting officer opined that the fracas had been staged. Rather than represent the FPCC, Oswald disobeyed every legitimate direction received by him from the NYC FPCC HQ. Instead of building a local chapter, his only achievement was registering on the local media radar, including filmed TV footage and a radio debate.

Leaving aside questions of impersonation for a moment, Oswald's approaches to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City were equally fraudulent and self-defeating. According to the testimony taken from staff at each, Oswald seemed wholly ignorant of travel restrictions imposed on US citizens traveling to either country. Yet the real Oswald was well aware of all the bureaucratic red tape that this entailed, for he had already experienced same in his travels to the USSR, and in his repatriation. To bolster his eligibility for a travel visa, the Mexico City Oswald purportedly presented a brand new CPUSA membership card [LHO was not a member], which embassy staff found odd, since special allowances were made for CPUSA members, none of whom had ever needed to brandish a card to receive that special consideration. Oswald also allegedly presented a New Orleans newspaper article with a photograph of him being arrested. No such genuine newspaper article was ever published, according to the extant record. Again, this was not a genuine attempt to receive a travel visa; it was merely an opportunity to register him as a visitor to enemy embassies, and during once such visit to meet with a Soviet named Kostikov who would only later be "unmasked" as an expert in assassination and murder.

The incidents at Redbird airport in Dallas were staged for a purpose. An "Oswald" was sighted there prior to the assassination, as part of a group seeking to charter an airplane for 11/22/63. A plane sat idling for an hour or more on the Redbird tarmac in the early afternoon of 11/22/63, then eventually left. Subsequently, special attention was paid to an incoming small aircraft in Mexico City, and the alleged transfer of a single passenger to a Cubana Airlines flight that had been delayed there, as though waiting only for that passenger. According to an obscure little footnote in Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much," after the assassination CIA had discovered luggage at the Mexico City airport for one Lee Oswald.

When Oswald was arrested, I suggest that there was no ID in his wallet containing the name "Hidell." Had there been, one might have expected any of the arresting officers - several of whom were contemporaneously interviewed by the media - or any of the DPD hierarchy to have mentioned that fact. Upstanding citizens don't use an alias, and those who carry false ID are immediately suspect for that fact alone. Despite the received history on this aspect of the case, it wouldn't be for a full 24 hours that the name "Hidell" was first uttered by those who arrested Oswald and purportedly found "Hidell" ID on his person a the time.

In fact, I suggest that all the so-called "Hidell" ID was actually discovered in the wallet located at the Tippit crime scene. This is why the name "Hidell" entered the nomenclature of the crime only after the rifle had been traced back to a mail-order buyer using that name, via Oswald's PO box. It was only when Captain Fritz was confronted by two wallets, both ostensibly belonging to the same suspect, that this became problematic, as we'll soon see.

Taking the foregoing into account, let us assume that shortly after the assassination, the man known as Lee Harvey Oswald simply vanished. What would have been left behind, and what inferences would have been drawn from that residue?

The wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have disclosed that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, who also used the alias "Hidell," had killed a policeman. In tracking down this man's whereabouts, DPD would have discovered - as they did - incriminating photographs of Oswald posing with weapons. After the rifle had been found in the TSBD, it would have been traced back to Klein's in Chicago, and from there to a buyer named "Hidell" at Oswald's PO box. In short order, Oswald's masquerade as a FPCC radical would have surfaced, along with his criminal arrest in New Orleans, and the subsequent TV and radio appearances in which he advocated strongly on behalf of Castro.

Soon thereafter, sources within the US government would have disclosed that Oswald had made approaches to two enemy embassies in Mexico City, and CIA would have revealed - as it did - that one person Oswald met there was in charge of Soviet assassination plotting in the western hemisphere.

At which point, it would have come to the public's attention that a light plane had left Redbird airport shortly after the assassination, that a plane of similar description had landed in Mexico City, and that a single passenger had deplaned and entered a waiting Cubana Airlines flight bound for Havana. Conveniently, that passenger would have been identified as Lee Oswald, based on luggage that had mistakenly been left behind there. [so central to the plot was this airplane story that even after Oswald's capture, the tale was subsequently retro-fitted so that the mystery passenger morphed into several other Cuban actors with purportedly strong Castro allegiances.]

Had Oswald simply disappeared and left behind this breadcrumb trail of evidence, what inescapable conclusions would have been drawn, and what would have been the official US response?

The assassination didn't transpire precisely as had been planned. Yes, it succeeded in killing the President. It failed, however, to deliver the ancillary benefits of placing direct blame upon the Havana despot, as had been hoped.

The single most critical failure in achieving that end was Oswald being arrested with his own wallet in his own pocket.

It has long been my contention that if Oswald was framed, as the majority here seem to argue, then it is by locating and examining the elements of that frameup, pre- and post-assassination, that we can identify both the methods employed and those responsible for executing it.

When I had a chance to discuss this in person with Peter Dale Scott, whose own hypothesis is slightly different, he asked me "If the purpose was to incite a military response against Cuba, why didn't it happen?" I replied that Oswald's arrest had derailed the most critical aspects of the plan, for the same reasons outlined above. Exemplifying intellectual impartiality, he agreed it was worthy of further consideration.

As always, an excellent post. If it is acceptable to you I will add it to my page on Lee Harvey Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must argue that, with the long-desired invasion of Cuba in the balance, the two-wallet problem could have been dealt with easily: such a tiny artifact, such a huge memory hole.

Oswald disappears from the stage two days later. Physical evidence is tightly controlled. Inconvenient observations can be ... blurred.

If the patsying of Castro were intended to provoke an invasion, rather than to recruit into the coverup otherwise non-conspiratorial accessories after the fact, the Marines would have hit the beach.

Otherwise, Mr. Charles-Dunne, I find your argument to be quite in line with my own thinking. I too have championed the idea of reverse-engineering the plot to discover the identities of its designers.

To venture a tad too far out on a limb: The brief captivity of LHO may have helped to provide a plausible argument for reneging on invasion promises. If so, then was the suspect's momentary survival part of the op?

Indeed, all this is worthy of additional consideration.

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive.

Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald.

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

I am among those who contend Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive, but am not among those who suspect he was to be killed "while resisting arrest," or anywhere near the crime scene.

If we comb through the fragments on display in the official documentary record, we find residual traces of what I contend was the intended plot, which was in some ways markedly different from events that actually transpired.

Oswald's dalliance with the FPCC culminated in precisely the result that was intended. He was identified in the media at the time as a pro-Castro firebrand, trying to do the unthinkable by recruiting FPCC supporters in New Orleans. Had it been a genuine effort on his part to actually recruit members, he presumably wouldn't have listed incorrect addresses on the recruiting leaflets. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets without being arrested, he did so only for about 15 minutes, just long enough to be photographed and noticed. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets and was arrested for clashing with Bringuier and his cohorts, even the arresting officer opined that the fracas had been staged. Rather than represent the FPCC, Oswald disobeyed every legitimate direction received by him from the NYC FPCC HQ. Instead of building a local chapter, his only achievement was registering on the local media radar, including filmed TV footage and a radio debate.

Leaving aside questions of impersonation for a moment, Oswald's approaches to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City were equally fraudulent and self-defeating. According to the testimony taken from staff at each, Oswald seemed wholly ignorant of travel restrictions imposed on US citizens traveling to either country. Yet the real Oswald was well aware of all the bureaucratic red tape that this entailed, for he had already experienced same in his travels to the USSR, and in his repatriation. To bolster his eligibility for a travel visa, the Mexico City Oswald purportedly presented a brand new CPUSA membership card [LHO was not a member], which embassy staff found odd, since special allowances were made for CPUSA members, none of whom had ever needed to brandish a card to receive that special consideration. Oswald also allegedly presented a New Orleans newspaper article with a photograph of him being arrested. No such genuine newspaper article was ever published, according to the extant record. Again, this was not a genuine attempt to receive a travel visa; it was merely an opportunity to register him as a visitor to enemy embassies, and during once such visit to meet with a Soviet named Kostikov who would only later be "unmasked" as an expert in assassination and murder.

The incidents at Redbird airport in Dallas were staged for a purpose. An "Oswald" was sighted there prior to the assassination, as part of a group seeking to charter an airplane for 11/22/63. A plane sat idling for an hour or more on the Redbird tarmac in the early afternoon of 11/22/63, then eventually left. Subsequently, special attention was paid to an incoming small aircraft in Mexico City, and the alleged transfer of a single passenger to a Cubana Airlines flight that had been delayed there, as though waiting only for that passenger. According to an obscure little footnote in Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much," after the assassination CIA had discovered luggage at the Mexico City airport for one Lee Oswald.

When Oswald was arrested, I suggest that there was no ID in his wallet containing the name "Hidell." Had there been, one might have expected any of the arresting officers - several of whom were contemporaneously interviewed by the media - or any of the DPD hierarchy to have mentioned that fact. Upstanding citizens don't use an alias, and those who carry false ID are immediately suspect for that fact alone. Despite the received history on this aspect of the case, it wouldn't be for a full 24 hours that the name "Hidell" was first uttered by those who arrested Oswald and purportedly found "Hidell" ID on his person a the time.

In fact, I suggest that all the so-called "Hidell" ID was actually discovered in the wallet located at the Tippit crime scene. This is why the name "Hidell" entered the nomenclature of the crime only after the rifle had been traced back to a mail-order buyer using that name, via Oswald's PO box. It was only when Captain Fritz was confronted by two wallets, both ostensibly belonging to the same suspect, that this became problematic, as we'll soon see.

Taking the foregoing into account, let us assume that shortly after the assassination, the man known as Lee Harvey Oswald simply vanished. What would have been left behind, and what inferences would have been drawn from that residue?

The wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have disclosed that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, who also used the alias "Hidell," had killed a policeman. In tracking down this man's whereabouts, DPD would have discovered - as they did - incriminating photographs of Oswald posing with weapons. After the rifle had been found in the TSBD, it would have been traced back to Klein's in Chicago, and from there to a buyer named "Hidell" at Oswald's PO box. In short order, Oswald's masquerade as a FPCC radical would have surfaced, along with his criminal arrest in New Orleans, and the subsequent TV and radio appearances in which he advocated strongly on behalf of Castro.

Soon thereafter, sources within the US government would have disclosed that Oswald had made approaches to two enemy embassies in Mexico City, and CIA would have revealed - as it did - that one person Oswald met there was in charge of Soviet assassination plotting in the western hemisphere.

At which point, it would have come to the public's attention that a light plane had left Redbird airport shortly after the assassination, that a plane of similar description had landed in Mexico City, and that a single passenger had deplaned and entered a waiting Cubana Airlines flight bound for Havana. Conveniently, that passenger would have been identified as Lee Oswald, based on luggage that had mistakenly been left behind there. [so central to the plot was this airplane story that even after Oswald's capture, the tale was subsequently retro-fitted so that the mystery passenger morphed into several other Cuban actors with purportedly strong Castro allegiances.]

Had Oswald simply disappeared and left behind this breadcrumb trail of evidence, what inescapable conclusions would have been drawn, and what would have been the official US response?

The assassination didn't transpire precisely as had been planned. Yes, it succeeded in killing the President. It failed, however, to deliver the ancillary benefits of placing direct blame upon the Havana despot, as had been hoped.

The single most critical failure in achieving that end was Oswald being arrested with his own wallet in his own pocket.

It has long been my contention that if Oswald was framed, as the majority here seem to argue, then it is by locating and examining the elements of that frameup, pre- and post-assassination, that we can identify both the methods employed and those responsible for executing it.

When I had a chance to discuss this in person with Peter Dale Scott, whose own hypothesis is slightly different, he asked me "If the purpose was to incite a military response against Cuba, why didn't it happen?" I replied that Oswald's arrest had derailed the most critical aspects of the plan, for the same reasons outlined above. Exemplifying intellectual impartiality, he agreed it was worthy of further consideration.

Excellent, Robert...as always. A very perceptive analysis.

However, when the plan you propose went awry, you do not address the

subsequent Tippit/Ruby situation, which led to the capture/death scenario

instead of the plan you propose. I agree with "your plan"...but do you

think what actually happened was a PLAN B, or just an improvisation by

some of those involved?

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive.

Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald.

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

I am among those who contend Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive, but am not among those who suspect he was to be killed "while resisting arrest," or anywhere near the crime scene.

If we comb through the fragments on display in the official documentary record, we find residual traces of what I contend was the intended plot, which was in some ways markedly different from events that actually transpired.

Oswald's dalliance with the FPCC culminated in precisely the result that was intended. He was identified in the media at the time as a pro-Castro firebrand, trying to do the unthinkable by recruiting FPCC supporters in New Orleans. Had it been a genuine effort on his part to actually recruit members, he presumably wouldn't have listed incorrect addresses on the recruiting leaflets. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets without being arrested, he did so only for about 15 minutes, just long enough to be photographed and noticed. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets and was arrested for clashing with Bringuier and his cohorts, even the arresting officer opined that the fracas had been staged. Rather than represent the FPCC, Oswald disobeyed every legitimate direction received by him from the NYC FPCC HQ. Instead of building a local chapter, his only achievement was registering on the local media radar, including filmed TV footage and a radio debate.

Leaving aside questions of impersonation for a moment, Oswald's approaches to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City were equally fraudulent and self-defeating. According to the testimony taken from staff at each, Oswald seemed wholly ignorant of travel restrictions imposed on US citizens traveling to either country. Yet the real Oswald was well aware of all the bureaucratic red tape that this entailed, for he had already experienced same in his travels to the USSR, and in his repatriation. To bolster his eligibility for a travel visa, the Mexico City Oswald purportedly presented a brand new CPUSA membership card [LHO was not a member], which embassy staff found odd, since special allowances were made for CPUSA members, none of whom had ever needed to brandish a card to receive that special consideration. Oswald also allegedly presented a New Orleans newspaper article with a photograph of him being arrested. No such genuine newspaper article was ever published, according to the extant record. Again, this was not a genuine attempt to receive a travel visa; it was merely an opportunity to register him as a visitor to enemy embassies, and during once such visit to meet with a Soviet named Kostikov who would only later be "unmasked" as an expert in assassination and murder.

The incidents at Redbird airport in Dallas were staged for a purpose. An "Oswald" was sighted there prior to the assassination, as part of a group seeking to charter an airplane for 11/22/63. A plane sat idling for an hour or more on the Redbird tarmac in the early afternoon of 11/22/63, then eventually left. Subsequently, special attention was paid to an incoming small aircraft in Mexico City, and the alleged transfer of a single passenger to a Cubana Airlines flight that had been delayed there, as though waiting only for that passenger. According to an obscure little footnote in Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much," after the assassination CIA had discovered luggage at the Mexico City airport for one Lee Oswald.

When Oswald was arrested, I suggest that there was no ID in his wallet containing the name "Hidell." Had there been, one might have expected any of the arresting officers - several of whom were contemporaneously interviewed by the media - or any of the DPD hierarchy to have mentioned that fact. Upstanding citizens don't use an alias, and those who carry false ID are immediately suspect for that fact alone. Despite the received history on this aspect of the case, it wouldn't be for a full 24 hours that the name "Hidell" was first uttered by those who arrested Oswald and purportedly found "Hidell" ID on his person a the time.

In fact, I suggest that all the so-called "Hidell" ID was actually discovered in the wallet located at the Tippit crime scene. This is why the name "Hidell" entered the nomenclature of the crime only after the rifle had been traced back to a mail-order buyer using that name, via Oswald's PO box. It was only when Captain Fritz was confronted by two wallets, both ostensibly belonging to the same suspect, that this became problematic, as we'll soon see.

Taking the foregoing into account, let us assume that shortly after the assassination, the man known as Lee Harvey Oswald simply vanished. What would have been left behind, and what inferences would have been drawn from that residue?

The wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have disclosed that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, who also used the alias "Hidell," had killed a policeman. In tracking down this man's whereabouts, DPD would have discovered - as they did - incriminating photographs of Oswald posing with weapons. After the rifle had been found in the TSBD, it would have been traced back to Klein's in Chicago, and from there to a buyer named "Hidell" at Oswald's PO box. In short order, Oswald's masquerade as a FPCC radical would have surfaced, along with his criminal arrest in New Orleans, and the subsequent TV and radio appearances in which he advocated strongly on behalf of Castro.

Soon thereafter, sources within the US government would have disclosed that Oswald had made approaches to two enemy embassies in Mexico City, and CIA would have revealed - as it did - that one person Oswald met there was in charge of Soviet assassination plotting in the western hemisphere.

At which point, it would have come to the public's attention that a light plane had left Redbird airport shortly after the assassination, that a plane of similar description had landed in Mexico City, and that a single passenger had deplaned and entered a waiting Cubana Airlines flight bound for Havana. Conveniently, that passenger would have been identified as Lee Oswald, based on luggage that had mistakenly been left behind there. [so central to the plot was this airplane story that even after Oswald's capture, the tale was subsequently retro-fitted so that the mystery passenger morphed into several other Cuban actors with purportedly strong Castro allegiances.]

Had Oswald simply disappeared and left behind this breadcrumb trail of evidence, what inescapable conclusions would have been drawn, and what would have been the official US response?

The assassination didn't transpire precisely as had been planned. Yes, it succeeded in killing the President. It failed, however, to deliver the ancillary benefits of placing direct blame upon the Havana despot, as had been hoped.

The single most critical failure in achieving that end was Oswald being arrested with his own wallet in his own pocket.

It has long been my contention that if Oswald was framed, as the majority here seem to argue, then it is by locating and examining the elements of that frameup, pre- and post-assassination, that we can identify both the methods employed and those responsible for executing it.

When I had a chance to discuss this in person with Peter Dale Scott, whose own hypothesis is slightly different, he asked me "If the purpose was to incite a military response against Cuba, why didn't it happen?" I replied that Oswald's arrest had derailed the most critical aspects of the plan, for the same reasons outlined above. Exemplifying intellectual impartiality, he agreed it was worthy of further consideration.

I take it you don't believe the 2 Oswalds theory of Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. Having Oswald on that plane at Redbird, flying to Mexico City, then onto Cuba was possibly Lee Oswald escaping from the U.S. We last saw him getting into a car with someone else driving and making a getaway. Did Lee become a Cuban or Russian citizen? He is not the one speaking badly annunciated English into a tape recording as he reads something written in English -- to my satisfaction that's Harvey who wasn't American in my opinion. Of course we know it wasn't Harvey getting onto any planes, as he was in police custody and murdered 2 days later. Lee must have been proficient in Spanish. His presence in Cuba would not seem too strange to the Spanish citizens. But would Castro harbor President Kennedy's killer? If he did, than he was behind the assassination after all.

Norman Mailer described Oswald being taken out of the front door of the Texas Theater in a near riot and seen by a store owner, being taken out the back door by 2 cops. Did Lee eventually return to the U.S.?

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think there are more Oswalds than there are Kennedys! It's gruesome but whose head and whose body lie in Oswald's grave? Why did the medical examiner take so long id-ing the dental records? Can we assume both Lee and Harvey are in the same grave, so to speak; as the head exhumed was separated from the body and there were signs of tampering on the vault, particularly on the bottom?

Kathy :clapping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Simkin in reference to RCD contribution: "As always, an excellent post."

Couldn't agree more. When I was fumbling around these issues. It was RCD who put the light on for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myra,

The Mob's Cuban businesses (gambling, prostitution, infrastructure control, etc.) in the agregate were small potatoes compared to the international drug trade that was threatened by JFK's telegraphed intentions to withdraw from Southeast Asia and thus likely eliminate the Golden Triangle from the game board.

Charles,

The Mob's Cuban businesses like gambling, prostitution, infrastructure control

were small potatoes compared to the amount of heroin that was flowing from

Havana to Florida under Batista.

Alfred W. McCoy, THE POLITICS OF HEROIN, pgs 40-41:

(quote on, emphasis added)

[Mafia capo di tutti capi Lucky] Luciano's 1947 visit to Cuba laid the groundwork

for Havana's subsequent role in international narcotics smuggling traffic. Arriving

in January, Luciano summoned the leaders of American organized crime, including

Meyer Lansky, to Havana for a meeting and began paying extravagant bribes to

prominent Cuban officals as well..."Cuba was to be made the center of all international

narcotics operations." Harry J. Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics...

...By the early 1950s...[santo Trafficante Jr.]'s official position in Havana was that of

manager of the Sans Souci Casino, but he was far more important than his title indicates.

As his father's financial representative, and ultimately Meyer Lansky's, Santo controlled

much of Havana's tourist industry and became quite close to the pre-Castro dictator

Fulgencio Batista. Moreover, it was reportedly his responsibility to receive the bulk

shipments of heroin from Europe and forward them through Florida to New York and

other major urban centers where their distribution was assisted by local Mafia leaders.

(quote off)

The GREAT HEROIN COUP, Kruger, pg 89:

(quote on)

The tight control over the U.S. heroin market by the Cotronis of Montreal and Trafficante

of Tampa was a legacy of Meyer Lanksy and Lucky Luciano's reorganization of the U.S.

heroin market. Lanksy built himself a fantastic empire headquartered in Havana, and

literally governed Cuba over the head of dictator Fulgencio Batista. Lansky became the

world's uncrowned narcotics king. His decisions affected everyone, including the bigwigs

in France and Italy. He invested in the Marseilles labs and had the Corsicans reorganize

themselves more efficiently. When Castro drove him from Cuba, Lansky created a similar

gambling paradise in Nassau.

(quote off)

The Havana-to-Florida smuggling funnel was at least as prized as the Golden Triangle,

and its loss caused major dislocations in the heroin trade.

From THE GREAT HEROIN COUP, pg 89:

(quote on)

[by 1970] [t]here were five main heroin export routes to the U.S.A.,

two by air and three by sea. The shipping lanes emanated from

Barcelona, Lisbon, and Antwerp and either ended in Brazil/Paraguay,

Haiti and the French West Indies, or went directly to the east coast

of the United States. Heroin smuggled into the U.S. from the French Antilles

and Haiti, like that from Paraguay, went via Florida or Mexico...

Heroin leaving Haiti, the Antilles, Nassau, and the Paraguay-based

Ricord Mob wound up in Florida, where Santo Trafficante, Jr. and the

Cuban Mafia controlled the drug business in an axis that became the

U.S.A.'s most powerful narcotics organization.

(quote off)

After Castro took power, Lanksy had to go to Nassau, Trafficante at one point

set-up shop in the Dominican Republic, and Haiti appears to have been a free-for-all

among corrupt government officials in business for themselves.

Recall that in the time period under scrutiny Trafficante and others were working to eliminate the Corsican middle men and deal directly with Asian principals (see The Great Heroin Coup as a worthy primer).

Such a paradigm shift would bring about major changes at all levels of the drug operation.

In 1963 the Corsican Mafia controlled the production of heroin from the poppy

fields in Turkey to the heroin labs in Marseilles.

The Sicilian-American Outfit controlled the distribution of heroin in the United States.

The Corsicans sought to develop their own American distribution, but failed.

The US Mob sought to develop their own sources of supply, and eventually succeeded

in eliminating the Corsicans in the early 70's.

Castro's value, then, as a diversionary bogeyman is enhanced.

But that value was surely a door prize compared to the advantage of having

the international hub of heroin trafficking 90 miles from its biggest market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, Cliff.

We're making the same point: alternatives to the Cuban hub had been actualized.

Times change, and the most successful businessmen anticipate change and act accordingly. You can't go home again.

You wrote, "The US Mob sought to develop their own sources of supply, and eventually succeeded in eliminating the Corsicans in the early 70's." So true.

Cuba had outlived its usefulness. A new paradigm was in place.

I'll add that a view of the communist Cuban government as a monolithic entity in lock-step to a single leader/philosophy likely is incorrect. So perhaps a longer view on the part of the Mob and its partners saw greater value in the preservation of Castro than in his demise.

Let's keep this exchange alive.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John S. said:

"If it is acceptable to you I will add it to my page on Lee Harvey Oswald. "

This is your Forum John, and I merely post here. Please feel free to do whatever you wish with my meagre contributions. [i wish that they could be Meagher contributions, but we all have our limitations and few can rise to those heights....]

------------------------------------

Charles Drago said:

"If the patsying of Castro were intended to provoke an invasion, rather than to recruit into the coverup otherwise non-conspiratorial accessories after the fact, the Marines would have hit the beach."

This is precisely the point at which Dr. Scott and I respectfully diverge from each other's view. If one presumes too much, in my own humble opinion, the above is concretely true. But, I suspect, it does presume too much.

It pre-supposes that those in charge of making the invasion plans were witting of the assassination in advance, waited only for their pretext to be executed, and that despite having their finger on the trigger aimed at Havana, they balked when the time came to fire. I agree that this seems nonsensical, but only because it presumes too much. While I certainly can't and don't rule out that Johnson or the Joint Chiefs may have participated in the crime, I've yet to see sufficient evidence of their participation. What I suspect, instead, is that those responsible for Kennedy's murder wished to lay on enough superficially convincing evidence of Castro's complicity in the crime that a groundswell of public indignation would result, requiring a US military response; not that one was planned in advance.

Moreover, Dr. Scott's Phase One/Phase Two conjecture, while neat and tidy, is - to me, at least - entirely too neat and tidy. It presupposes that the plotters correctly divined in advance what the responses would be from all parties involved. It further presupposes that what transpired is precisely what was planned. Perhaps others lead a life so predictable, but my own experience of life on this planet is somewhat different.

A quick example: It could be argued, on the basis of the extant record, that more than one weapon was retrieved from the TSBD. All initial references made by DPD and the DA, for a full day, were to a Mauser, as though a Mannlicher Carcano hadn't even been found. So, did the plotters leave behind a second weapon, confident that authorities would hide all trace of it, or did the plotters leave behind a second weapon confident that the existence of more than one weapon, and thus more than one shooter, would be construed as evidence of a Communist-inspired conspiracy, rather than the act of a lone man? If it was the latter, which I suspect, then the plotters seem to have guessed incorrectly, didn't they?

The beauty of Dr. Scott's scenario is that Oswald's disposition is immaterial to the outcome. However, it seems to me that a number of people went to a great deal of trouble to colour the immediate post-assassination perception of Oswald as Castro-sponsored, and to lay on an "escape route" leading directly to Havana. Had that portion of it gone according to what I surmise was their plan, all would have been left thinking that Oswald and Castro were smoking Monte Cristos and clinking their Cuba Libre glasses in celebration on the beach. With that residual impression, would things really have turned out the way they did, or would the Marines have hoisted a victory flag in Havana within days? Think about it.

Dr. Scott thinks that cooler heads would have prevailed regardless, for that is what was predicted and intended. Whereas, I look at the same evidence, see an entirely different intent, and a wholly different outcome. And I do so, at least in part, due to Dr. Scott's own literary efforts, which first disclosed to me the indendiary Lt. Stringfellow memo to San Antonio and the orders given to McDill AFB. Both of these details smell to me of hidden hands provoking precisely the kind of military response that I contend was desired and expected. The only problem being, Oswald wasn't toasting Castro on the beach. He was instead proclaiming his innocence in police custody.

--------------------------------------------

Which very neatly brings us to the point that Jack raised:

"I agree with "your plan"...but do you think what actually happened was a PLAN B, or just an improvisation by some of those involved?"

Well, this would require speculation, and I know that Jack White has always championed research over speculation. However, based upon the evidence at hand, I suspect/speculate that Tippit was supposed to have been the one who helped in making Oswald "vanish," and that he had been recruited for this role by Ruby, hence his drive toward Ruby's apartment. In my own hypothesis, after Tippit had chauffeurred Oswald to his destination point, Tippit would have been found dead with Oswald's falsified "Hidell" wallet beside him. When Tippit demurred from completing this assignment, because he suddenly realized that this quick-cash job was in some way related to the assassination, he was taken out at 10th and Patton, rather than somewhere closer to, say, Redbird Airport.

Because Ruby's recruit, Tippit, had failed to carry out his assignment, and Oswald was captured, the job switched from making Oswald disappear to making Oswald dead, which fell to Ruby. To me, that seems less a case of PLAN B than it does awkward ad-libbing.

----------------------------------------------

I wish to make it clear that Dr. Scott is my own ideal of a researcher, and that because I demur from accepting only the final step of his hypothesis, this in no way diminishes my respect for his zeal, his stamina, his amazing recall of arcane facts, or his indisputable facility for making the most of the English language. I have often met those I greatly admired from afar and came away slightly or greatly disappointed. Dr. Scott is one of those rare individuals who, after having met him, I came away with a massively inflated impression of his talents, value and integrity. His mind is keen, his use of language is surgical in its exactitude, and rather than display displeasure with those who might disagree with him, he welcomes any analysis of the facts that rationalizes often contradictory elements, even when such analysis isn't entirely congruent with his own. He is an intellectual giant and deserves far greater praise than he could ever be accorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RCD,

We share similar levels of respect for Peter Dale Scott's mind, manner, and literary gifts.

And you're correct: We go our separate ways as I move with Professor Scott down the "no invasion intended" path.

There is no reason to believe that a disappeared LHO's alleged connections to a Castro-originating plot would have been made public in a manner that was any more impervious to an official LN finding than in fact they were. Regardless of the patsy's vital signs, the intended audience -- uncorrupted investigators and government officials -- would have been (and in fact were) persuaded to cover up the alleged communist conspiracy out of fear of a retributive launching of WWIII.

You write that acceptance of this scenario " ... pre-supposes that those in charge of making the invasion plans were witting of the assassination in advance, waited only for their pretext to be executed, and that despite having their finger on the trigger aimed at Havana, they balked when the time came to fire."

I suspect that plans for the invasion of Cuba were extant long before 11/22/63 and were constantly upgraded via gaming and other means, and that planners were awaiting some sort of precipitating event. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that a retaliatory landing would have followed on the heels (within days) of JFK's murder, so I can't accept that fingers were on hair triggers.

Additionally, you write that, "Moreover, Dr. Scott's Phase One/Phase Two conjecture, while neat and tidy, is - to me, at least - entirely too neat and tidy. It presupposes that the plotters correctly divined in advance what the responses would be from all parties involved. It further presupposes that what transpired is precisely what was planned. Perhaps others lead a life so predictable, but my own experience of life on this planet is somewhat different."

Again, I have a problem with your sense of pre-supposition. As I noted previously in my perhaps overarching "figured bass" metaphor, the planners of what we surely agree was/is a conspiracy of Baroque complexity must have anticipated that there would be unanticipated events and consequences generated by their actions. I doubt they would have been foolish enough to believe that they had covered every possible bet.

As you write, "Because Ruby's recruit, Tippit, had failed to carry out his assignment, and Oswald was captured, the job switched from making Oswald disappear to making Oswald dead, which fell to Ruby. To me, that seems less a case of PLAN B than it does awkward ad-libbing."

"Ad-libbing?" Most likely. "Awkward?" Well, it worked.

Finally, you write, " ... it seems to me that a number of people went to a great deal of trouble to colour the immediate post-assassination perception of Oswald as Castro-sponsored, and to lay on an 'escape route' leading directly to Havana. Had that portion of it gone according to what I surmise was their plan, all would have been left thinking that Oswald and Castro were smoking Monte Cristos and clinking their Cuba Libre glasses in celebration on the beach. With that residual impression, would things really have turned out the way they did, or would the Marines have hoisted a victory flag in Havana within days?

"Think about it."

I have. I do.

And I repeat, as Professor Scott and I see it, the purpose of going to such a "great deal of trouble" was to convince not the public, but rather the relevant investigative and political entities that Castro did it, and that a public so convinced would demand what would amont to nuclear holocaust.

We must continue to disagree honorably on a matter that remains of the utmost interest to us all.

Best,

Charles Drago

Edited by Charles Drago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the quality and quantity of discussion on this.

The overarching question is whether or not an invasion of Cuba was part of the original plot. I don't even know enough to have an opinion yet. But I'm unconvinced that the capture of Oswald would make it necessary to cancel existing plans to invade Cuba.

Granted it was a big snafu, but they could have played the Ruby card with the narrative propaganda that this wholesome apple-pie eating flag-waving American Mr. Ruby was so outraged at the actions of the Castro-coddling commie scum Oswald that he snapped and took the law into his own hands bla bla bla. The plotters and their mockingbird allies could then fan the commie-hating flames and proceed to manipulate the public and congress into a justifiable righteous retaliatory invasion.

Again, I'm unconvinced that the capture of Oswald would make it necessary to cancel existing plans to invade Cuba. The plotters were determined, ruthless, and powerful. Why would they so quickly abandon one of two objectives?

Unless Johnson, when put in charge of the cover up, simply wouldn't play along with the invasion scenario now that he had what he wanted. But if that were the case I'd think they would have insured that LBJ lose the 1964 election. And clearly he was willing to give the military industrial complex their Vietnam war in return for the crown they handed him.

I just don't know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×