Did the Soviets/Castro organize the assassination?

[John Simkin]

I thought that it might be a good idea to look at the evidence that suggests that the assassination of JFK was organized by the governments of the Soviet Union or/and Cuba. I think the idea makes no political sense at all but I know some members of the forum do believe this theory.

The history of this theory is an interesting one. The first person to put this theory forward was John Martino, an electronics expert, who was employed by Santos Trafficante. He also worked as a CIA agent and took part in its Black Operations.

In an article published in January, 1964, Martino argued that in 1963 Castro discovered an American plot to overthrow his government. He retaliated by employing Oswald to kill JFK.

Shortly before his death in 1975 Martino confessed to a Miami Newsday reporter, John Cummings, that he had been guilty of spreading false stories implicating Oswald and the Soviets in the assassination. In fact, he had himself been part of the conspiracy to kill JFK. He claimed that two of the gunmen were Cuban exiles. It is believed the two men were Herminio Diaz Garcia and Virgilio Gonzalez. Cummings added: "He told me he'd been part of the assassination of Kennedy. He wasn't in Dallas pulling a trigger, but he was involved. He implied that his role was delivering money, facilitating things.... He asked me not to write it while he was alive." Martino made a similar confession to his wife, son and business partner.

The next person to spread this story was Billy James Hargis, the founder of Christian Crusade ("a Christian weapon against Communism and its godless allies"). In 1964 he wrote a book called The Far Left. In it he argued:

What are the lies that are confronting the American people today as a result of this internal Communist conspiracy, and in connection with this murder of the President of the United States?

The first lie is that there is no conspiracy, that the Communist conspiracy does not exist, and there are not thousands upon thousands of trained Communist agents in this country today, some of them trained, as Lee Harvey Oswald obviously was, to be expert killers. The murder of the President of the United States was one of the most skillful acts of killing imaginable and could have been accomplished only by great training, and now the facts show that Oswald received such training inside the Soviet Union, while he lived there as a citizen.

It is a lie hatched in hell that the so-called “right-wing extremists” are guilty of the murder of the President of the United States. That lie was put out as official Communist Party propaganda in the first flash of Tass News Agency in Moscow as reported in this country within minutes after the President was killed. Tass, the Russian Communist News Agency, said it was believed that “right-wing extremists” were responsible for the murder of the President, and specifically branded General Edwin A. Walker as being one of those guilty.

Hargis was known as a right-wing fanatic and his views on the assassination were not taken seriously (except for Kenneth Rahn’s Academic (sic) JFK Assassination Site).

Despite the efforts of James Jesus Angleton very few researchers were unwilling to put forward the theory that the Soviets were behind the assassination. Understandably, most researchers were more likely to think that it was the CIA or FBI that planned the assassination than the KGB.

The next book that argued that the KGB was behind the assassination came in 1975. The book, Khrushchev Killed Kennedy had been written by the English author, Michael Eddowes. The fact that Eddowes had written such a book surprised researchers in the UK. Eddowes, a former lawyer, had gained fame in 1955 by publishing a book called The Man on Your Conscience. The book was an investigation into the murder trial and execution of Timothy Evans. The book caused renewed interest in the case and eventually Evans received a posthumous pardon by the Queen. This case played an important role in the subsequent abolition of capital punishment in Britain.

Eddowes was therefore had a good reputation as an investigative reporter. However, he appeared to lose interest in this profession after the publication of The Man on Your Conscience. In fact, by 1975, he was mainly known for his right-wing extremist political views.

In Khrushchev Killed Kennedy Eddowes argued that Kennedy was killed by a Soviet agent impersonating Oswald. Eddowes also claimed that LBJ was aware of this and had covered-up the role of the KGB in the killing of Kennedy in order to prevent a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. With the release of the LBJ tapes we now know this is what he was saying at the time. Had Eddowes been tipped off by the FBI/CIA about this?

Two events helped to undermine Eddowes and as a result his book is rarely quoted by the “Soviets did it” theorists. To test his theory, Eddowes brought a suit in Texas to exhume Oswald's body. This was originally refused but after gaining the support of Lee Harvey Oswald's family, the exhumation took place on 4th October, 1981. The body was taken to the Baylor Medical Center. Identification was made primarily using dental records. At a news conference held later the following statement was issued: “The findings of the team are as follows: We independently and as a team have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hill Cemetery is in fact Lee Harvey Oswald.”

The other event was the discovery that the writing and publication of Khrushchev Killed Kennedy had been financed by the Texas oil billionaire, Haroldson L. Hunt. This was of course the man claimed by Thomas Buchanan (Who Killed Kennedy? 1964) to have paid for the JFK assassination.

The next person to argue that it was the KGB was Edward Jay Epstein. In 1978 he published Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. In the book he claims that Oswald killed JFK and that it was working on behalf of the KGB. Much of the book is based on interviews with James Jesus Angleton and Yuri Nosenko. This book did little for Epstein’s reputation as a serious researcher and many now believe he was in the pay of the CIA.

In 1982 Michael Kurtz published The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian's Perspective. It is a good book and mainly concentrates on looking at the evidence for a conspiracy. In the book he speculates about different groups being involved in the assassination. This includes the possibility that the assassination was ordered by Fidel Castro.

In recent years few researchers have claimed that the Soviets were behind the assassination. The release of secret files under the Freedom of Information Act has also undermined this theory. It is now clear that JFK was involved in secret negotiations with Castro and Khrushchev about bringing the Cold War to an end. The idea that they should be at the same time being plotting to have JFK assassinated so that they could have LBJ as president is indeed ridiculous.

[Tim Gratz]

Can't wait to reply in depth (but I have to).

You forgot to mention Rolando Cubela and the Second Naval Guerilla, by the way. Might they be of any relevance?

The following people suscribe to the theory that Castro did it: LBJ; Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig (the latter two were deeply involved in JFK's anti-Castro activities); Professor Michael Kurtz, Joseph Trento, etc. With due respect, to characterize a theory with evidentiary basis, subscribed to by intelligent men who were there and had access to confidential materials, as "ridiculous" seems a tad presumptuous.

Had JFK lived, Castro would most likely have been dead before the Nov 1964 election. Assuredly, he would no longer be in power in Cuba. LBJ turned off all of the anti-Castro operations being planned by JFK and RFK. It was the assassination of JFK that guaranteed the survival of the Castro government in Cuba.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[David Boylan]

Does anyone seriously believe that Castro would still be in power (or even alive) if he killed a sitting US President and the US knew of this? 'Nuf said.

[Ron Ecker]

How did Castro or the Soviet Union manage the cover-up? For example, was it Castro or the Russians who sent Humes, Boswell, and Finck into the Betheseda morgue, to perform their Three Stooges act on a body that apparently had already been altered while in Secret Service custody?

Or did Castro or the Russians appoint the Warren Commission (avoiding any Congressional investigations) with the likes of Allen Dulles as members?

I can only assume that the Secret Service, U.S. military, and LBJ had to coordinate all this through the Soviet Embassy.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

To David Boylan:

LBJ probably wanted to live more than to avenge the murder of his good friend John Kennedy, whose brother was getting ready to prosecute him. If you are saying LBJ would have killed Castro if he really thought Castro did it, the record is clear LBJ thought Castro did it. So did his aides Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig. LBJ's response was to "turn off" the US attacks against Cuna.

Edited January 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

To Ron:

There were different reasons for the cover-up, as you know, LBJ had his reasons and RFK had reasons of his own.

LBJ was even a suspect. Forty years later John Simkin has turned up very good reasons why LBJ had a motive. These reasons would have come up had there been a full investigation. So a full investigation was the last thing LBJ wanted. If he did not do it himself, he could thank his lucky stars it happened when it did. What interest did he have in solving the murder at possible greact cost to himself?

Edited January 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

I find it hard to believe that Castro or the Russians would assassinate JFK and not worry about any investigation that could lead to them because LBJ, the military, the CIA, the FBI, ONI, DPD, and the YMCA would all have reasons to cover up and would be rushing to see who could do it first. That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?

Ron

Edited January 12, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Gratz]

Tim,

I find it hard to believe that Castro or the Russians would assassinate JFK and not worry about any investigation that could lead to them because LBJ, the military, the CIA, the FBI, ONI, DPD, and the YMCA would all have reasons to cover up and would be rushing to see who could do it first. That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of  depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Members: Please refer to my thread "Did Castro Kill JFK?"

Thanks!

Edited January 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Can't wait to reply in depth (but I have to).

You forgot to mention Rolando Cubela and the Second Naval Guerilla, by the way. Might they be of any relevance?

The following people suscribe to the theory that Castro did it:  LBJ; Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig (the latter two were deeply involved in JFK's anti-Castro activities); Professor Michael Kurtz, Joseph Trento, etc.  With due respect, to characterize a theory with evidentiary basis, subscribed to by intelligent men who were there and had access to confidential materials, as "ridiculous" seems a tad presumptuous.

Had JFK lived, Castro would most likely have been dead before the Nov 1964 election.  Assuredly, he would no longer be in power in Cuba.  LBJ turned off all of the anti-Castro operations being planned by JFK and RFK.  It was the assassination of JFK that guaranteed the survival of the Castro government in Cuba.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim:

With all due respect, selecting the half of an argument that supports your own bias, while dismissing the half that doesn't, will not advance your case.

Rolando Cubela is worth remembering, as is the fact that everything he gleaned was instantly fed back to Fidel's intel personnel. It was precisely because Fidel wished to determine whether JFK's Oval Office supported the attempted hits against Castro - or whether they were the work of 'rogue' elements within CIA - that Cubela insisted on a face-to-face with RFK. Clearly, Cubela was recruited as a pawn in CIA's own machinations; your scenario requires that Des Fitzgerald and others within CIA were pawns in Fidel's plotting. Which do you find more tenable?

The fact that any number of people subscribe to any given theory doesn't give it weight or validity. Many more people than you cite above, who were far more involved in the investigations of the day, believed that Oswald acted alone. Does that make it true?

Arguendo, let's suppose Castro plotted against Kennedy. Would he have selected a fallguy whose own personal history tracked straight back to Moscow and Cuba? Would he have instructed that fallguy to make ostentatious - but entirely superficial - attempts to found a FPCC chapter in NOLA? Would he have instructed the fallguy to make repeated visits to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City - knowing full well that this facility was under photographic and telephonic surveillance by CIA - for no purpose other than to create the illusion Cuba was behind his subsequent murder of the President? Seems rather self-defeating, doesn't it?

Turn the scenario around, however, and the very same evidence - a mile wide but only an inch deep - would have been the justification for invading Cuba, which is precisely what had been intended.

Far from being the guarantee of Castro's retention of power, Cuban sponsorship of Kennedy's murder - had the manufactured trail of bread crumb evidence been taken as seriously as it had been intended to be - would have been the end of Castro. As Fidel himself said when he heard of JFK's death, "This is very bad news." Far from being the beneficiary of the crime, Castro was its intended secondary victim.

It is worth remembering that literally dozens of attempts on Castro's life have taken place, been thwarted, been demonstrated with evidence, and several - though far from all - were even admitted to by those CIA personnel responsible, during the Church Committe hearings. Can you cite a single genuine attempt by Cuban intelligence against a US head of state?

If so, I'm sure we'd all like whatever details you can provide. If not, then what seems a "tad presumptuous" is asking us to accept the wafer-thin evidence of Cuban sponsorship manufactured by the conspirators, simply because a half dozen people - each with their own agenda, including a chief suspect in the conspiracy [LBJ] - ask us to do the same.

[Ron Ecker]

How about this scenario (not that I believe it, but it's the only way I see that Castro could have been involved). Castro was plotting to kill JFK. The CIA found out and decided to let it happen, but planted evidence (the framing of Oswald) to make sure Castro would be exposed, leading to an invasion of Cuba. (This would only work, of course, if Castro didn't know that the CIA knew.) When Oswald was captured, the CIA panicked, because if Oswald talked the CIA's preknowledge of the assassination could be exposed. The CIA had virtually been in cahoots with Castro, though Castro didn't know it. So the CIA covered up and went with the lone gunman theory to protect itself. Meanwhile Castro figured out (thanks to the Oswald business) why the CIA was protecting him and had a good laugh.

Ron

[Jim Root]

John

It seems that in many of the theories you presented here that Oswald, or an Oswald impersonator, is a part of the conspiracy while in a few he is not. Seems the theories haven't gotten to far away from this particular part of the crime.

Jim Root

PS I do like reading several of Epsteins interviews.

Edited January 12, 2005 by Jim Root

[Dawn Meredith]

John

It seems that in many of the theories you presented here that Oswald, or an Oswald impersonator, is a part of the conspiracy while in a few he is not.  Seems the theories haven't gotten to far away from this particular part of the crime.

Jim Root

PS  I do like reading several of Epsteins interviews.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________

What a strange conversation this is. Thanks Ron for being the voice of reason here. No one has mentioned Castro himself, what he had to say about the assassination so allow me to try. I will scan his speech to John, tho I have been told via email from Andy that when I send John an email it goes to Andy and not to John, so I hope that I can accomplish this.

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Tim,

That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of  depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron:

From my own perspective, I think it's important to draw a distinction between those who authored and executed the plan, and those who helped cover it up, because they're not necessarily the same people.

Allow me to hypothesize a scenario. You are John McCone. You arrive at work on 11/23/63, and are briefed by underlings. They claim that a few of your personnel may have been involved in the prior day's events. Despite the fact that you had no prior knowledge of those plans, you now must do all in your power to obscure the truth. To admit the truth is to invite the dismembering of your Agency, which you rightly view as a vital part of the nation's defense against an implacable Communist enemy. Disclosing the truth will not bring back the dead President, but will irreparably harm your Agency. Hence, you collude with others to ensure that your Agency isn't subjected to greater scrutiny than is necessary. This doesn't make you responsible for the President's murder, but does make you an accessory after the fact. Yet, what other viable choice is open to you?

Of course, it's a simplistic scenario, made only to illustrate a point. Aside from strict need-to-know compartmentalization being SOP at the Agency, I strongly suspect that McCone was completely out of the loop on any number of things, the result of what the Agency calls "selective briefing." Because DCIs were regularly questioned by Congressional intel committees, they were often shielded from the truth by their own underlings, to preclude sudden bursts of honesty while they were being grilled on the Hill.

[Moreover, McCone was Kennedy's nominee for DCI, after all, and by most accounts such a boy scout that when the anti-Castro plots came to his attention, he fretted he would be excommunicated from the Catholic church should those plots be made public. If McCone didn't even know about the attempts to whack Castro while they were current, as he insisted, whom within the Agency - presuming that anyone within the Agency had foreknowledge - would have made him privvy to plans to kill the US President?]

As for the coverup, I can see ample cause for virtually all agencies to collude in scuttling the truth, without it necessarily implicating them in the crime itself.

In a perfect world, FBI should have admitted that Oswald was well known to them [as the subsequent release of previously classified documents makes clear], but chose instead to claim no prior knowledge of him or his movements. To admit otherwise would only have raised questions about why the Bureau didn't monitor this man more closely. Given their role as Warren Commission "investigators" [conflict of interest, anyone?], one clearly sees why certain facts were filtered out of the data provided to the Commission. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]

Ditto for the Secret Service, already in the frying pan for its multiple failures in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not Oswald fit their criteria for inclusion in the Protective Registry, the presumption of his sole guilt after the fact only made it more obvious that he should have been included, irrespective of SS criteria for doing so. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]

Ditto for the CIA, the most obstructionist of all the agencies, and the one with the most incendiary data about Oswald: the Mexico City charade. Oswald meeting with the putative head of KGB's assassination department before Kennedy's murder might qualify as the kind of information one passes on to FBI, SS, et al. Oops.

Ditto for the DPD, which - with Oswald's death while in custody - had to to pin the blame on Oswald as a sole assassin, by itself and/or in collaboration with others. The alternative was to admit it had arrested the wrong man, and allowed him to be murdered while in its custody. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]

Ditto for military intelligence of all branches of the service. I've always puzzled over how much Colonel Robert Jones seemed to immediately know about LHO - per Jones' HSCA testimony - yet nobody within the military volunteered that data to the Commission while it was sitting. By the time of Jones' admissions to the HSCA, Oswald's own military intelligence files had been "routinely" destroyed, as though he were any other run-of-the-mill leatherneck, thus depriving us the means to verify Jones' contentions.

None of the foregoing precludes individuals at each agency from being a part of the crime, of course. But collusion in the coverup doesn't necessarily demonstrate the colluders were [fore-]knowing participants in the crime.

[Dawn Meredith]

Tim,

That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of  depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron:

From my own perspective, I think it's important to draw a distinction between those who authored and executed the plan, and those who helped cover it up, because they're not necessarily the same people.

Allow me to hypothesize a scenario. You are John McCone. You arrive at work on 11/23/63, and are briefed by underlings. They claim that a few of your personnel may have been involved in the prior day's events. Despite the fact that you had no prior knowledge of those plans, you now must do all in your power to obscure the truth. To admit the truth is to invite the dismembering of your Agency, which you rightly view as a vital part of the nation's defense against an implacable Communist enemy. Disclosing the truth will not bring back the dead President, but will irreparably harm your Agency. Hence, you collude with others to ensure that your Agency isn't subjected to greater scrutiny than is necessary. This doesn't make you responsible for the President's murder, but does make you an accessory after the fact. Yet, what other viable choice is open to you?

Of course, it's a simplistic scenario, made only to illustrate a point. Aside from strict need-to-know compartmentalization being SOP at the Agency, I strongly suspect that McCone was completely out of the loop on any number of things, the result of what the Agency calls "selective briefing." Because DCIs were regularly questioned by Congressional intel committees, they were often shielded from the truth by their own underlings, to preclude sudden bursts of honesty while they were being grilled on the Hill.

[Moreover, McCone was Kennedy's nominee for DCI, after all, and by most accounts such a boy scout that when the anti-Castro plots came to his attention, he fretted he would be excommunicated from the Catholic church should those plots be made public. If McCone didn't even know about the attempts to whack Castro while they were current, as he insisted, whom within the Agency - presuming that anyone within the Agency had foreknowledge - would have made him privvy to plans to kill the US President?]

As for the coverup, I can see ample cause for virtually all agencies to collude in scuttling the truth, without it necessarily implicating them in the crime itself.

In a perfect world, FBI should have admitted that Oswald was well known to them [as the subsequent release of previously classified documents makes clear], but chose instead to claim no prior knowledge of him or his movements. To admit otherwise would only have raised questions about why the Bureau didn't monitor this man more closely. Given their role as Warren Commission "investigators" [conflict of interest, anyone?], one clearly sees why certain facts were filtered out of the data provided to the Commission. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]

Ditto for the Secret Service, already in the frying pan for its multiple failures in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not Oswald fit their criteria for inclusion in the Protective Registry, the presumption of his sole guilt after the fact only made it more obvious that he should have been included, irrespective of SS criteria for doing so. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]

Ditto for the CIA, the most obstructionist of all the agencies, and the one with the most incendiary data about Oswald: the Mexico City charade. Oswald meeting with the putative head of KGB's assassination department before Kennedy's murder might qualify as the kind of information one passes on to FBI, SS, et al. Oops.

Ditto for the DPD, which - with Oswald's death while in custody - had to to pin the blame on Oswald as a sole assassin, by itself and/or in collaboration with others. The alternative was to admit it had arrested the wrong man, and allowed him to be murdered while in its custody. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]

Ditto for military intelligence of all branches of the service. I've always puzzled over how much Colonel Robert Jones seemed to immediately know about LHO - per Jones' HSCA testimony - yet nobody within the military volunteered that data to the Commission while it was sitting. By the time of Jones' admissions to the HSCA, Oswald's own military intelligence files had been "routinely" destroyed, as though he were any other run-of-the-mill leatherneck, thus depriving us the means to verify Jones' contentions.

None of the foregoing precludes individuals at each agency from being a part of the crime, of course. But collusion in the coverup doesn't necessarily demonstrate the colluders were [fore-]knowing participants in the crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________

The Castro speech I have scanned to this forum is primarily the first page and then 4-5 more pages, as it is a very long speech (as we know Castro does that). I first found this speech in the work of Paris Flommonde who did the very first book on the Garrison inverstigation. In fact he so titled it (to best of memory going back to 74)"An UNcommissioned report into the invertigation of Jim Garrison).

Castro's remarks are extremely illustrative of how very insightful he was so quickly after the assassination. I took these pages today from the longer version of the speech from Dr Marty Schotz' book, "History Will Not Absolve Us". I do hope the words can be enlarged enough to be legible as I was only able to scan, but not enlarge the print.

Hoperfully his words will put to rest once and for all the innane notion that "Castro did it". (Or as I have always called it "cover story no 2). LBJ KNEW BETTER, he knew tape was running when he was making those comments. LBJ knew damn well Castro did NOT kill JFK.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Some people have argued that "it did not make sense for Castro to kill JFK."

I diifer with that viewpoint. The US government continued its efforts to kill Castro, and Desmond Fitzgerald told Rolando Cubela that Robert F. Kennedy had personally endorsed Cubela's plot to kill Castro. How could he possibly do any worse under Johnson? And in the event, if it was Castro who killed Kennedy, his gamble paid off for LBJ did shut down the efforts to kill Castro, the sabotage raids, etc. (See last paragraph.)

There is another, humorous answer to this objection. Not only is it humorous, I think there is some point to it.

It comes from Paul Hoch (although he is not himself a proponent of the "Castro-did-it" theory).

"Sure, it didn't make sense for Castro to want to kill Kennedy, but if making sense is the only criterion, how can we explain the plots to kill Castro?" (Paul Hoch, in Echoes of Conspiracy.)

Hoch has a point. We are all familiar with some of the outlandish schemes concocted by Edward Lansdale and Desmond Fitzgerald. In his memoirs, "Inside", Joseph Califano describes another outlandish scheme.proposed on February 14, 1963 by the Chief of Naval Operations: "Attach incendiary devices to bats and drop them over training centers. Bats retire to attics during daylight. Incendiary devices ignite by timers and start fires."

I'd say some of these people had bats in their belfries!

By the way, Califano states in his memoirs that soon after he took office Johnson ordered an end to covert activities against Cuba. Califano traveled around the country in February of 1964 to give this message to the anti-Castro exiles.

Despite what Dawn says, I believe LBJ thought Castro did it. Maybe he suspended the anti-Castro activities because he did not want to be on Fidel's hit list!

Edited January 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz