Emanuel Garcia Gonzalez

[James Richards]

The picture in Hurt's book is the one on the left in the link below. (Ron Ecker)

Thanks, Ron. I was the one that put that montage together. I just wasn't aware that particular image was in Hurt's book.

Immediately Shaw's counsel secured a subpoena for the Immigration and Naturalization Service records of Manuel Garcia Gonzalez and Julien Buznedo, then reported living in Denver. George Lardner reported March 16 that Garrison had been seeking these two men since mid-January. They were not found. (Robert Charles-Dunne)

Interesting, Robert. I am sure you are aware that Julien Buznedo was a friend of David Ferrie. (both men below)

James

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Does it never trouble you that a governmental institution that itself trafficked in professional mercenary assassins to do its dirty-work should be investigating a list of suspects that should rightly have included itself?

Gee, Robert, it was you who asked why the CIA had not more fully investigated the two mysterious Cubans who fled to Havana after the assassination. And you have your facts wrong to state that all of these reports were generated by the CIA. Several were generated by CIA informants. That is a rather large distinction.

You have yet to offer one scintilla (love that word!) why the CIA should be considered a suspect. Because the CIA dealt with professional assassins in attempts to kill foreign heads of state that somehow makes the CIA a suspect in the assassination of the POTUS? As you know, there are at least some indications that the POTUS was witting of the assassination attempts. Indeed, "AF2J" and "Ultimate Justice" both argue that the president's brother was organizing attempts to assassinate Castro (although not with the Mafia).

Do you deny that the heads of the CIA and FBI were ordered to stop investigating any possibility of foreign involvement? Surely you cannot deny that. Why, then, do you argue, was the CIA receiving still later reports on the mysterious Cubans? Well, there is a difference between a receipt of a report by an informant and the generation (instigation) of a report by a CIA officer. If a CIA informant made a report to a CIA officer that Policarpo Lopez was acting suspiciously after his return to Cuba, do you contend the CIA should have shredded the report?

Please give me one indication that "the CIA" ever suggested to either the WC or the HSCA that there was Cuban involvement in the assassination? You cannot, for that was not its agenda.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

Does it never trouble you that a governmental institution that itself trafficked in professional mercenary assassins to do its dirty-work should be investigating a list of suspects that should rightly have included itself?

Gee, Robert, it was you who asked why the CIA had not more fully investigated the two mysterious Cubans who fled to Havana after the assassination.

I fail to see how this relates to my statement quoted directly above it, Tim. Are you suggesting that because CIA was demonstrably plotting the murder of political leaders of other countries, it should be considered above suspicion in the murder of your nation's leader? Or are you suggesting that because CIA was demonstrably plotting the murder of a specific Cuban leader, that it should be investigating the death of its own leader, and just didn't do enough?

However, I am not surprised that CIA didn't do more to plumb the purported allegations regarding the two purported DGI operatives who allegedly fled to Havana after the assassination. Had it been a truly thorough investigation, driven by impartial and just imperatives, I would have expected more. But since my suspicion from the first disclosures about these two alleged DGI men has been that this was just additional lint designed to bolster the Oswald-related evidence of sponsorship by Castro, I fully understand why it was not pursued.

You see, Tim, every time any of this Castro-did-it nonsense is subjected to the slightest scrutiny, it crumbles. One needn't poke and prod terribly hard to realize this. Just as the Alvarado story unravelled, albeit to be replaced with another xxxx telling a virtually identical tale, so too would this tripe be exposed as such. At a certain point, CIA decided to cut and run on this Castro-did-it scenario; not because there was no "evidence," but because it it was untrue "evidence" and it could be demonstrated that this spurious "evidence" was manufactured and promoted by CIA.

And you have your facts wrong to state that all of these reports were generated by the CIA. Several were generated by CIA informants. That is a rather large distinction.

There is no distinction. "Informants" don't "generate" reports; the agencies to whom "informants" make their reports "generate" them.

You have asserted that CIA was ordered to cease and desist from delving any further into the morass of Castro-did-it hoopla. I have demonstrated - without any comment from you - that this assertion is entirely wrong, and that CIA continued to generate such xxxxe for months and even years after the alleged cease-and-desist order that you posited. It's just that the xxxxe being thusly generated wasn't very credible, was it? Had it been credible, at least one of the subsequent governmental investigations [WC, Rockefeller, Church, Pike, HSCA] might have managed to find confirmation for what were otherwise wholly unsubstantiated, blind-sourced CIA generated myths. Everything you traffick in here has been known for the past quarter century or more, yet you still cannot find any proof for any of it. Shouldn't that tell you something, Sherlock?

Now, let us assume, despite all the evidence, that CIA did stop its so-called "investigation" as per your prior false assertion. Let us further assume that the "CIA informants" did continue to come forward with information. Do you really think that information would have made it into the documentary record? Had CIA thought it in its best interest to do so, it would have deep-sixed all such subsequent reports and you'd have never heard of them.

Just as was the case with Alvarado, these "informants" were not previously unknown to CIA, and didn't spontaneously report astonishing new stuff to CIA. On the contrary, as was the case with Alvarado, they reported to CIA only what CIA told them to report, so it could generate provocative documents without having to acknowledge authorship or sponsorship for same. For CIA's purpose, it was sufficient to manufacture memos that AM-FLAKE witnessed Oswald getting paid in pesos here, while AM-LAME witnessed Oswald doing the frug with Ms. Duran there, while AM-xxxx witnessed Oswald colluding with Castro, Escalante, Lechuga, Che and the Marx Brothers in a third locale. CIA could thereafter do precisely what Phillips did with Alvarado: promote their tales as true, until it was proven otherwise, at which point they'd be dumped unceremoniously, and blamed for being a xxxx.

You recall how Phillips treated the Alvarado lie, don't you, Tim? While using one alias, Phillips would file reports that vouchsafed for the informant's credibility and expressed how sincere and convincing the informant was; and thereafter, using his real name [particularly in his subsequent memoir], dismiss and disown the very same "informant" as a transparent fraud and self-evident provocateur. That is the record of character and intregrity we have to go by, and is the record by which CIA should be measured and judged.

You really don't know much about this case, do you?

You have yet to offer one scintilla (love that word!) why the CIA should be considered a suspect. Because the CIA dealt with professional assassins in attempts to kill foreign heads of state that somehow makes the CIA a suspect in the assassination of the POTUS?

Well, duh!!! To all but the brain-dead, yes. CIA didn't merely "deal" with professional assassins, did it? It provided them with the means to murder, instructed them on how and when and under what circumstances it was to be done, and who was the intended target.

CIA did not merely assist those who may have committed the murder anyway, but recruited them and directed them to commit a crime that would not have transpired without CIA intercession. Let's not split hairs and play games over who was the bad guy and who was merely a white-collar accomplice that we should chide for being "misguided."

As an alleged one-time lawyer, you might be familiar with a few concepts. One is "modus operandi," the means by which a person or organization accomplishes its goals. Another such concept is a "record of prior bad acts." By both measures, CIA qualifies for inclusion on any impartial list of suspects. Toss in the fact that CIA and Kennedy shared a mutual animosity from no later than April '61, and you've got means and motive.

Given the prima facie evidence that Oswald was manipulated by CIA - the association with "Bishop" in Dallas months before the assassination [irrespective of whether it was Phillips, per Fonzi, or Esterline per Hemming]; and CIA's apparent, but inexplicable failure to capture Oswald on its electronic and photographic surveillance radar while in Mexico City - it becomes clear that any list of suspects which does not include CIA is inadequate and incomplete.

A lawyer should be able to discern these things. But that you cannot do so may explain why you no longer present briefs for clients as a lawyer, but carry briefcases for guests as a hotelier.

As you know, there are at least some indications that the POTUS was witting of the assassination attempts. Indeed, "AF2J" and "Ultimate Justice" both argue that the president's brother was organizing attempts to assassinate Castro (although not with the Mafia).

Do you deny that the heads of the CIA and FBI were ordered to stop investigating any possibility of foreign involvement? Surely you cannot deny that. Why, then, do you argue, was the CIA receiving still later reports on the mysterious Cubans? Well, there is a difference between a receipt of a report by an informant and the generation (instigation) of a report by a CIA officer. If a CIA informant made a report to a CIA officer that Policarpo Lopez was acting suspiciously after his return to Cuba, do you contend the CIA should have shredded the report?

Please give me one indication that "the CIA" ever suggested to either the WC or the HSCA that there was Cuban involvement in the assassination? You cannot, for that was not its agenda.

Clearly, you haven't even read the 26 WC volumes, or the 15 HSCA volumes, or you could not make so astonishingly stupid a comment. Where do you think all this crap you spout about Casas, Policarpo, Diaz, Alvarado, et al, came from? The only people who think this is new or noteworthy are those who haven't paid the slightest attention the past four decades.

Hive off to your local reference library, Tim, and spend a few months actually reading what you pretend to already know. If you were half as well-read as you think you are, you'd be twice as well-read as you are.

[Thomas Graves]

If there is a chimera in the JFK case, it's this guy.

According to the HSCA's Tanenbaum, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez was a member of the "No Name Key Group," and was standing beside Oswald in the photos of Oswald handing out Fair Play for Cuba literature in New Orleans. Larry Hancock (SWHT, p. 221) says Garcia is not the man in the Oswald photos.

According to a CIA report in the Russ Holmes Work File, Garrison was looking for Garcia on a narcotics charge, and told Quick Magazine that Garcia was "the real assassin" and Oswald was "the decoy."

According to Epstein (The Assassination Chronicles, p. 228) and Hancock (SWHT, p. 221), Garrison had been given the names "Mannie Garcia Gonzales" and "Ricardo Davis," by Dean Andrews, who called them Cuban guerrilla fighters but who later claimed that he made up the names to test Garrison's tactics. But Larry says Davis was a real person, and there was a real Manuel Garcia Gonzalez who had been arrested in September 1966 on a weapons charge.

According to Walt Brown's Global Index, Garcia was said to have been "behind a billboard during the Dallas motorcade." The source for that is apparently Weisberg's Oswald in New Orleans (which I don't have), pp. 378-379.

According to Torbitt, Garcia was a "Mexican professional" who fired from behind the grassy knoll fence.

In Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt says of Garcia (in the caption of a photo of the filthy-looking subject), he was "an enigmatic figure sought by Garrison in his investigation. Believed to have been associated with Oswald. Gonzalez's real identity remains unknown, although some private investigators believe he might actually have been a French mercenary."

Put all that together and what have you got? Basically nothing.

On page 278 of the 2010 edition of SWWHT, Larry Hancock writes:

"'Mannie Garcia Gonzalez' and 'Ricardo Davis' were names initially floated by Dean Andrews to Garrison as Cuban guerilla fighters. Later Andrews would recant and claim the names were made up. As with most of his recanting, it is very likely this was for self protection because a "Manuel Garcia Gonzalez" had indeed been arrested in September of 1966 for carrying a concealed weapon in a bar. Gonzalez was described as a 'stocky, powerfully built, Latin, five feet seven inches and around 150 pounds.'"

In another post on this thread, James Richard said that "Manuel Garcia Gonzalez" was an alias for Michel Nicoli. I hate to contradict James, but I must disagree because I've found a press photo of Michel Nicoli (which I'm unable to post) which proves that Nicoli is the guy on the right in the photo below, leading me to believe that Manuel Garcia Gonzalez is the guy on the left. This of course is based on the premise that there are two different people in the below photograph, which I think is pretty obvious.

from jfkmurdersolved.com

To see the photo of Michel Nicoli that I can't post here, go to this website and scroll down almost half way. (The other guy in the photo is Christian David.)

http://matrixdevelado.blogspot.com/2013/01/poderes-ocultos-mataron-kennedy.html

--Tommy

PS If Dean Andrew's "Mannie Garcia Gonzalez" really was "stocky" and "powerfully built," maybe he's the Mexican whom Andrews said accompanied Oswald to his office and looked like he "could go to fist city pretty good if he had to."

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/andrews.htm

Edited December 22, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[James Richards]

Tommy,

Michel Nicole is not Manuel Garcia Gonzalez but did he did use that name. Like Souetre and Mertz, they liked to use names of real people. Manuel Garcia was a name that Bernardo de Torres teased Garrison with. It was all designed to confuse. The names and people are ghosts, not real people but based on real people. Like Oswald, which is why he can be in two places at once. And down the rabbit hole we go.

James

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

Michel Nicole is not Manuel Garcia Gonzalez but did he did use that name. Like Souetre and Mertz, they liked to use names of real people. Manuel Garcia was a name that Bernardo de Torres teased Garrison with. It was all designed to confuse. The names and people are ghosts, not real people but based on real people. Like Oswald, which is why he can be in two places at once. And down the rabbit hole we go.

James

James,

I misinterpreted what you said.

You didn't say Gonzalez and Nicole were the same person.

You said that Nicole used "Manuel Garcia Gonzalez" as an alias..

D'oh. My Bad.

--Tommy

Edited December 22, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[James Richards]

My apologies, Tommy, I confused you and indeed myself.

Common names are designed to do exactly that. Maurice Bishop, Lee Oswald, Richard Hamilton, etc, have caused many lost hours trying to figure out who is exactly who. Which of course is by design.

James