Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert:

Respectfully, you did not answer a single one of my questions re Policarpo.

Mark Howell and I know he was in Key West from 1961 to 1963.  We even identified his marriage license and the apartment that he shared with his wife.

Did Policarpo use the marriage license to beat JFK to death?  Did he fire a weapon from his Key West apartment that struck a target in Dallas?  Neither fact is evidence of Policarpo's involvement in the Kennedy assassination, so who cares?

His Monroe County (Key West) marriage license did not originate with the CIA.

Or will you say that the CIA faked his marriage license and was able to plant the fake license with the Clerk of the Monroe County Court system? Perhaps the minister or notary who performed the ceremony was secretly a CIA agent.

Policarpo also obtained a visa in Tampa to travel into Mexico for two weeks.  He obtained that visa from U.S. Immigration.  Did the CIA fake that visa as well?

Well, this is where you must argue against your own position, I'm afraid.  We see the purported travels of a man who pinballs between Cuba, the US, Mexico and back to Cuba.  He does so at a time when travel to and from Cuba by a US citizen is proscribed, yet Policarpo's travels are unimpeded.

How do you explain that Policarpo, assuming - arguendo - that he's a dangerous DGI operative, is granted such latitude by US authorities?  Because he works for Castro, and Fidel has such clout with US authorities?

Immigration also has records when Policarpo entered Mexico from Texas: the day after the assassination.  That record is an Immigration record, not a CIA record.  Did the CIA fake that record?

Please produce or cite that immigration record.  I've asked for just such a document a number of times, and would be very surprised if you are this late in producing it, assuming you have such an item.

There is also a record of when Policarpo checked in and out of the Hotel Roosevelt in Mexico City.  Those private hotel records are not CIA records.  Or did the CIA fake those records as well?

Do you have those hotel records?  Or are you simply uncritically accepting CIA's word for the fact that they exist, and are genuine?

There is a precedent for skepticism in this regard.  Care to recall the discrepancies in Oswald's hotel records?

Maybe Policarpo never left Key West to go to Dallas via Tampa, because the CIA faked all his travel records to place him in Texas at the time of the assassination.  Do you think we ought to keep looking for Policarpo in Key West, my friend?

Given that there's a grand total of zero evidence Policarpo had anything to do with the President's death - other than the alleged travel itinerary you find so incendiary - you may seek him wherever you think it profits you most.  I couldn't care less about the man.  He's your Rosebud, not mine.

Thus far, you've produced data that might have made for a breezy local interest story in the Key West Pennysaver, while studiously ignoring the data that impeaches your tale.  It doesn't begin to approach the level of evidence necessary to sustain the untenable leap of faith you've made, despite the facts, not because of them.

Also, regarding the records of LHO in Mexico City I think if you study the record you will find that the CIA was in fact doing everything it could to dispute such claims, again because it was concerned about provoking an international incident.  I believe the 2004 supplement to Larry Hancock's book even documents one effort by Phillips to disprove one potentially sinister report.

You must be joking, mate.  It was Mexico City CIA who alleged that Oswald tried to obtain travel visas to Havana and Moscow, a fact that could only incite US animosity toward both countries.  CIA did so despite the fact that the master assassin had somehow eluded its photographic surveillance system five times at two enemy installations.  Care to explain that oversight?  CIA surely hasn't been able to do so with any credibility.

I notice you've chosen to ignore my comments regarding the "D" story from Gilberto Alverado Lopez [gee that name has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?]  The one that Phillips found "compelling" and "impressive" when he was trying to sell it to Langley, but a dozen years later dismissed in his autobiography as a self-evidently "transparent" fiction?  It was only when the State Department and FBI realized Alverado's tale was concocted nonsense that CIA disowned it, with Helms instructing in memos that "D" should be treated as a "fabricator." 

Well, I very much agree with Helms that the Alverado story was a fabrication, and very much agree with latter-day Phillips that it was a self-evidently "transparent" fiction.  Yet I find no evidence that CIA "did everything it could to dispute such claims" until other US agencies investigated it and realized it was a crock. 

On the contrary, I find ample evidence that - despite dumping and disowning "D" - CIA simply found another xxxx to tell essentially the same "fabricated" tale, only this time on a date that matched Oswald's purported travel to Mexico City.  So, rather than simply abandon Alverado's lie, and only when it was discovered to be a lie, CIA tried to backstop the essence of the lie by using another xxxx.  How do you deduce from this that "CIA was doing everything it could to dispute such claims?"     

With Oswald's apprehension, all that had been laid on prior to the assassination to implicate him as a Castro proxy became virtually useless; more to the point, some of it became dangerous, because it all tracked back to a single source, the very man you just mentioned.  Little wonder that attempts were made to scuttle that which could no longer bolster the CIA-promulgated Oswald-Castro lie, nor withstand independent investigative scrutiny. 

If your credulity allows you to swallow the notion that CIA gave a tinker's cuss about an "international incident," that's your judgement call.  I suggest CIA cares only about getting caught, at which point the no-longer useful Alverado types are rendered disposable and deniable.

So tell me:  did you correctly advise the members of this Forum that every single record re Policarpo's travels at the time of the assassination were CIA generated?  Because if that remains your position, the CIA was faking a lot of records and planting them with Monroe County, U.S. Customs and a private hotel in Mexico City.  This defies logic.

Your central hypothesis is without merit, and itself "defies logic."  Apparently, per your own CIA-invented assertions, Policarpo was a dangerous DGI operative, yet despite this fact enjoyed international movement, unfettered by US government concern or intervention. 

Are we to presume CIA only discovered Policarpo was a dangerous DGI operative after the assassination?

That smells a lot like CIA only determining that Kostikov was a Department 13 muckety-muck after the assassination.

What should trouble you is not the self-evident weakness of CIA's brief against Policarpo, but the strength of the evidence that CIA promulgated the Oswald-Castro lie for a clear purpose, before the event.  What does that tell you about Phillips, et al?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Larry Hancock]

Not exactly sure what to make of it but in the days and weeks after the assassination the FBI received reports of Oswald associating with individuals in the vacinity of the Cuban embassy - talking with, walking with, taking money from. The FBI did show some interest in the reports although in the end it dismissed all of them. It was in regard to one of them that Phillips wrote a memo to the FBI stating that the CIA had evidence which would counter the report - because the CIA still had in its possession (as of Feb 1964) the full photo records for the entire months of September and October and could verify that the man had not entered the Cuban embassy - because they had photos of everyone who had.

Which of course leaves begging why they would not still have multiple Oswald photos from his multiple entries and exits. And why those photos had not been provided to the WC. Not that the FBI asked that question of course.

But it also makes me wonder if the CIA was becoming a bit sensitive to reports that Oswald was indeed in the company of others. And of course Jim Hosty still swears that he was told by his former FBI friends working in Mexico City that there was active survellance including photography surveillance on Oswald during his full stay in Mexico City.

[Tim Gratz]

On Sept 19, 1961 a small airplane crashed in the Congo, killing thirteen of the fourteen on board. One of the thirteen killed was U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammerskjold who was on his way to meet Tshombe in an effort to stop the fighting in the Congo. Harold M. Julian, a UN security guard, was the only survivor of the crash. He stated that a series of explosions preceeded the crash. Also killed in the crash were two people with reported CIA connections: a Czechloslovakian defector named Dr. Vladimir Fabry and Heinrich Wieschoff, who had been associated with the OSS.

If the crash was indeed caused by sabotage, some would suggest the KGB as a suspect. Indeed, one day after the crash, the Soviet Union attempted to replace the Secretary General's Office with a triumvirate, consisting of one Communist member, one Western member and a neutralist. The General Assembly rejected the proposal, however.

If indeed the KGB killed Secretary General Hammerskjold in 1961, the argument that the KGB would not have risked killing the President in 1963 is, of course, considerably weakened. And, of course, many people think the KGB was behind the attempt on the Pope's life in the eighties. Previously we mentioned the KGB's murder of Stephan Bandera in the late 1950s, which was for several years disguised as a heart attack.

So perhaps Mr. Charles-Dunne dismisses too cavalierly the KGB's expertise and interest in political murders.

Edited February 4, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

For those of you wondering, one person who suspects KGB involvement in the Hammerskgold plane crash was our member, ajweberman. The above information is from his web-site that is packed with information.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

On Sept 19, 1961 a small airplane crashed in the Congo, killing thirteen of the fourteen on board.  One of the thirteen killed was U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammerskjold who was on his way to meet Tshombe in an effort to stop the fighting in the Congo.  Harold M. Julian, a UN security guard, was the only survivor of the crash.  He stated that a series of explosions preceeded the crash.  Also killed in the crash were two people with reported CIA connections: a Czechloslovakian defector named Dr. Vladimir Fabry and Heinrich Wieschoff, who had been associated with the OSS.

If

There's that sneaky "if" again.

the crash was indeed caused by sabotage, some would suggest the KGB as a suspect. 

Care to name any of the "some" who suggest KGB was responsible for this?

Indeed, one day after the crash, the Soviet Union attempted to replace the Secretary General's Office with a triumvirate, consisting of one Communist member, one Western member and a neutralist.  The General Assembly rejected the proposal, however.

We are to conclude what from this?

If indeed the KGB killed Secretary General Hammerskjold in 1961

"If," indeed!  Your posts become more amusing with time,

Tim.

, the argument that the KGB would not have risked killing the President in 1963 is, of course, considerably weakened.  And, of course, many people think the KGB was behind the attempt on the Pope's life in the eighties. 

Many people believe the moon is made of green cheese.  Will you be their standard-bearer too?

Previously we mentioned the KGB's murder of Stephan Bandera in the late 1950s, which was for several years disguised as a heart attack.

So perhaps Mr. Charles-Dunne dismisses too cavalierly the KGB's expertise and interest in political murders.

No, Tim, what I "dismiss" are posts that cite no evidence, and rely only upon what "some [unnamed parties] would suggest," and then conclude that suggestion is fact.  This is a recurring feature of your posts.

I think A.J Weberman's website is a treasure trove for assassination researchers.  However, he'll take no offense when I say his own speculations on Dag's death are somewhat less compelling than, for example, the confession to the Church Committee of a self-declared assasssin who claimed to have done a number of wet jobs for the Agency, Dag Hammerskjold's death among them.

If I dismiss anything, Tim, it's because I await evidence [that you don't provide] before jumping to conclusions.  You, however, seem to jump to conclusions despite the evidence presented, rather than because of it.

This tendency does not go unnoticed by Forum members.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Well, this is where you must argue against your own position, I'm afraid. We see the purported travels of a man who pinballs between Cuba, the US, Mexico and back to Cuba. He does so at a time when travel to and from Cuba by a US citizen is proscribed, yet Policarpo's travels are unimpeded.

How do you explain that Policarpo, assuming - arguendo - that he's a dangerous DGI operative, is granted such latitude by US authorities? Because he works for Castro, and Fidel has such clout with US authorities?

Several years ago I met Sen. John Kerry and his wife while I was working at Little Palm Island and Sen. and Mrs. Kerry were guests on the island. Sen Kerry was interested in the small boat ledged in a little inlet just feet away from the Quarterdeck in which I worked. I explained to Sen. Kerry that that little boat carried four or five Cubans who had used the boat to traverse the ninety miles from Cuba across the Florida straights. They landed on Little Palm on a busy Sunday and, of course, were turned in to the Immigration Department.

But there are literally hundreds of unanhabited mangrove islands in the Keys and those Cubans were unlucky enough to make shore on an inhabited island. Had they docked on one of the dozen uninabited islands within a mile or two of Little Palm, they would have been able to swim to the mainland undetected. This happens in the Keys on a regular basis.

But that is now. Back in the sixties, of course, all Cubans, regardless of where in the Keys they landed (whether on an inhabited island or not) were required to go immediately to the federal building on Simonton Street, report to Customs Officer Cesar Diosdado (who was also on the CIA payroll) and show Diosdado their identification. He would then check the identification against his complete and comprehensive list of ALL the members of Cuban intelligence (wasn't it then called G-2?) and he would send any spies back to Cuba.

So you are right, Robert. There is no way a Cuban intelligence agent could enter the Keys surreptitiously. Any more than an anti-Castro exile could secretly enter Cuba. So there is no way Gilberto Policarpo Lopez could have entered the Keys without reporting immediately to Diosdado and of course once he did Diosdado would have immediately recognized him as a member of G2 using the complete membership list of Cuban spies that the CIA updated on a weekly basis.

I'd never thought about it that way-- before you pointed out to me how improbable it was that Policarpo was first suspected of being a Castro spy only after he used his fourteen day VISA not to visit Mexico but to flee back to Havana immediately after the assassination in which he participated. How shortsighted of me!

Edited February 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

Well, this is where you must argue against your own position, I'm afraid.  We see the purported travels of a man who pinballs between Cuba, the US, Mexico and back to Cuba.  He does so at a time when travel to and from Cuba by a US citizen is proscribed, yet Policarpo's travels are unimpeded.

How do you explain that Policarpo, assuming - arguendo - that he's a dangerous DGI operative, is granted such latitude by US authorities?  Because he works for Castro, and Fidel has such clout with US authorities?

Several years ago I met Sen. John Kerry and his wife while I was working at Little Palm Island and Sen. and Mrs. Kerry were guests on the island.  Sen Kerry was interested in the small boat ledged in a little inlet just feet away from the Quarterdeck in which I worked.  I explained to Sen. Kerry that that little boat carried four or five Cubans who had used the boat to traverse the ninety miles from Cuba across the Florida straights.  They landed on Little Palm on a busy Sunday and, of course, were turned in to the Immigration Department.

But there are literally hundreds of unanhabited mangrove islands in the Keys and those Cubans were unlucky enough to make shore on an inhabited island.  Had they docked on one of the dozen uninabited islands within a mile or two of Little Palm, they would have been able to swim to the mainland undetected.  This happens in the Keys on a regular basis.

But that is now.  Back in the sixties, of course, all Cubans, regardless of where in the Keys they landed (whether on an inhabited island or not) were required to go immediately to the federal building on Simonton Street, report to Customs Officer Cesar Diosdado (who was also on the CIA payroll) and show Diosdado their identification.  He would then check the identification against his complete and comprehensive list of ALL the  members of Cuban intelligence (wasn't it then called G-2?) and he would send any spies back to Cuba.

So you are right, Robert.  There is no way a Cuban intelligence agent could enter the Keys surreptitiously.  Any more than an anti-Castro exile could secretly enter Cuba.  So there is no way Gilberto Policarpo Lopez could have entered the Keys without reporting immediately to Diosdado and of course once he did Diosdado would have immediately recognized him as a member of G2 using the complete membership list of Cuban spies that the CIA updated on a weekly basis.

I'd never thought about it that way-- before you pointed out to me how improbable it was that Policarpo was first suspected of being a Castro spy only after he used his fourteen day VISA not to visit Mexico but to flee back to Havana immediately after the assassination in which he participated.  How shortsighted of me!

Your wit and sarcasm noted [appreciatively, I must add], all of the above then boils down to this: there are no verifiable US Customs or Immigration records regarding this hypothetical travel, just as there are no verifiable hotel records for his hypothetical stays, no verifiable traces of his hypothetical travel Mexico, and to date, no verfiable photos of Policarpo being the sole passenger aboard the Cubana flight back to Havana [which CIA claimed to have.]

Absent any and all of the above, all we have is CIA's unverifiable word that they 'discovered' Policarpo's true allegiance - and his covert travels - only at the point in time when such 'discoveries' would cast Castro in the worst possible light.  It sure is a good thing that CIA is so trustworthy, or a reasonable man might suspect there were shenanigans of some type. 

Well, with evidence of that calibre to bolster your assertions, no wonder you're so positive about your hypothesis.  I imagine the Kerrys must have been greatly impressed, as am I.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert,

I'll reply substantively later, just wanted to tell you I appreciated your comment about "wit and sarcasm" because I know it was sincere and I know that although we disagree (violently (metaphorically, of course)) you know that I too appreciate YOUR wit and sarcasm and know that it is all in good sport.

As you know, sometimes a facetious witticism is the best way to make a debating point--so long as someone does not take the comment literally!

I've got other stuff to post tonight but I'll get back to your substantive points later.

It was interesting meeting Sen Kerry--he was not then a presidential candidate (it was even before the 2000 election--but rumors of his ambitions were abundant even then). Of course, whenever I use ketchup on my hamburger or fries I think of Sen Kerry and his wife. I regretted the death of Sen. Heinz, by the way. I had hoped to see him run for president some day. His politics reminded me a bit of those of former Sen. Fred Thompson (now famous for being the voice of a villainous horse in the funny family film "Racing Stripes"!),

Edited February 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Ron Ecker recently posted this on a new thread called Erneido Oliva:

Here’s a link to an interesting article by Erneido Oliva, the second in command in the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the man who presented JFK with the brigade flag at the Orange Bowl. (Photos below.) Oliva was one of the BOP veterans who joined the U.S. Army. He became a major general and is now retired.

His article briefly covers Oliva’s and Artime’s relationship with RFK, Oliva’s work with Alexander Haig (then working under Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance) in the planning of raids into Cuba, and LBJ personally telling Oliva in January 1964 that operations against Castro were over.

http://www.camcocuba.org/2004-05/BRIGADEFLAG.html

"LBJ personally [told] Oliva in January 1964 that operatioins against Castro were over."

Since it has been reported that LBJ suspected foreign involvement in the asassination, but the FBI and CIA deliberately squashed any investigation in that area, it is certainly possible that LBJ called off the Kennedy war against Cuba simply to avoid Kennedy's fate.

In any event, the above is further support for my point that the primary beneficiary of the death of John F. Kennedy was indeed Fidel Castro.

[Tim Gratz]

From Oliva's article:

Along with the rest of the country, the assassination of the President on November 22, 1963 came as a tremendous shock to me. I was at Fort Sill, Oklahoma working with another Cuban officer assigned to that military base on a plan to organize a Cuban infantry brigade within the U.S. Army when I heard the news. Our Brigade officers had been already dispersed to different U.S. I didn’t realize at first but as a result of the loss of President Kennedy our plans, efforts and dreams for a free Cuba were about to be ended.

May I rest my case, ladies and gentlemen?

[Shanet Clark]

Please do!

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet, by which I assume you mean you have finally seen the truth!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Ron Ecker recently posted this on a new thread called Erneido Oliva:

Here’s a link to an interesting article by Erneido Oliva, the second in command in the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the man who presented JFK with the brigade flag at the Orange Bowl. (Photos below.) Oliva was one of the BOP veterans who joined the U.S. Army. He became a major general and is now retired.

His article briefly covers Oliva’s and Artime’s relationship with RFK, Oliva’s work with Alexander Haig (then working under Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance) in the planning of raids into Cuba, and LBJ personally telling Oliva in January 1964 that operations against Castro were over.

http://www.camcocuba.org/2004-05/BRIGADEFLAG.html

"LBJ personally [told] Oliva in January 1964 that operatioins against Castro were over."

Then how does one explain CIA's continued dalliance with Cubela for nearly two further years?  You seem inexplicably sanguine about that little detail.  I see it as yet another indication that CIA pursued its own agenda, irrespective of whatever the President ordered.  Recall Angleton's astonished [and astonishing] admission that it is "inconceivable" that CIA must adhere to all orders of a President.  Apparently, Johnson and his wishes were disregarded, just as CIA had disregarded Kennedy's and Eisenhower's.

Since it has been reported that LBJ suspected foreign involvement in the asassination, but the FBI and CIA deliberately squashed any investigation in that area, it is certainly possible that LBJ called off the Kennedy war against Cuba

It may be true that he tried.  But of what import are the President's direct orders if they are disobeyed by a branch of government that thinks itself above all law?

simply to avoid Kennedy's fate.

I'm more inclined to accept the other obvious rationale: having dropped the ball at the Bay of Pigs and suffered international humiliation; having come within a gnat's eyelash of nuclear war over the October Missile Crisis; and having been faced with the likelihood of that kind of conflict again, if LHO's "enemy" connections were probed to an "incorrect" conclusion, Johnson simply decided to avoid picking that particular scab any further.

In any event, the above is further support for my point that the primary beneficiary of the death of John F. Kennedy was indeed Fidel Castro.

Must be something in the Key West air.  Less ideologically-driven observers might conclude that Johnson was a key beneficiary of Kennedy's murder, particularly since the several rather thorny investigations into his own criminal behaviour evaportated on 11/22/63.  Such impartial observers might also conclude that, through Johnson's ascendancy and subsequent acquiesence to the wishes of his own political bankrollers, Brown & Root, the ultimate beneficiaries were companies like that, which thereafter reaped unprecedented profits from a war that wouldn't have occurred had Kennedy lived.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Stan Wilbourne]

Thanks, Robert, for your diligence in this thread. To my view, the search for truth carries a high standard and calls for great cooperation and that all petty intellectual debates and one-upmanship be put aside. That search is not a parlor game to pass time.

A man was killed. His legacy is still being defined. There are citizens of this country and around the world that still work to understand those events, the ground from which they came, which will give understanding to the current country and world which we now live and will pass to our children. The many men and women who have given great portions of their lives to investigate this crime are the true patriots to whom we all are indebted. From their hard work an understanding may come for all those that sincerely seek to find the truth.

This thread has been educational, but probably not on the level that all of the particpants assume.

Edited February 20, 2005 by Stan Wilbourne

[Dawn Meredith]

In any event, the above is further support for my point that the primary beneficiary of the death of John F. Kennedy was indeed Fidel Castro.[/color]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim Gratz

_______________________

JFK's death:

Who benefited?

Now let's see, LBJ was about to be indicted, but became president. Just a coincidence, I guess.

After LBJ we might have had Bobby Kennedy, but I guess the Castro forces killed him too, so we ended up with criminal Nixon.

Then came Warren Commissioner Ford, then for a brief 4 years Cater, but Bush Sr. and his little "October surprise" ended that, giving us 16 years of Reagan and Bush.

Then came Bill, and Monica gate...

Then two terms of Bush Jr.

Now how does Castro "benefit" from any of this????

To say that Castro was the principal befeficiary of JFk's death is hogwash, pure and simple.

There is no credible evidence that LBJ really BELIEVED that JFK was killed by a "foreign conspiracy".

I cannot believe this thread is even still going on.

Dawn