Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert:

You took my "If" in my recitation of facts as a sign of weakness.  It was not so intended. 

Hi Tim:

Actually, I thought your employment of qualifiers was moderate and prudent.  Were I trying to make the case you are, with the quality of evidence you have at hand, I would stud my text with such qualifiers too.

It was merely my acknowledgement that I an relying on seconday sources.  I do not know the basis for the assertion, for instance, that Miguelito was a member of Cuban intelligence. 

Thank you.  That's a generous admission.  And that is precisely why I invite you to question the quality of the evidence you cite.  Neither you nor I have any way of knowing how genuine it is.  Extrapolating too much from too little leaves us dependent upon the veracity of the source.  Given CIA's demonstrated track record for duplicity and deceit, I don't consider the Agency a reliable source.  Hell, they kept referring to Lee Henry Oswald.  A track record of lying and institutional sloppiness doesn't inspire much confidence for me.  Does it for you?

I would prefer to know the basis for each and every assertion.  On the other hand, even if the books included documentary references for such assertions, how would I be able to personally assess the credibility

of the source?

Any given document grows in credibility if similar data is found in the files of other agencies.  So, for example: if Miguelito's disconcerting travel itinerary had also tracked by documents in files of the INS, or Mexican Immigration, or FBI or ATF, et al, then CIA's documentation on the subject would be bolstered by the rest.  [That doesn't necessarily make it genuine reportage of fact, of course.  Those secondary files might simply be repetition of what had been reported to those secondary agencies by CIA, but you get the point, I'm sure.]

No reputable editor will allow anything into print unless and until the journalist provides confirmation from a second source for any and all assertions of fact.  We should accept nothing less from an author.  Otherwise, we become wholly reliant upon the author's own credibility, which leaves us out on a dangerous limb.

To a certain extent one must rely on the reputation and integrity of the authors.  For instance, Trento is, to the best of my knowledge, a well-respected investigative reporter (quoted with approval, for instance, by Dick Russell) and the CIA hates his book.  One can also take some comfort if the same factual assertion is made by several authors.  (Although authors can duplicate errors, as I have pointed out elsewhere.)  One can also take comfort if the author cites a publicly archived document to support an assertion of fact--it is at least subject to some type of verification.

But this is true of all assassination research.  Many people who consider that agents of the CIA participated in the assassination place a great deal of stock in the Veciana assertion that he saw LHO with Maurice Bishop, who was controlling him and through him Alpha 66.  But how do we know if Veciana is telling the truth?  For all we know there never was a Maurice Bishop! 

Well, that one's not quite true, is it?  If a half dozen key CIA personnel, and a few non-Agency types, all recalled a guy named "Bishop," then, clearly, somebody was using that name, even if it wasn't really his true name.  If those people didn't know why HSCA was seeking information about someone named "Bishop," they would feel no need to lie.  If they did know why HSCA was seeking information on someone named "Bishop," then they all told the truth, even though it was against their theoretical self-interest to disclose what they did.  That's admirable behaviour, IMHO.

Or, if there was indeed a Bishop Veciana was making up the LHO story to create trouble for Bishop due to a disagreement they'd had.  And for all we know Veciana was a double agent for Castro (by his admission his cousin was a member of Cuban intelligence).

So caution ought to be exercised with respect to many stories about the assassination.

Thank you.  I have recommended that you exercise exactly that kind of caution when reading too much into unconfirmed, unverified, uncorroborated single-sourced, non-attributable data provided by an agency with a proven track record of duplicity and deceit.

On the other hand, it is, IMO, ridiculous to dismiss every assertion that is ttraced back to a CIA source.  This seems to be your position. 

No, Tim.  That's your strawman, built by you solely because it's so easy to knock down.  Far easier, it would seem, than providing us with second-source corroboration for what CIA has asserted. The same rule of thumb I outlined above should applied to all agencies, all sources.

Now let me address some of your points.

 

I wrote:  "Traffficante was a friend of Rolando Cubela, but he denied that under oath before the HSCA."

You wrote:  "Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing that because Trafficante denied it, we should assume it to be true."  You stand corrected, Robert.  Cubela, as I am sure you know, helped arrange for Trafficante's temporary release from Trescornia so he could attend his daughter's wedding.

Jose Aleman also reported Cubela's association with Trafficante.  My point about Trafficante's denial of the association with Cubela in his sworn testimony before the HSCA is simply that Trafficante apparently thought his association with Cubela important enough (i.e. sinister enough) to commit perjury in denying it.  I am sorry if did not make myself clear.  My point is simply this (and I believe the logic

is unassailable):  if Trafficante's association with Cubela was innocent, why would he lie about it (under oath)?

Had you included the foregoing in the prior post, your reasoning would have been more readily understood.  If Trafficante lied, why did he do so?  Perhaps it was because he didn't wish to give his interrogators chapter-and-verse about the plots.  It seems that Mobsters who squealed about their participation in such plots instantly became, how shall I say, "longevity-challenged."  Or, perhaps Cubela was Trafficante's friend, and the Mobster didn't wish to create any more trouble for his pal, serving time in Castro's prisons.  Or perhaps Trafficante subscribed to the notion that one doesn't "rat out" one's co-conspirators, old habits dying hard, and all.  In any case, there are a number of possible rationales that don't necessarily hew to the path you've chosen. 

With respect to Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, the man who moved from Key West to Trafficante's home town of Tampa a few months before the assassination (as the assassination plot was being unfolded) (perhaps his move, and the timing of his move, from Key West to Tampa was unrelated to Trafficante's presence in Tampa and the unfolding plot--if you believe that, let me know, I've got some nice ocean-

front acreage in Arizona to sell you: 

Given your willingness to extrapolate too much from too little, I'm hardly surprised that you're stuck with some "ocean-front acreage in Arizona."  Best of luck in flogging it, my friend.

I wrote: "Gilberto exited Texas by car.  He crossed the border at Nuevo Laredo on November 23, 1963, as soon as the border opened after the assassination."

And the evidence that Gilberto had anything to do with the assassination is....?

You wrote: "Do tell."  I do not take this sarcasm as a personal insult, but as a rhetorical devise, but, frankly, I do not see how it advances your position here.  You know full well that the unusual movements of Gilberto were in fact documented in the Warren Commission.  Certainly you do not deny that

Gilberto entered Mexico shortly after the border re-opened the day after the assassination, do you?

And the evidence that Gilberto had anything to do with the assassination is....?

You assert, rightly, that Gilberto's fingerprints were not found on the assassin weapon.  Gee, Robert, even though he was Cuban, maybe he was smart enough to wear gloves, or maybe the police never found the actual murder weapon.  (I mean, since you are not, I take it, a proponent of the LN scenario, I assume you must surmise at least two weapons, only one of which was found. )  By the way, if you are aware of a weapon bearing the fingerprints of a CIA officer, now is

surely an appropriate time to disclose your evidence.

And the evidence that Gilberto had anything to do with the assassination is....?

You ask rhetorically if Gilberto's face is "clearly depicted in Dealey Plaza Photos".  Well, come on, Robert, if it is my scenario that it was Gilberto shooting at JFK from one of the places from where the shots originated, why would I expect to see him in a crowd watching the motorcade pass by?  If you failed to grasp my position, let me attempt to make it perfectly clear (apologies to RN):  it is not my position that Fidel sent Gilberto from Key West to Dallas to watch the motorcade and wave Fidel's greeting to JFK ; it is my position that Fidel sent Gilberto from Key West to Dallas to shoot and KILL John Fitzgerald Kennedy,  Why, then, would I expect to find his face in a photograph of parade bystanders, when he was in the TSBD, or perhaps the Dal-Tex Building?

And the evidence that Gilberto had anything to do with the assassination is....?

Who knows. . . maybe Gilberto was not in the TSBD or Dal-Tex.  Perhaps he was the "Badge Man".  Have you ever compared the nose on the "badge man" with Gilberto's nose (as you know, his photo is in "Live By the Sword").  That nose looks awfully familiar! 

And the evidence that Gilberto had anything to do with the assassination is....?

Your rhetorical question about your Aunt Fanny does not deserve the dignity of a response an answer (unless you posit that her Mah Jong partners were two beared Cuban brothers named Fidel and Raul)  As you know, Robert, I'm not the only one in addition to Gus Russo who found the movements of Gilberto around the time of the assassination troubelesome.  So did the entire membership of the

HSCA.  Your reference to your Aunt Fanny, IMO, wins you exactly zero debating points here.

And the evidence that Gilberto had anything to do with the assassination is....?

You state that "Cubela was recruited to kill Castro on behalf of the CIA, not Kennedy on behalf of the Mob."  I am not sure I understand your point here, but I also point out your facts are off:

it was Cubela who approached the CIA in Brazil on September 7, 1963 about his willingness to "eliminate" (i.e. kill) Castro on the very same day that Castro warned the U.S. political leaders of the dangers of participating in further plans to "eliminate" Cuban leaders.

That's not the story Cubela tells, as Anthony Summers learned when he interviewed Cubela in prison.  Surely, if Russo and others wished to present their readers with an even-handed, dispassionate and accurate summary of events, they would have sought out Cubela's version too.  Did they?

The CIA did not, as I understand it, approach Cubela in 1963.  Cubela, on his initiative,  aopproached the CIA, apparently in Brazil. 

Yet you seem to state that David Morales recruited Cubela to kill Castro in Paris.  Do you deny what seems to be the established historical record that Cubela approached the CIA in Brazil?  I am puzzled by the implication of your post that Morales, in Paris, recruited Cubela to kill Castro.

Here's where you have a problem, for having uncritically swallowed too much, based upon too little. 

Arguendo, let us assume that the CIA position you publicize here is correct: Cubela was anxious to depose or "eliminate" Castro.  Having found common cause with CIA, why didn't he just do it?  Why did he need a CIA weapon?  Why did he insist on approval from RFK?  Surely, even you must scratch your head that a man who has volunteered to carry out a murder - one that was his idea - now seeks permission to do what he's already volunteered to do. 

CIA continued to dance with Cubela for more than two years.  In that time, did Cubela take any action?  Why the sudden reluctance from an assassin whom CIA claims was anxious to do it?  Clearly, Cubela is correct and CIA is not.

So, how long did it take for CIA to meet Cubela's comfort level?  Given that Cubela made no such attempt, we don't know, do we?  How many people were involved in recruiting him?  We don't know, do we?  What we do know, is that Cubela was shown photographs and picked out one man.  That man, Cubela said, had met him in Paris, and wanted Cubela to kill Castro.  That man was David Morales.

You state: "If Trafficante's involvement in the plots against Castro makes him a suspect in the Kennedy assassination, why does the same not hold true for David Morales?  What double standard in your evaluation of evidence makes the mobster suspect but not the CIA officer?"  Boy, do those two sentences merit an answer!

"Mobsters"--"gangsters"--"mafioso", call them what you may, kill people.  Heck, it's a part of their job description.  Not so CIA officers.  Granted, Richard Bissell (who, as John pointed out in a different thread, was an early supporter of JFK) initiated murder plots against several foreign heads of state, and only later disclosed them to his boss Dulles (in round-about language) but so far not one member of this forum has offered any datum of evidence to show that the CIA ever plotted the murder of an American (political leader or otherwise).  It is not a "double standard" to suspect a Mafia don like Trafficante is more likely to be a murderer than a CIA officer.

Sorry, but that's a completely artificial distinction.  As you have, yourself, admitted: CIA did plan to assassinate foreign leaders [as was the case in recruiting Cubela.]  With the exception of Fidel, those foreign leaders were assassinated.  Why do you think assassination is no longer murder, just because it's carried out by CIA personnel, or their proxies? The victims are just as dead; the culprits just as ruthless and just as guilty.

And let's not forget that the Agency carried out those murderous plans despite having been instructed not to do so by their own President.  The proof of this was supplied by you.  Per your post, according to Joe Califano, President Johnson ordered CIA to cease and desist all anti-Cuban actions.  How, then, does one explain the Agency's continued pas de deux with Cubela, even years later?  Who within CIA arrogated unto themselves the right to murder in direct contravention of Presidential orders?  If they clearly, by your own evidence, disregarded LBJ's orders, what makes you think the Cubela exercise, and other like-minded plots, were not also undertaken with complete and total disregard for what Kennedy wanted? 

Badges?  We don't need no stinkin' badges!

If you really believe that it is a "double standard" to expect a mafia don is more likely to be a murderer than a CIA officer, then I suggest, respectfully, your hatred for the CIA borders on the pathological.

Psychoanalysis by remote viewing is seldom successful.

Moreover, Trafficante had foreknowledge of the JFK murder (per Jose Aleman, as you know) and admiited his involvement in the assassination to his lawyer (in a conversation he knew was protected from disclosure).  Can you, sir, cite me one single statement made by a CIA officer (not under the influence of alcohol) in which the CIA officer admitted either foreknowledge of or participation in the JFK assassination?

Well, there was that one chap, Gary Underhill... former OSS man, contract agent for CIA under a LIFE magazine cover.  You must remember him: the guy who told his friends within days of the assassination that he didn't think the Far East Division of CIA would kill the President, but they had done it?  Surely you remember Gary Underhill?  The right-handed guy who in early 1964 shot himself in the left temple when he was suicided?  Seems to me he qualifies on all counts: CIA man, advance knowledge of the crime, fingered his own colleagues.  Of course, after his death-as-example, the fact that others didn't come rushing forward with similar claims does not surprise me.  Does it you?

Let's go on.  Jack Ruby knew Trafficante since at least 1959.  I think we can agree that if Gerald Possner is wrong, JR killed LHO to silence him and JR was part of the conspiracy.

LHO may have been a participant in some manner, whether shooter or not, or may have been nothing but a patsy.  So JR is probably the only person that all assassination researchers would agree was a member of the conspiracy. 

As a member of organized crime (I think we can all agree he was that) JR was subject to mob discipline and could have been ordered by a mob leader to kill LHO. 

Please tell me who, from the CIA, ordered JR to kill LHO and under what authority that CIA member was able to enforce that order?  Do you have any basis for believing that JR had ever met David Morales, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, Ted Shackley, E Howard Hunt, Desmond Fitzgerald, Richard Helms, Allen Dulles, Tracey Barnes, or any other CIA official?

Here, again, you draw an artificial distinction.  Let us say that some Mob boss ordered Ruby to hit Oswald.  Given that various Mobsters had a demonstrated role as CIA proxies, how would Ruby know whether or not that order originated with Langley?  How do you?

Let me make another thing clear.  Trafficante is a suspect because of his connections to Cubela, Ruby, etc and his statements about the assassination both before and after it occured.  He is not a suspect because he was a part of the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro.

In fact, I suspect, as many others do, that Trafficante was the reason the plots failed since he was acting as an agent for Castro in the U.S. and gave Castro advance warning of every single plot to which Trafficante was witting.   

Trafficante is also a suspect because there is good evidence that a member of his Tampa organization killed Johnny Rosselli.

You ask how I know that Cubela was in contact with Kostikov.  That fact is reported in the Evan Thomas book "The Very Best Men" and Thomas' journalistic integrity is beyond question.  (As you know, he also wrote a highly acclaimed biography of RFK.)

So, in summary:

1.      I said "If" to indicate the caution that, IMO, ought to be the characteristic

          of any serious assassination researcher, regardless of who they think did it.

2.        You apparently (again, I use apparently to be cautious) do NOT challenge

          my conclusion that if the facts I set forth are true the conclusion that Cuban

          intelligence participated in the assassination is compelling. 

Geez, Tim.... I do nothing but "challenge your conclusions," because they're based on transparently dubious or spurious bases.

All you do is

          argue my facts because they come from the CIA.  If you believe those

          facts can all be true without G2 (DGI) involvement in the assassination, let me hear it.  (I could use a laugh.

No, you could use some help in making your case.  I don't see a stampede of support for your position among the posters here.

3.        One thing that could exculpate Fidel would be, for instance, evidence of

          inolvement by others e.g. CIA agents. So far neither you nor anyone else

          posted any solid evidence of involvement by:

          a)        Southern racists

                  LBJ (granted, he had motive and there is that pesky fingerprint

                    that may or may not belong to Mac Wallace)

          c)        oil barons

          d)        J. Edgar Hoover

          e)        One or more CIA agents

          f)        Madame Nhu

Well, I notice that you've studiously avoided touching the topic - repeatedly raised by me in prior posts - of a reputed OAS assassin whom we know was deported from Dallas soon after the assassination.  But, given the evidence of CIA support for OAS, and given CIA's demonstrated track record of recruited exiled and disaffected OAS members to train CIA's Cuban exile forces, I'm hardly surprised that you'd rather not tackle the topic.

Am I open to evidence that someone else did it?  Emphatically, yes.  If a conspirator other  than Castro was judged guilty would I personally volunteer to participate in the scoudrel's execution?  A hearty yes.  Would the strongest supporter of Kennedy take any greater satisfaction than me in the apprehension of the guilty parties?  I strongly doubt it (other than JFK's family members).  But if the evidence is there, let me have it please.

Do I believe the CIA, through its multiple plots to kill Castro, caused the death of JFK even though neither it or its agents plotted his death?  Yes, indeed. 

Castro had the strongest POSSIBLE reason to orchestrate the assassination (self-preservation.).

There were at least two Cubans in Texas the day of the assassination (one in Dallas), both of whom fled to Havana shortly after

the assassination (one the very same day).  Cubela was a double agent for Castro.  Cubela was in contact with both Trafficante and Kostikov. 

With whom did the Cubela-Kostikov nugget originate?  Same party who sold us the Oswald-Kostikov bill of goods?  If the latter was wholly spurious, what makes you think the former is any less so?

Trafficante knew Ruby for years.  Trafficantte predicted the assassination

and admitted involvement after the fact. 

And when Trafficante participated in killing Kennedy, were his ultimate sponsors any different than the ones who urged him to kill Castro?  If so, how do you know this?

As the saying goes, it does not take a Werner von Braun to connect the dots!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ron Ecker]

I maintain that the nature and length of the coverup proves that the most powerful forces in our society had JFK killed and are continuing the coverup.

Well said. I completely agree.

Ron

[Dawn Meredith]

As most of you know, in 1962 Santo Trafficante, Jr. predicted that JFK "is going to be hit"  (Indicating foreknowledge of the assassination)....

In his memoirs, Trafficante's attorney Frank Ragano states that as he was close to death, Trafficante admitted to Ragano his involvement in the Kennedy assassination.  Source:  Ragano's book "Mob Lawyer".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that one mobster says that another mobster made a threat against JFK is hardly very good evidence of Mafia being involved in his assassination. If the claim is true it says nothing about if the threat was carried out. We know that a whole range of people made threats against JFK. This in itself tells us very little.

As I have said several times, Trafficante had no real motive to kill JFK. Nor is there any history of the Mafia in America being involved in the killing of politicians.

What is significant is that Trafficante had clear links to other people connected to the assassination.

One person we can all agree was involved in the assassination was Jack Ruby.  Reliable evidence exists that Ruby visited Trafficante while Trafficante was imprisoned in Cuba in 1959, and many people believe that Ruby was involved in negotiating Trafficante's release from the prison.

Equally significant, I think, is that Trafficante had close associations with Rolando Cubela dating back to 1959.  At the 1995 assassination conference in Nassau, Cuban officers Arturo Rodriguez and Fabian Escalante stated that Cubela also intervened on Trafficante's behalf when he was in prison in 1959.  Jose Aleman and Eladio del Valle also reported a continuing relationship between Trafficante and Cubela.  Aleman also reported that both Trafficante and Cubela were acting as agents for Castro.

And yet when Trafficante testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he perjured himself and denied a friendship with Cubela.  The inference is that Trafficante did not want that relationship examined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hundreds of people can be associated with Jack Ruby. That in itself means nothing at all.

I cannot see why you are linking with Cubela with Trafficante. Cubela was involved in a plot to kill Castro, not JFK. The reason that the CIA leaked this story about the Mafia being involved in the plot to kill Castro was an attempt to get people to think that there was a connection between the two assassination plots. However, I have yet to discover any evidence at all to show that these two conspiracies were linked.

In that regard, it is interesting that del Valle was murdered a short time after he reported the Trafficante-Cubela relationship to U.S. authorties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree there is evidence to suggest that Eladio del Valle might have been involved in the assassination. However, it is not enough just to show links between Trafficante with del Valle.

As you all know, of the three mafioso involved in the CIA plots to kill Castro, Trafficante was the only one to die a natural death.  The clear infererence is that Giancana and Rosselli were murdered to silence them.  What's more, two informants separately reported that a member of Trafficante's organization had admitted involvement in the Rosselli murder.

IMO, Trafficante is the link to Castro, to Cubela, to Ruby and probably to Policarpo as well.  Trafficante, the man who not only had foreknowledge of the assassination but also admitted to his involvement!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We all know about the existence of these plots but were they really serious attempts to kill Castro? Rosselli admitted very early on that it was pointless organizing the assassination of Castro unless it was part of a plan to invade Cuba. David Atlee Phillips and other CIA agents made the same point. When JFK made it clear he would not support an invasion of Cuba, the plots against Castro was a waste of time.

It is of course ridiculous to claim that just because Giancana and Rosselli were murdered they must have been killed on the orders of Giancana in order to silence them.

It is of course not unusual for mobster to be murdered. It is impossible to obtain any evidence that Giancana was responsible. There is of course another possibility. Giancana and Rosselli were murdered by the CIA in order to persuade people to believe that they were involved in the JFK assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_______________________________________

Good possibility John: That the CIA killed Giancana and Rosselli ...to persuade people to believe that they were involved in the JFK assassination.

Dawn

[James Richards]

Good possibility John: That the CIA killed Giancana and Rosselli ...to persuade people to believe that they were involved in the JFK assassination. (Dawn Meredith)

For those who are interested in such things, some spirited research on a character by the name of Dominic 'Butch' Blasi might just confirm that he was the guy who actually whacked Giancana. IMO, this was an all Mob hit.

As for Roselli, that may be a different matter.

FWIW.

James

[Tim Gratz]

To: James Richards

You are correct that a lot of informed people believe that Blasi killed Giancana.

They might be right. I remember reading the theory that Blasi killed Giancansa but do not remember the reasoning.

The murder method with the shots around the mouth would tend to indicate that it was a message that someone was warning people not to talk.

The gun, of course, was traced to Florida.

Even if Blasi did kill him, we dcn't necessarily know whether someone else put him up to it.

And of course the timing of the murder less than a week before Giancana's scheduled testimony before the Church Committee raises questions. Perhaps Giancana's murder warned Rosselli not to talk too much.

Am I correct that someone was trying to reinterview Rosselli before he was "hit"?

I believe it is the Rosselli biography that states that two separate informers reported that a member of the Trafficante organization had discussed his involvement in the Rosselli murder. I believe a mafioso from San Diego also informed the FBI that he had heard a mafioso in Cicero, IL comment that Trafficante had botched the Rosselli murder (since the barrel was not intended to surface but did). As I recall, someone had left Rosselli's car at the Miami International Airport, obviously to give the impression that he had flown out of the country.

To James and everyone: do you believe the Hoffa murder was also related to the Kennedy assassination?

Does anyone have access to the actual report of the FBI wiiretap on Trafficante in which Trafficante said to someone after Rosselli was killed: "Now only two of is know the whole story" (or words to that effect) re the Kennedy assassination?

Edited January 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[James Richards]

Hi Tim,

I remember reading that there were no Mob heavyweights at Giancana's funeral which in itself may hold a clue. Blasi I believe helped carry the casket.

Guys like Joe Batters and Paul Ricca were not impressed with the media scrutiny Giancana received over the years given his relationships to CIA and various high profile celebrities. Even though Giancana had claimed the fifth in previous inquiries, maybe they felt it would be easier with old Mooney out of the picture.

Regarding Hoffa's murder, I just don't know.

James

[Tim Gratz]

To Robert:

A well constructed, articulate and logical argument, and I enjoyed it.

Time does not permit me to fully reply tonight. I will only address two points now: 1) Underhill; 2) OAS assassin, and then make two comments.

UNDERHILL:

I course I remember parts of the Underhill story but I want to look at it closer. You cannot assert he had "advance knowledge of the assassination" merely because he claimed such knowledge AFTER the fact. In 1962, over a year before the assassination, Trafficante told Aleman that Kennedy would not make it to the 1964 election; that he was going to be "hit". And of course if Trafficante was indeed in bed with Fidel (figuratively, of course (there being no doubt in my mind that had Trafficante exhibited any homosexual tendencies Jim Garrison might have indicted him) his prediction could have related to an expected :hit" by Castro forces rather than to a "hit" by his friends in the crime syndicate.

And of course the Rose Cheramie story is well-known. But I do want to relook at the Underhill story. It is also interesting, of course, that he mentioned the "Far East Division of the CIA" considering that LHO was stationed in Japan.

Let me, however, point out one distinction between Trafficante, Cheramie and Underhill. Trafficante had foreknowledge about the assassination and did not report it to authorities because (presumably) 1) he was involved in the conspiracy; or 2) he knew who was going to do it and the actual conspirators were associates of his. Cheramie had foreknowledge of the assassination and what did she do? She risked her life jumping out of a car so she could report it.

So why, if Underhill was a patriot, would he not report to authorities talk of a plot to kill the President? Certainly not in fear of his life or he would not have talked to anyone after the assassination. The only explanation is that, as he implied, he did not take the talk seriously. I am sure (and I suspect you would agree with me) that there were a number of people who detested Kennedy's policies so much that they made loose comments e.g. "that (expletive) Kennedy ought to be shot". That does not mean that they would seriously participate in an actual conspiracy. So it is possible that Underhill heard what he obviously considered mere loose talk (else he would surely have reported it) that, to him, became "serious" after Kennedy was killed.

If all he heard was a "threat" against Kennedy, as you have pointed out, many such threats were being made by many different people, not all of whom (presumably) were conspirators.

What may make Underhill's story different, of course, is that he may have been murdered. So I do believe the Underhill story deserves greater research.

OAS Assassin

You wrote that I had "studiously avoided" replying to your comments of a "reputed OAS assassin whom we know was deported from Dallas soon after the assassination." Glad you reminded me of it. You refer, of course, to Jean Sourte (spelling?). That story is covered by several authors including Dick Russell and the authors of "Triangle of Death". I think most of the authors who carefully studied the matter concluded that it was probably not Sourte in Dallas but a gentleman named Michael Mertz who had previously used Sourte's name. Mertz was also French and connected to the Marseilles Corsican drug ring as well as to our friend from Tampa, Santo Trafficante, Jr. If indeed it was Mertz in Dallas, his presence may tie in to the "Corsican connection" researched by Steve Rivele. Most people who accept the Christian David srtory (even if he had one of the names wrong) believe that the Corsican hit men were hired by Trafficante. I'm sure you knew that. I am as impressed by your knowledge as I am by the luciidity (in most cases) of your arguments.

First comment: you never directly answered my question: if indeed it could be proven (not beyond a reasonable doubt but only by the greater weight of the evidence) that there was an agent of Cuban intelligence in Dallas who returned to Havana on the evening of the assassination, would you then admit (again by the lowest standard) that more likely than not CUBAN INTELLIGENCE participarted in the assassination (whether or not personally ordered to do so by Castro being a different question.)

In other words, it is reasonable for you to request the basis for the assertion that Miguel

was a member of DGI. If there was reasonable basis for believing he was, you surely most

agree to the sinister significance of that fact.

Second comment: You write: "Why do you think assassination is no longer murder, just because it's carried out by CIA personnel or their proxies?" This comment stupefies me. You must not be reading everything I write. I am sure I have said at least TWICE that although I do not think the CIA killed Kennedy, it was as wrong for the CIA to plot to kill a foreign leader as it would have been for the CIA to have plotted Kennedy's murder. Murder is murder whether it is carried out by the CIA or the Mafia and whether or not the victim is an American or a foreigner. I believe the CIA plots against Castro "blew back" on JFK (whether or not he had knowledge of or directed any of the plots). As LBJ said: "We were running a Murder, Inc. in the Caribbean." Am I now clear enough to you that I do not agree with assassinations even if they are ordered by the President? (Which proves Angleton's statement that "not all orders" should be obeyed by the CIA. I believe the CIA should obey all lawful orders of the Chief Executive.)

Edited January 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

I buy the theory that Hoffa was killed because he was trying to regain the Teamsters presidency and was threatening to expose or end Mob access to the Teamsters pension fund.

That's the explanation given by the late Frank Sheeran in the book "I Heard You Paint Houses," written by Charles Brandt based on taped interviews with Sheeran. Sheeran was a hit man for both Hoffa and the Mafia. (The book title refers to what Hoffa said to him when they first met. Painting a house meant killing somebody, with blood splattering everything.) The Mob gave Sheeran a choice of killing Hoffa or of being killed himself. (I imagine Jack Ruby was given the same kind of option with regard to LHO.)

It's a darkly entertaining book, as when a Philadelphia don gave Sheeran a murder assignment by saying, "You gotta do what you gotta do." Sheeran says, "You didn't have to go down the street and enroll in some courses at the University of Pennsylvania to know what he meant."

Ron

Edited January 27, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks for the quick reply, Ron. I had seen that book in the bookstore and it looked rather interesting.

The dark humour was interesting as well. In fact, I want to start a threed about funny things that do crop up in this research about the most serious and tragic thing that happened to our nation (and the world) forty plus years ago. There is a funny story in Russo's "The Outfit" about an incident when Rosselli heard a mafioso's wife talking about mongoose (I think she asked him what the plural of mongoose was). She meant a real mongoose that she heard would be effective in killing snakes. Rosselli freaked out thinking her husband had "spilled the beans" about "Operation Mongoose" and his error almost caused Rosselli to "spill the beans". As I recall the story, Rosselli blurted out "Mongoose! You're not supposed to know about that!" and then it dawned on him she was talking about mongoose (mongeese?) and snakes in her yard!

Edited January 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To Robert:

A well constructed, articulate and logical argument, and I enjoyed it. 

Time does not permit me to fully reply tonight.  I will only address two points now:  1) Underhill; 2) OAS assassin, and then make two comments.

UNDERHILL:

I course I remember parts of the Underhill story but I want to look at it closer.

To our mutual chagrin, there's really not that much to look at.  Details are sketchy, and didn't surface in a timely fashion.  More's the pity, irrespective of whether his allegations were true.

You cannot assert he had "advance knowledge of the assassination" merely because he claimed such knowledge AFTER the fact. 

I don't assert that he had such advance knowledge; only that he claimed to have it, and you are correct to draw the distinction.  However, based on what he apparently told his friends, and when, it didn't take him long to figure out what had really happened in Dallas [by his reckoning, at least.]

In 1962, over a year before the assassination, Trafficante told Aleman that Kennedy would not make it to the 1964 election; that he was going to be "hit".  And of course if Trafficante was indeed in bed with Fidel (figuratively, of course (there being no doubt in my mind that had Trafficante exhibited any homosexual tendencies Jim Garrison might have indicted him) his prediction could have related to an expected :hit" by Castro forces rather than to a "hit" by his friends in the crime syndicate.

And of course the Rose Cheramie story is well-known.  But I do want to relook at the Underhill story.  It is also interesting, of course,  that he mentioned the "Far East Division of the CIA"  considering that LHO was stationed in Japan.

Oswald's posting there is the tip of the iceberg, though there are other provocative speculations that might flow from Underhill's comment.  Looking at the CV's of various CIA personnel, it is intriguing to see who served time in the Far East Division, and if those postings overlapped with Oswald's time there, irrespective of whether Underhill's assertions were fully accurate. 

I would also refer you to the HSCA testimony of John Wilcott, whose latter-day account of his own time there seems to offer at least some basis for Underhill's claims.  Moreover, if, as Jim Root has suggested, the "John Hurt" whom Oswald tried to reach while in custody turns out to have been a Japanese linguist, then I think Jack Ruby's attempts to reach Gordon McLendon [also a wartime Japanese linguist], may take on an added dimension that requires our attention.

Let me, however, point out one distinction between Trafficante, Cheramie and Underhill.  Trafficante had foreknowledge about the assassination and did not report it to authorities

Yet, neither did Jose Aleman, to whom Trafficante made the statements we think of as indicating foreknowledge.  Are we to conclude that Aleman discounted what Trafficante told him as mere bluster?  Or, should we conclude that Aleman was wholly supportive of a US assassination, since he, too, felt Kennedy was an impediment to reclaiming Cuba?  Or, did Aleman know which Agency had recruited Trafficante, et al, to kill Castro, and feel there was no point in alerting authorities to his suspicions of an impending Kennedy hit?  Did Aleman fail to alert police because he concluded the event was unpreventable, based on who he suspected was behind both plots?  Oh, what a tangled web....

because (presumably) 1) he was involved in the conspiracy; or 2) he knew who was going to do it and the actual conspirators were associates of his.  Cheramie had foreknowledge of the assassination and what did she do?  She risked her life jumping out of a car so she could report it.

Actually, I think she was thrown out of the car, by her own account.  If her captors suspected that she was trying to flee in order to report the pending plot to authorities - as they might conclude by any attempt to escape - I doubt very much that she would have been found by the roadside alive.  Also, I don't think she made a bee-line for the authorities; her statements to hospital staff [initially dismissed as delusional ravings of an addict in withdrawal] were what led to Francis Fruge being called to interview her.  I don't recall any hospital staffer stating that Rose had demanded to see police while she was in hospital.  She may have intended to alert authorities, which was precluded by her hospitalization, but that's speculation on our part.

As you're no doubt aware, any number of people made similar claims, but I tossed Gary Underhill into the hopper specifically because you had requested me to cite a single CIA operative who had such foreknowledge.  

So why, if Underhill was a patriot, would he not report to authorities talk of  a plot to kill the President?  Certainly not in fear of his life or he would not have talked to anyone after the assassination.  The only explanation is that, as he implied, he did not take the talk seriously. 

That's what he said.  His mind sure changed quickly after the President had been killed, and he was visibly frightened that he, too, would be killed because, as he claimed, "they know I know."  Presumably, that's why he fled Washington and showed up unannounced on the doorstep of friends, babbling a tale that initially struck them as wholly implausible.  It is maddening that we don't know more.

However, there is another factor to consider.

I am sure (and I suspect you would agree with me) that there were a number of people who detested Kennedy's policies so much that they made loose comments e.g. "that (expletive) Kennedy ought to be shot".  That does not mean that they would seriously participate in an actual conspiracy.  So it is possible that Underhill heard what he obviously considered mere loose talk (else he would surely have reported it) that, to him, became "serious" after Kennedy was killed.

If all he heard was a "threat" against Kennedy, as you have pointed out, many such threats were being made by many different people, not all of whom (presumably) were conspirators.

What may make Underhill's story different, of course, is that he may have been murdered.  So I do believe the Underhill story deserves greater research.

Good, we're in agreement that right-handed men don't often resort to shooting themselves in the left temple.  Though this is a recurring phenomenon among those on the periphery of the assassination, we should bear in mind.

OAS Assassin

You wrote that I had "studiously avoided" replying to your comments of a "reputed OAS assassin whom we know was deported from Dallas soon after the assassination."  Glad you reminded me of it.  You refer, of course, to Jean Sourte (spelling?).  That story is covered by several authors including Dick Russell and the authors of "Triangle of Death".  I think most of the authors who carefully studied the matter concluded that it was probably not Sourte in Dallas but a gentleman named Michael Mertz who had previously used Sourte's name.  Mertz was also French and connected to the Marseilles Corsican drug ring as well as to our friend from Tampa, Santo Trafficante, Jr.  If indeed it was Mertz in Dallas, his presence may tie in to the "Corsican connection" researched by Steve Rivele.  Most people who accept the Christian David srtory (even if he had one of the names wrong) believe that the Corsican hit men were hired by Trafficante.    I'm sure you knew that.  I am as impressed by your knowledge as I am by the luciidity (in most cases) of your arguments.

I know only what we all do, that the deportee was using the name "Souetre," and that the real Souetre maintained he'd been impersonated by Michel Mertz.  It should not escape our attention, however, that Mertz, too, was an OAS man who had participated in plots to kill deGaulle.  Hence, whether it was Souetre or Mertz doesn't really doesn't make much difference to the fact that, either way, a reputed OAS assassin was deported from Dallas after the assassination.  [French attempts to locate Souetre were made because they feared that he'd launch another assassination attempt against deGaulle during a pending visit to Mexico, so we know what the French thought about him.]

It might also be helpful to recall the tale of one such disaffected OAS man, who swore that he'd been recruited by a US national to kill Kennedy during a Presidential trip to Paris.  Again, it is frustrating that this information didn't surface for a further decade.  It did so only when the former OAS man recognized in the newspapers the face of the newly-famous US national who had tried to recruit him to kill Kennedy in Paris: E. Howard Hunt.

First comment:  you never directly answered my question:  if indeed it could be proven (not beyond a reasonable doubt but only by the greater weight of the evidence) that there was an agent of Cuban intelligence in Dallas who returned to Havana on the evening of the assassination, would you then admit (again by the lowest standard) that more likely than not CUBAN INTELLIGENCE participarted in the assassination (whether or not personally ordered to do so by Castro being a different question.)

It is certainly the likelihood that we were intended to entertain.  But, as we've learned from the Gulf of Tonkin, the WMD we were assured were in Iraq and a dozen other false assertions, saying it's so doesn't make it so.  That is why we hold out for this thing called "proof."  Thus far, we have seen peculiar, and potentially provocative, travel itineraries of Cuban nationals.  Drawing too much from that fact alone leaves us liable to jump to too many unsubstantiated conclusions, even if they are the ones we are intended to reach.  You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Your goal, therefore, is threefold: prove the man in question was DGI; prove the man in question was in Dallas on the fateful day; and prove that he did leave Texas for Mexico, and from there returned to Havana on the flight as CIA maintained he did.  If you can do that, you'll have performed a service far greater than all the Epsteins and Russos put together.

  In other words, it is reasonable for you to request the basis for the assertion that Miguel

  was a member of DGI.  If there was reasonable basis for believing he was, you surely most

  agree to the sinister significance of that fact.

Second comment:  You write: "Why do you think assassination is no longer murder, just because it's carried out by CIA personnel or their proxies?"  This comment stupefies me.  You must not be reading everything I write.  I am sure I have said at least TWICE that although I do not think the CIA killed Kennedy, it was as wrong for the CIA to plot to kill a foreign leader as it would have been for the CIA to have plotted Kennedy's murder.  Murder is murder whether it is carried out by the CIA or the Mafia and whether or not the victim is an American or a foreigner. 

Yes, I do read everything you write, Tim.  And you have stated the foregoing.  Unfortunately, it seems to be in 180 degree contradiction to your assertion that Mobsters are far more likely to be murderers than CIA officers.  I fail to see the distinction, since those self-same Mobsters were recruited by CIA for the specific purpose of killing people, including, but not limited to, Castro. 

I believe the CIA plots against Castro "blew back" on JFK (whether or not he had knowledge of or directed any of the plots).  As LBJ said:  "We were running a Murder, Inc. in the Caribbean."  Am I now clear enough to you that I do not agree with assassinations even if they are ordered by the President?  (Which proves Angleton's statement that "not all orders" should be obeyed by the CIA.  I believe the CIA should obey all lawful orders of the Chief Executive.)

Then I suggest you re-read Angleton's statement and parse the language he used, rather than selectively misquoting it, because you've mis-read it. 

"I find it inconceivable that a covert agency is expected to obey all the overt orders of the government." 

"Overt orders" obviously don't include clandestine plans such as whacking the foreign heads of state CIA dislikes.  You claim Angleton's statement is a legitimate defiance of illegal orders.  Clearly, his statement was made with the opposite intent: CIA doesn't have to abide by "overt" [i.e. legal] orders made by the President. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Stan Wilbourne]

Why am I reminded of the movie "Cool Hand Luke" when Paul Newman and George Kennedy put on the boxing gloves? A ragged and bloody Luke keeps coming at Kennedy's character long after the outcome has been decided, swinging weakly, but refusing to go down.

Sometimes nothing is pretty cool hand.

[John Simkin]

I think this extract from Richard E. Sprague's book, The Taking of America, is very revealing. It has to be remembered that Sprague worked as a consultant on The House Select Committee on Assassinations. The HUCA refused to publish all the documents obtained during the investigation. The CIA forced all members of the committee, all staff members, all consultants to the committee, and several independent researchers involved in the investigation, to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement. As later explained: "First, it binds the signer, if a consultant, to never reveal that he is working for the committee. Second, it prevents the signer from ever revealing to anyone in perpetuity, any information he has learned about the committee's work as a result of working for the committee. Third, it gives the committee and the House, after the committee terminates, the power to take legal action against the signer, in a court named by the committee or the House, in case the committee believes the signer has violated the agreement. Fourth, the signer agrees to pay the court costs for such a suit in the event he loses the suit."

The mini-war waged by assassination researchers and a few Congressmen from 1964 to 1976 to reopen the major assassination inquiries never really disturbed the Power Control Group. But in 1975, simultaneous with the revelations about all of the terrible things the CIA and the FBI did, the researchers and a few of their friends in the media and in Congress began to draw more attention than was comfortable for the PCG...

There may be several second lines of defense positions already prepared for the JFK case. The one that has been implemented in 1975 and 1976 is the "Castro did it in revenge" position. The PCG realizes that while the media will behave like slaves to present the first line of defense (Oswald did it alone), the public isn't buying it any more. In 1969, shortly after the Clay Shaw trial ended, the percent of people disbelieving the lone assassin theory fell to its all-time low of just over 50%. By 1976 it had risen to 80%, despite the faithful efforts of CBS, Time, Newsweek, et al. More importantly, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart, Henry Gonzalez, Thomas Downing, and a very large part of the House and Senate weren't buying the lone assassin story any more either.

So, a good second line of defense story was needed. It had to be one that the House and Senate and Schweiker, Church, Downing and hopefully Gonzalez would buy. It had to be one which could be created out of existing facts and then shored up by planted evidence, faked records, dependable witnesses lying under oath, and once again, the control and use of the media. The "Castro did it in revenge" story met these requirements. The media had already helped to some extent by publishing information from Jack Anderson, Lyndon B. Johnson and others about Castro's turning around various CIA agents or sending agents of his own, including Oswald, to assassinate JFK. Perhaps even more importantly, Senator Schweiker said he believed Castro might have been behind the assassination and that this possibility should be investigated.

The Castro story strategy was implemented in 1975. Gradually at first, a story appeared here or there in the press about the assassins assigned to kill Castro. Then the media began to reprint the Jack Anderson story about Castro's turning around of some of these agents. New authors of the story appeared. Anderson's original story seemed to be forgotten. These articles never seemed to have an identifiable source or any proof. Hank Greenspun of the Las Vegas newspaper circuit and the man involved with Howard Hughes, Larry O'Brien, released a story to the Chicago Tribune. He said his information came from reliable sources.

The momentum began to build. More and more "leaked" information about Castro and assassins and Oswald being a pro-Castroite hit the establishment media. The stories and the sequence of events began to be predictable, if a researcher had understood the PCG and their fight for survival in 1975 and 1976. Then the Church committee and the Schweiker sub-committee issued statements that they were going to investigate the "Castro did it" theory. The PCG began feeding them information in various forms and various ways that would back up the idea. The JFK sex scandal was released by Judith Exner. The PCG provided her with an incentive to spice up the "Castro did it" theory with a little sex involving JFK and one of the assassins assigned to Castro, John Roselli.

The PCG realized they had the double advantage of drawing attention to Roselli and Castro and the turn-around assassin idea, while at the same time gnawing away at JFK's image. There was press speculation that Exner was a Mafia plant in the White House to find out how much JFK knew about the Castro assassination plans. Since Frank Sinatra had introduced Judith to both JFK and Roselli, there was speculation about Sinatra's Mafia friends linked to the rat pack, to Peter Lawford, to JFK's sister and to JFK himself. All of this was meat for the PCG's grinder. It certainly drew Schweiker's attention away from Helms, Hunt, Gabaldin, Shaw, Ferrie, Seymour and all of the other operatives involved in JFK's murder. In fact, the Schweiker staff, which had the names and locations of several participants and witnesses that could pinpoint the Helms-Hunt-Shaw-Gabaldin group as the real assassins as early as September, 1975 did not interview more than one or two of them and did not follow up on the rest at all. Their attention was diverted by the second line of defense strategy and they were also influenced by infiltration by the PCG.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I want to "hold your feet to the fire" (so to speak) as Robert Charles-Dunne does (Dunne does? sorry about the sounding) to me regarding my scenario.

First, correct me if I am wrong. As I recall, Sprague offers no footnotes or other sources for his story. For all we know, he manufactured the whole thing out of whole cloth.

For instance, Sprague wrote:

"The JFK sex scandal was released by Judith Exner. The PCG provided her with an incentive to spice up the "Castro did it" theory with a little sex involving JFK and one of the assassins assigned to Castro, John Roselli."

John, as you know, Sprague offers no source for this assertion. What incentive did who give to Campbell? And is he implying that Campbell was NOT a sex partner with Kennedy, Rosselli and Giancana?

In addition, he has his facts wrong. Rosselli was first friendly with Campbell. Rosselli then introduced Campbell to Sinatra. Then Sinatra introduced Campbell to then sen JFK when JFK visited the Sands Resort in early Feb 1960 when he watched the filming of the original "Oceans Eleven."

I believe the Cuban plot story began to surface because Rosselli was in a legal bind over the Friars Club cheating case and was looking to use his work for the CIA to bail him out.

Holland's "The Assassination Tapes" provides a good chronology of how Attorney Ed Morgan first started to go forward with Rosselli's story. When Pearson first told the story to LBJ, LBJ could not believe that the CIA had entered an alliance with the Mafia. Later LBJ met with Richard Helms and demanded an explanation. That in turn led to the 1967 Inspector Generals Report. LBJ was careful not to go public with the story himself because it did not present RFK in a good light and LBJ judged, correctly, that the public would dislike the messenger bringing the bad message.

As I have tried to demonstrate above, there is substantial, but admittedly not compelling, evidence to indicate that Castro "hit" Kennedy not so much as retaliation for past efforts to murder him as to prevent future attempts on his life. This is a theory accepted by people who actual participated in the Kennedy administration's was against Castro, e.g. Joseph Califano and his aide Gen. Alexander Haig; by a very competent historian (now university dean) Michael Kurtz; possibly by the late John F. Kennedy, Jr. (whose only published story on the assassination was the story of the Cubela caper by Edward J. Epstein); by me and at least three other people!

Regardless of whether we are right or wrong on the "Fidel Did It" theory, to suggest that the story was manufactured or manipulated by some sinister power group is, IMO, simply nonsense. Sprague has no proof for his assertions and, As I tried to set forth above, he had no understanding concerning why and how those plots came to life.

The irony is RFK may never have learned of the plots but for Arthur Balletti's bungled attempted bugging of Dan Rowan's hotel suite; and the plots may never have come to public attention had Johhny Rosselli not been caught cheating celebrities at the Hollywood Friars Club. Those are the facts. Did this sinister PCG somehow manipulate the discovery of the card shark scam?

Again--whether Castro did it or not--how and why the CIA/Mafia plots were exposed has nothing to do with Sprague's totally unsubstantiated theory.

Holland's "The Assassination Tapes" gets certain things wrong, but anyone who wants to understand the politics of the formation of the Warren Commission, the Washington reaction to the Garrison investigation, and the unfolding of the Rosselli story, needs to read Holland's book, IMO.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

The following article by Peter Whitney, published in "The Fourth Decade", merits our consideration.

The Cubana Airlines Flight of November 22, 1963

Peter R. Whitmey

The Fourth Decade, January 1995

In June of 1976 the Senate Select Committee described in Book V of its report the mysterious delay of a Cubana Airlines flight, not long after the assassination of President Kennedy, originating in Mexico City and destined for Cuba. The reason given for the five-hour delay (from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m. EST), according to information received by the CIA on Dec. 1, 1963, was for the purpose of transporting an “unidentified passenger (who) had arrived at the Mexico city airport in a twin-engine aircraft at 10:30 p.m.” (1) The man had apparently boarded the Cubana flight without going through customs, and traveled to Cuba in the cockpit.

During the HSCA’s investigation, the Cubana Airlines flight incident was reviewed. The committee ascertained that the Cubana flight had been delayed, but by four hours and ten minutes, not five hours as previously reported. It was also learned that the Cubana flight left Mexico City at 8:30 p.m., an hour before the twin-engine private aircraft arrived, so a transfer of a passenger was not possible. Had such a transfer occurred, the committee felt that it was highly unlikely that it would have gone unnoticed, given the extensive records maintained at the airport. However, for some reason, the committee failed to divulge the name of the mystery passenger who had landed in Mexico City in their report. (2)

The likely identity of the individual first referred to by the Senate Select Committee as an “unidentified passenger” was revealed in two CIA reports dated Jan. 25 and Jan. 27, 1964, released under the Freedom of Information Act in November 1983. A detailed summary was provided by Henry Hurt in his 1985 book Reasonable Doubt. (3) According to CIA sources, the man’s name was Miguel Casas Saez. He was born in Cuba, and at the time of the assassination was either twenty-one or twenty-seven, 5’5” in height, and weighing 155 lbs. Saez was an ardent admirer of Raul Castro, Fidel Castro’s brother, and was possibly a member of the Cuban intelligence service; he even spoke Russian.

Much of the information about Saez was provided to the CIA before the assassination, on November 5 and 15, 1963. He had entered the U.S. in Miami in early November using the name “Angel Dominiguez Martinez” on a “sabotage and espionage mission”, according to one CIA source, and had been in Dallas on November 22 with two friends (confirmed by CIA sources inside Cuba), returning to Dallas later that day. Saez apparently had experience with weapons while in the militia, and was described as being “capable of doing anything” by the same source. Further investigation by two men working under the Cuban source determined that Saez had gone from being poorly dressed to well dressed with lots of money, after having disappeared for several weeks.

Another CIA source, considered reliable, provided further details from Saez’s aunt, who knew him as “Miguelito.” She also confirmed that he had been in Dallas on November 22, had left the U.S. at Laredo for Mexico City and then onto Cuba. The aunt described her nephew as one of “Raul’s men” and “very brave, very brave.”

Hurt also points out that in late 1964, the CIA informed the FBI that an “untested” source had provided information from a Cuban scientist who had been at the Havana airport late on Nov. 22, 1963. He had noticed a plane with Mexican markings land at the far end of the air field, with two men, whom he recognized as Cuban “gangsters,” emerging from the back door of the administration building. The scientist learned that the flight had originated in Dallas. Were they possibly friends of Saez and co-conspirators in the assassination?

An intriguing footnote to the Cubana Airlines incident came to my attention in the fall of 1988 during a telephone conversation with Alan Edmunds, a former Maclean’s journalist. (4) He mentioned to me that a small contingent of Canadian and British journalists, including himself, had been granted visas by the Cuban government to cover the trial of two Canadian pilots who had been caught smuggling explosives into Cuba, hidden in cans of papaya juice. (5) The trial was to begin on November 23, 1963, and the reporters arranged to meet “at noon in the bar of Mexico City Airport on November 22.” Their flight to Cuba on Cubana Airlines was scheduled to leave at 2:00 p.m. CST, but they had been warned that “the plane would be held until the last of the refugee passengers had been cleared by U.S. Immigration.” (6)

While at the bar, Edmunds and his eight colleagues learned that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, and immediately ran for the phones, with seats available on an Eastern Airlines flight to Dallas. However, Edmunds was told to continue on to Cuba, despite the feeling that Castro was behind the assassination, which could likely have resulted in a nuclear attack on Cuba.

Edmunds recalled that their flight was not called until 9:00 pm—a delay of seven hours—and that they were the only passengers allowed on board. It was pitch black as they were escorted by “a small man with a nervous smile and impeccable New York English…across several hundred yards of tarmac.” They were led up the front steps and seated in what had been “the first class compartment in pre-egalitarian days.”

After the seat-belt sign went out, Edmunds got up and began walking to the rear of the plane in search of the washroom, which he assumed was in the economy section, separated by a curtain. As he opened the curtain, the Cuban escort, who doubled as the steward, grabbed his arm and abruptly directed him to a washroom in the first class section. However, Edmunds had been able to take note of four to six people in that area of the plane, including two men to his left and a woman to his right.

Edmunds recalled that years later, possibly in 1978 (more likely 1975, unless he meant the HSCA) a “U.S. Senate Inquiry into the Kennedy assassination had been presented with the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a patsy, and it was a Cuban hit squad that had got Kennedy from the grassy knoll near the book warehouse. They’d driven Hell for Leather to Dallas airport and boarded a scheduled flight to Mexico City. The inquiry had been told that the Cubana Airlines flight to Havana that day had been deliberately delayed so it could fly them back to Cuba before anyone caught on.” Edmunds indicated that someone had suggested the possibility that one of the Canadian journalists aboard that flight might have seen the hit squad, and therefore should be questioned. Although Edmunds states in his manuscript that neither he nor his colleagues were contacted, he did recall during our conversation having been phoned [by someone from the committee], with the expectation of a follow-up interview, which never materialized.

In his manuscript, Edmunds suggested that, had he taken the theory at all seriously, he “should, in all conscience, have at least phoned Washington.” But then he would have been forced to publicly admit that further investigation on his part might have been expected. In retrospect, Edmunds wondered whether the other passengers were merely rejected refugees being sent back to Cuba, or maybe cabin crew from the previous flight returning home. If not, he facetiously suggested the possibility of having “missed the story of the century” in his “eagerness to get to the washroom.”

Edmunds’s description of the Cubana flight makes no reference to having observed an incoming private plane or the boarding of a passenger who went directly to the cockpit, although it is conceivable that these events took place prior to the journalists being escorted to the plane. In addition, Edmunds’s recollection of the scheduled and actual time of departure is not consistent with the Senate Committee’s report, nor with the HSCA’s, but there is no indication that Cuban Airlines had more than one flight to Cuba that day. (In fact, Edmunds stated that Cubana Airlines had only one flight per week from Mexico City to Cuba.)

So we are left with a suspicious, but inconclusive, possibility, that one or more pro-Castro Cubans might have been involved in the assassination of JFK, with or without Lee Harvey Oswald’s knowledge and participation. Even though the CIA had informed the FBI about the observation of a Cuban scientist at the Havana Airport described earlier, on a routing sheet that accompanied the document, someone at the CIA had scrawled the following comment: “I’d let this die its natural death, as the FBI is doing.” The CIA’s source in Cuba had, in fact, died by then. (7)

As for Saez, no attempt had apparently been made to determine why he had traveled to the U.S., why he happened to be in Dallas on November 22, 1963, why he had abruptly returned to Cuba with apparent assistance that day, why he suddenly came into more money than ever before, and whatever happened to him. Presumably the HSCA was aware of the CIA documents cited by Henry Hurt, but no specific reference was made to Saez in its report. It is also apparent that the Warren Commission was never informed by the CIA about the Cuban connection.

Notes:

1. Bernard Fensterwald with Michael Ewing, Coincidence or Conspiracy? (New York: Zebra Books, 1977), pp. 494–495. It should be noted that the authors describe the man as being a twenty-three-year-old “Cuban-American,” with connections to Tampa, Florida, Fair Play For Cuba Committee, who might have been involved in the assassination, according to a CIA source. However, this description clearly applies to Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, whose suspicious movements are described in detail in The Final Assassinations Report (Bantam Books: N.Y.), pp. 136–141.

2. The Final Assassinations Report (Bantam Books, N.Y.), 1979, p. 136. Note: the Cubana Airline flight is incorrectly stated as having taken place on Nov. 23, 1963, but the report referred to in the footnotes on p. 695 gives the correct date of Nov. 22, 1963.

3. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (Henry Holt and Co. N.Y., 1985), pp. 421–23.

4. I had contacted Edmunds in the course of trying to locate another former Maclean’s writer named Jon Ruddy related to my Richard Giesbrecht research, and through Edmunds was successful (Ruddy died in 1995 in Mexico, as a result of an accident.)

5. “The Great Cuban Spy Caper” (part one) by William Milne as told to Barbara Moon, Maclean’s, February 22, 1964, pp. 7–8, March 7, 1964, pp. 24–25, 39–45. Also, New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 25 and New York Times, Dec. 11, 1963, p. 11.

6. Alan Edmunds, “Airlines to Avoid: Cubana,” sent to me on Jan. 22, 1990; it was to be published in a Canadian travel magazine, although I don’t know if it ever was.

7. Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 423.

[Don Jeffries]

To anyone concerned with the other side of the whole Judith Campbell Exner story, I suggest reading a great piece by Jim DiEugenio. This should still be available online, and it was in the archives of either Probe or Fair Play magazines. Exner's story was swallowed whole by almost everyone, with little scrutiny and no delving into the question of her credibility.