The Communication Breakdown

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

Tim,

. . . And you can talk about "the slightest evidence" all you want regarding LBJ, but the fact is that he not only had means, motive, and opportunity, which are the qualifications of a suspect, but he had the strongest motive of anyone who has ever been suspected in the JFK murder (with the exception, of course, of Castro in your view).

LBJ politically and personally was in a desperate situation. One can argue that Hoover was in a desperate situation in the subjective sense of wanting to keep his hallowed job and not have to retire like most folks like to do. One can argue that the military industrial complex was in a desperate situation in the subjective sense of possibly being deprived of a good war in Southeast Asia, which ordinary folks would gladly do without. One can argue that the CIA was in a desperate situation in the subjective sense of having to come up with some clever new covert operation to top the last one, the more illegal, deadly, and chemically profitable the better. But LBJ was in a desperate situation in the purely objective sense of wanting to stay out of prison, a desire that everyone on the planet, no matter how low on the totem pole, can readily understand and identify with.

You will no doubt argue that Castro was even more desperate, in wanting to stay alive, to which I have argued (and I don't recall a reply) that if Castro wanted JFK dead in order to go on living himself, all he had to do was wait, as his spies in the exile community would know that a plot against JFK involving anti-Castro exiles and their backers was in the offing.

In any case, I doubt that LBJ would wait around hoping that Castro or somebody else might off JFK for whatever reason. LBJ had reason enough, and is known to have been capable enough, and plotted with others to get the job done. And with hearings underway on Capitol Hill on November 22, for LBJ it went right down to the wire.

Ron

Ron, I agree with you that "means, motive and opportunity" are the classic definition of a "suspect". What is the modern term: "person of interest to the investigation"?

Your argument about Castro just waiting assumes, of course, that there was a anti-Castro Cuban exile plot against JFK in the works. Which seems inconsistent with your apparent position that LBJ did it.

I do agree with you that LBJ had the strongest of motives (other than Castro's) since he was indeed facing a possible prison sentence (as he himself acknowledged) and controlling the executive put himself in a far better position to control that.

Certainly there are many murders committed (e.g. the murder of witnesses) where the motive is to stay out of jail (and sometimes it works).

Clearly, evaluating who did it is not simply an issue of deciding who had the strongest motive. I do not argue, for instance, that it is more likely that Castro did it than LBJ because Castro's motive (self-preservation) was stronger than LBJ's (stay out of jail).

I agree that the fact that there were reports linking LBJ to earlier acts of political violence must be considered. As well as the issue of the alleged Wallace fingerprint.

I just do not think there is sufficient evidence to declare LBJ guilty. In addition, one must also consider evidence that may exculpate LBJ. I know others differ, but my reading of "The Assassinations Tapes" convinced me that LBJ was probably innocent. In addition, there are the reports that he was cowering in fear, even hiding in the restroom of Air Force One, in the aftermath of the assassination, fearing he was next on the list. If LBJ was guilty, he certainly was a great actor. And my recollection is that when he lied on television you could easily red the evasiveness on his face.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

One other point for Ron:

One could argue, could not one, that the mafia had the same motive as LBJ since under RFK the Justice Department was attempting to close in on their leaders and put them in jail? And the mafia presumably had greater means than LBJ since LBJ arguably did not know as many contract killers as did the mafia.

[David G. Healy]

Gratz wrote:

G. David Healey wrote:

While Dillon was obviously a family friend, they were from opposing political tribes, ostensibly with different support bases and they were two decades apart in age but he's got them as blood brothers. Dear oh dear.

Which makes it obvious that Mr. Healy, like Mark, has not read Sorenson's biography of JFK. From Sorenson's POV, Dillon was one of JFK's closest friends and one of the Cabinet members whose counsel he most respected.

I think John should require as a condition of posting on this forum that posters have read at least the basic biographies of JFK: certainly Sorenson and Scheslinger.

______________

You gott'a get your "quotes" straightened out there pal - add to that, you can't quite figure out how to spell my last name correctly. I find that down right offensive, but you're not the first --

I suspect your time might be better spent posting things requested of you. Should keep you busy for the next year or so. As to what's required of poster here? Who gives a damn what a blowhard [especially one so consumed with himself] from down yonder in the Keys has to say about ANYTHING... in some quarters your credibility is sinking, FAST.

Edited June 12, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Tim Gratz]

I apologize for the misspelling; I know I did it before. I used to have a friend named "Healey" so that spelling is probably imbedded.

Substantively, I take you that you admit you have not read Ted Sorenson's biography of JFK.

I also note you once labeled a Keys newspaper "a rag". Tell me that you have ever seen a copy of it? I think all your name-calling speaks volumes of you, sir.

I respect many people whose views on the assassination differ greatly from mine because they are well-read and use logical arguments. I have little use for people who have not read the basics and stoop to name-calling. Sorry.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

I apologize for the misspelling; I know I did it before.  I used to have a friend named "Healey" so that spelling is probably imbedded.

Substantively, I take you that you admit you have not read Ted Sorenson's biography of JFK.

I also note you once labeled a Keys newspaper "a rag".  Tell me that you have ever seen a copy of it?  I think all your name-calling speaks volumes of you, sir.

I respect many people whose views on the assassination differ greatly from mine because they are well-read and use logical arguments.  I have little use for people who have not read the basics and stoop to name-calling.  Sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, at the risk of sounding like a referee, I really think you should re-read Robert's posts and answer some of his questions. I, for one, would find it very helpful if you quit invading every thread to talk about Castro, and instead created one long post, or seminar, which itemized the many reasons you suspect his involvement, with the sources of your information. That way whenever you find a new reason to believe Castro did it, you could add to it, and people like me could print the whole thread and consider it a valuable source for our own investigation.

But as it is it seems that you're anxious to believe any source that tells you what you want to hear, even if they are not credible. It's well-known that the Cuban exile community are filled with notorious liars anxious to say or do anything to overthrow Castro. The Last Investigation backs this up, with horrifying tales of bs spouted by Lorenz, Sturgis, and even Veciana. You simply can't trust the words of Carlos Bringuier or John Martino, or their followers--they were propagandists with an agenda. If you keep up your current onlsaught, we might have to change your last name to Bringuier.

By the way, I don't believe you ever did get back to us about those arrests of Cubans in New York, supposedly for planning to blow up the city. I assume from this that the whole thing was U.S. disinfo designed to discredit Castro at the U.N. Your contentions about Escalante in Dealey, and Cubela partying down with Trafficante and Kostikov are probably equally as smoke-filled.

To quote an old commercial, where's the beef?

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, as you know, I respect you very much and read all of your posts very carefully. Don't apologize for sounding like a referee. I suspect one was needed.

I hear and understand what you are saying. I am not trying to "hijack" these threads and agree with you that it is mixing apples and oranges to discuss whether Castro did it on a thread that was started re the alleged communication break-down. I think you will find that in every case the reference to Castro was started by someone other than myself.

On your other points:

I have not yet finishec researching the NY bomb plot. I will try to get on that.

I am certain that Underwood was not the only souce that claims that Scott told him that Escalante was in Dealey Plaza. I will try to find the earlier reference to it. I do not recall that the earlier report mentioned the source of Scott's information.

I should try to track down the original CIA reports about the alleged Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza. Frankly, I am not sure what good it will do. For one thing, if any of the people making the reports to the CIA are still alive, I am sure their names will be redacted. And if not Robert Charles-Dunne will just taunt me to prove that the informant was a truth-teller. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Charles-Dunne will call the informant a xxxx (or at least ask me to prove he is not, an impossible burden).

Let us assume, for instance, that the CIA report re the presence of the Cuban intelligence agent named Miguel was in Dealey Plaza lists a Cuban informant named Ricardo Ricardo as the source. How would either me, you or Charles-Dunne know whether Ricardo Ricardo was telling the truth?

If it was a court proceeding, we could subpoena Ricardo Ricardo, ask him the basis for his information, and the jury could evaluate his demeanor. But that isn't going to happen. So what are we going to do? Fly down to Havana and interview the informant? Well, regardless of how credible he appeared, I know (and you know!) that Mr. Charles-Dunne would still not believe him. So what have we accomplished? In my opinion, Mr. Charles-Dunne asking to see the CIA reports is just his little semantic battle to impress the less sophisticated members of this Forum. He knows full well the CIA reports exist, and that, most liklely, the names of the informants will still be withheld.

My point is that if the presence of only ONE pro-Castro Cuban, who fled to Cuba after the assassination, is estalished, that is what I would consider "clear and convincing" evidence of Cuban complicity. So if either Escalante, Miguel or Gilberto was in Havana, I can rest my case. (Proof this is so is all the efforts being made to determine whether Hunt, Conein, Lansdale etc were in Dealey Plaza.)

So if I obtain the CIA report listing Ricardo Ricardo as the source of the information that Miguel was in Dealey Plaza, where does that get us? As noted above, Charles-Dunne will simply brand him a xxxx.

It cannot be disputed that reports exist stating that Miguel was in Dealey Plaza. It certainly appears that Trento has seen the reports.

I remembered one other thing worth mentioning. In "The Last Investigation" Fonzi reports that a Cuban exile told him he had spotted the face of a man he knew to be a Cuban intelligence agent in Dealey Plaza. As I remember the passage, Fonzi did not think the man a xxxx. He and Fonzi spent considerable time in the Miami library looking for the photo with the picture the man recognized, but to no avail. This might be another item worthy of research. If the man is still alive, perhaps he can identify the face from the photographs available to us here.

The other item that would, I think, prove Cuban involvement would be proof of the relationship between Trafficante and Cuba. (Since I think Trafficante's participation is quite clear.) AS you know, there were numerous reports, made two years before the assassination, that Trafficante was working for Fidel. But how does one go about proving that? Suffice it to say that if those reports are true, Cuban involvement or sponsorship is quite clear.

Re "Cubela partying with Kostikov", here is what I understand happened: when Kostikov's name emerged as an Oswald contact after the assassination, the CIA did a search and determined that Kostikov had also met with a Cuban named Cubela. The part of the CIA doing this search (I think it was Angleton's group) did not know who Cubela was and sent an internal memo within the CIA asking if anyone knew who Cubela was. But the CIA staff involved with the Cubela matter never bothered to respond to the memo. The source of this information is "The Very Best Men" by Thomas. (It surprises me you have not read it.) I suspect the CIA determined the Kostikov/Cubela meeting by way of its photographic surveillance in Mexico City. I don't think there is any question Cubela met with Kostikov. Larry knows about this but he thinks the meeting was non-sinister and believes it occured in 1961 (I am not sure where he came up with the info re when the meeting occured).

Due to Ruby, mafia involvement in the assassination is clear. The other available evidence, if true, points to Cuba, with the following exception: the reports of "confessions" made by Morales and Martino.

But I do agree with you this stuff belongs on another thread, presumably the "Fidel Did It" scenario thread.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

By the way, I went back and checked.

It was MARK who first brought up the "Castro did it" scenario on Post #61, on page 5 of this thread. Prior to that time, not a single one of my posts on this thread had anything to do with the "Castro scenario". I just was talking about how dumb it is, and immoral, in my opinion, to be accusing Douglas Dillon of murdering his close friend JFK.

I am confident that if you check the other posts in which the "Castro scenario" came up you will find that I am not the one who started it.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Pat, as you know, I respect you very much and read all of your posts very carefully.  Don't apologize for sounding like a referee.  I suspect one was needed.

I hear and understand what you are saying.  I am not trying to "hijack" these threads and agree with you that it is mixing apples and oranges to discuss whether Castro did it on a thread that was started re the alleged communication break-down.  I think you will find that in every case the reference to Castro was started by someone other than myself.

On your other points:

I have not yet finishec researching the NY bomb plot.  I will try to get on that.

That would be splendid, Tim.  You see, when you take an item like this and use it to extrapolate fantastic repercussions - "If Fidel would stoop to blowing up New York City, do you really think he'd balk at killing the President?" - you leave yourself open to looking quite foolish when it transpires that the original predicate for your extrapolations either never occurred, or wasn't as reported, or what-have-you.  A little more prior restraint on your part would actually help your cause.  To other posters, you would seem less ideologically driven and more scholarly, which can only help you.

I am certain that Underwood was not the only souce that claims that Scott told him that Escalante was in Dealey Plaza.  I will try to find the earlier reference to it.  I do not recall that the earlier report mentioned the source of Scott's information.

Again, the posting of whatever raw data you have would be greatly appreciated.  That way, we can all assess and debate the merits of the original material, and not merely the spin you choose to place on it.  If the documents substantiate your contentions, excellent.  If they do not, also excellent.

I should try to track down the original CIA reports about the alleged Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza.  Frankly, I am not sure what good it will do.  For one thing, if any of the people making the reports to the CIA are still alive, I am sure their names will be redacted.  And if not Robert Charles-Dunne will just taunt me to prove that the informant was a truth-teller.  There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Charles-Dunne will call the informant a xxxx (or at least ask me to prove he is not, an impossible burden).

I think that's an unfair assertion, Tim.  I like to think the only time that I will brand somebody a xxxx is when they've been caught lying. 

If Martin Underwood [as a case in point] has a reputation for being a straight-shooter, I have no interest in calling him a xxxx.  However, if it turns out that Martin Underwood has a well-demonstrated track record for dissembling to authors and reporters, but then recanting when placed under oath, I think it does your cause a disservice when you cite him as an unimpeachable source.

As for what is redacted in documents, I've been at this game a long, long time.  In my experience, when each level of redactions is removed over time, it is not the name of the informant or the means-and-methods that are the last items to be protected.  The final items are invariably the identities of those within the CIA who were privvy to the information contained in the documents.  Consequently, the last thing we are provided with is usually who generated the documents, and who received them.  That can often tell us far more about the documents' authenticity, accuracy and provenance than the name of the informant.

Let us assume, for instance, that the CIA report re the presence of the Cuban intelligence agent named Miguel was in Dealey Plaza lists a Cuban informant named Ricardo Ricardo as the source.  How would either me, you or Charles-Dunne know whether Ricardo Ricardo was telling the truth?

Per my previous comment, if we can find other reports wherein Ricardo Ricardo provided information to authorities, we can, or may be able to, verify the accuracy of the information, and the informant who provided it.  Just as important, however, we can see the identities of those who generated the report based upon Ricardo Ricardo's information, and to whom it was disseminated.  Often, we can learn much about the purpose of a document, just by seeing who generated it, and at least speculate about the veracity of its contents.  If the document is genuine, but the contents are spurious, it can or may tell us something about the agenda of those who generated it.

If it was a court proceeding, we could subpoena Ricardo Ricardo, ask him the basis for his information, and the jury could evaluate his demeanor.  But that isn't going to happen.  So what are we going to do?  Fly down to Havana and interview the informant?  Well, regardless of how credible he appeared, I know (and you know!) that Mr. Charles-Dunne would still not believe him.  So what have we accomplished?  In my opinion, Mr. Charles-Dunne asking to see the CIA reports is just his little semantic battle to impress the less sophisticated members of this Forum.  He knows full well the CIA reports exist, and that, most liklely, the names of the informants will still be withheld.

Again, I think this an unfair assertion for you to make.  You have no way of knowing in advance what I, or any other poster here, will make of a document.  I think this is merely your attempt to excuse your consistent refusal to bother posting the information that you've been asked for.  "What's the point in bothering to post actual evidence?" you seem to say.  "Mr. Charles-Dunne won't believe it anyway."  It appears you have a remarkable lack of confidence in the credibility of your proof if you refuse to share it, claiming it won't be persuasive anyway.  It smacks of a defeatism that doesn't bolster your case.  [Also, Tim: I know you're merely being gentlemanly in calling me Mr. Charles-Dunne, but Robert or RC-D would suffice quite nicely.]

My point is that if the presence of only ONE pro-Castro Cuban, who fled to Cuba after the assassination, is estalished, that is what I would consider "clear and convincing" evidence of Cuban complicity.  So if either Escalante, Miguel or Gilberto was in Havana, I can rest my case.  (Proof this is so is all the efforts being made to determine whether Hunt, Conein, Lansdale etc were in Dealey Plaza.)

And we might be inclined to agree with your assessment, if you bothered to actually cite the information upon which you base these conclusions.  In this field, we cannot start with a conclusion and then cherry-pick the data upon which we'd like to base it.  We must view the totality of the evidence - which includes as much raw data as we can make available - then draw the appropriate conclusions, wherever conclusions might avail themselves.

So if I obtain the CIA report listing Ricardo Ricardo as the source of the information that Miguel was in Dealey Plaza, where does that get us?  As noted above, Charles-Dunne will simply brand him a xxxx.

Tim, why don't you post your data, and we'll see what to make of it?  Surely, that can't be too much to ask of someone so clearly anxious to persuade us, can it?  Unless and until you make that effort, neither you, I, nor any other poster here can even know what you're talking about.

It cannot be disputed that reports exist stating that Miguel was in Dealey Plaza.  It certainly appears that Trento has seen the reports.

But wouldn't it be much better if you had seen them?  And would share them with the rest of us?  Until that day, you're merely insisting that we make a massive leap of faith along with you. 

As I've pointed out a half dozen times by way of illustration, Hoover generated a memo claiming that Oswald had been to Cuba numerous times but refused to divulge the purpose of his visits.  Yes, the memo exists.  Is it accurate?  That is the question.  Either Hoover knew something he didn't share with others, or he was spectacularly wrong about something highly critical, or he made stuff up from whole cloth for a purpose about which we can only speculate.  Without seeing the reports Trento cites, how can we know what to make of them?

I remembered one other thing worth mentioning.  In "The Last Investigation" Fonzi reports that a Cuban exile told him he had spotted the face of a man he knew to be a Cuban intelligence agent in Dealey Plaza.  As I remember the passage, Fonzi did not think the man a xxxx.  He and Fonzi spent considerable time in the Miami library looking for the photo with the picture the man recognized, but to no avail. This might be another item worthy of research.  If the man is still alive, perhaps he can identify the face from the photographs available to us here.

This is presumably where I am expected to leap in and brand either Fonzi or his source a "xxxx."  Guess what?  No dice.

The other item that would, I think, prove Cuban involvement would be proof of the relationship between Trafficante and Cuba.  (Since I think Trafficante's participation is quite clear.)  AS you know, there were numerous reports, made two years before the assassination, that Trafficante was working for Fidel.  But how does one go about proving that?  Suffice it to say that if those reports are true, Cuban involvement or sponsorship is quite clear.

If Trafficante and Fidel had a covert relationship, it would be worth demonstrating.  And I hope you expend some effort in doing so, for our edification.  However, remember also that Trafficante also had a covert relationship with CIA.  So, assuming - arguendo - that Trafficante was involved in the assassination, why do you think it was at Fidel's behest, and not CIA's?  When you can clarify that distinction for us, you will have done us, and your own cause, a great service.

Re "Cubela partying with Kostikov", here is what I understand happened:  when Kostikov's name emerged as an Oswald contact after the assassination, the CIA did a search and determined that Kostikov had also met with a Cuban named Cubela.  The part of the CIA doing this search (I think it was Angleton's group) did not know who Cubela was and sent an internal memo within the CIA asking if anyone knew who Cubela was.  But the CIA staff involved with the Cubela matter never bothered to respond to the memo.  The source of this information is "The Very Best Men" by Thomas.  (It surprises me you have not read it.)  I suspect the CIA determined the Kostikov/Cubela meeting by way of its photographic surveillance in Mexico City.  I don't think there is any question Cubela met with Kostikov.  Larry knows about this but he thinks the meeting was non-sinister and believes it occured in 1961 (I am not sure where he came up with the info re when the meeting occured).

Again, this may mean something.  Or nothing.  Without more clearly delineated citations from you, who knows what it means?  Or doesn't mean?

Due to Ruby, mafia involvement in the assassination is clear.  The other available evidence, if true, points to Cuba, with the following exception:  the reports of "confessions" made by Morales and Martino.

But I do agree with you this stuff belongs on another thread, presumably the "Fidel Did It" scenario thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David G. Healy]

Tim Gratz wrote:

I apologize for the misspelling; I know I did it before. I used to have a friend named "Healey" so that spelling is probably imbedded.

accepted

Substantively, I take you that you admit you have not read Ted Sorenson's biography of JFK.

I also note you once labeled a Keys newspaper "a rag". Tell me that you have ever seen a copy of it? I think all your name-calling speaks volumes of you, sir.

of course I've been to the website -- in search of who you are -- most of my media associates refer to newspapers as **rags** -- after 35+ years of 'big market' involvement in media I don't find the term offensive...

I respect many people whose views on the assassination differ greatly from mine because they are well-read and use logical arguments.

well, views about the assassinaton are one thing, finding the answer is another ball game -- you got RC-D here, one of the most respected researchers, if you want to keep the audience might be a good idea to deliver. 'Logical argument'? Your mining for info Mr. Gratz...most of the folks hereabouts are polite enough to help you -- What do you do in return? Obfuscate! Did I spell that right?

I have little use for people who have not read the basics and stoop to name-calling. Sorry.

your sounding like a graduate of the .john McAdams school of public charades, are you?

[Mark Stapleton]

If the DC phone system failure was contrived, why did they wait till 2 o'clock (EST), when JFK was pronounced dead? (This is the timing of the failure given in Manchester.) Seems like they would have moved as soon as word got out that JFK was shot, i.e. right after 1:30 EST. (And the conspirators knew, of course, at Z313 that JFK was dead, they didn't have to wait for some doctor to say so half an hour later).

If the purpose was to shut down communication during this crisis period, they let a lot of communication go on for half an hour before they shut it down. Why would they do that? It's not that an earlier shutdown would look too suspicious, since they could still claim overload as the problem. I'm sure that an unusual number of calls started being made right after the shooting, to pass the word and try to get news. So why did they wait half an hour? (Why not 10 or 15 minutes at the most?) Whatever kind of communication they were trying to prevent (and what exactly was that?) could have already been made before they chose to act.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

From the realms of wild speculation. Could the half hour delay be related the plotters being undecided as to the strategy they wished to implement.

[Mark Stapleton]

By the way, I went back and checked.

It was MARK who first brought up the "Castro did it" scenario on Post #61, on page 5 of this thread.  Prior to that time, not a single one of my posts on this thread had anything to do with the "Castro scenario".  I just was talking about how dumb it is, and immoral, in my opinion, to be accusing Douglas Dillon of murdering his close friend JFK. 

I am confident that if you check the other posts in which the "Castro scenario" came up you will find that I am not the one who started it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

You're a slippery little rodent. My post was in response to your claim in Post#50 that there were posts on this thread which were garbage. Aghast at the thought that this thread might go places other than Trafficante/Castro/Pro-Castro Cubans, Tim thinks "how do I get my material onto centre stage?". Answer: just say those posts are garbage--someone's bound to respond 'cause I've got more garbage than anyone there. True genius. Then claims that this often happens, which translates as "I use this strategy lots".

Despite all that, this has turned into a very interesting thread, covering a good range of controversial issues. It's been fascinating to watch Robert clinically dispose of most of your assertions. Have you responded yet ? You see, I don't know as much as you on the Castro/Mob theory on the assassination. I doubt if I ever will as you've obviously devoted thousands of hours to it. Trouble is, those who do know what they're talking about on your theory don't appear to back you up. Robert Charles-Dunne and Mark Knight seem to know what they're talking about but still no backers. What conclusion do I draw?

The funny thing is that if anything new comes out of this thread, it might be some research into the background of C. Douglas Dillon. I've never seen such a tantrum about the naming of a suspect and there's been many patriotic Americans named as suspects including 2 Presidents and the joint chiefs. Fascinating.

[Tim Gratz]

To Robert Charles-Dunne:

I am short on time now so I will respond to your points as time permits.

In fact, I have this sugestion.

Our debate re whether Fidel did it may be making some progress and your post demands and I will give it careful consideration and a thoughtful reply. But Pat is correct that it properly belongs on the "Fidel did it" thread.

So I will take the liberty of copying your last post to that thread and responding there. But it probably will not be until later tonight.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

Ron,

From the realms of wild speculation. Could the half hour delay be related the plotters being undecided as to the strategy they wished to implement.

In my opinion, this scenario is illogical.

The plotters carefuly plotted the assassination.

They spent months preparing the frame on the patsy.

Presumably, the only thing that went wrong with their careful plans was that LHO was caught alive. Although I raise another possibility: if they were to frame LHO as the sole assassin (either as a Castro man or as a nut) they may not have wanted to have a frontal shot but it became necessary when the rear shooter did not finish JFK.

But to assume that they had not thought in advance what to do after the assassination, with all the careful thought that had gone into it, makes no sense, in my opinion.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

I've never seen such a tantrum about the naming of a suspect and there's been many patriotic Americans named as suspects including 2 Presidents and the joint chiefs. Fascinating.

Substitute "righteous indignation" for "tantrum". I believe there are others on the forum in addition to myself and Mr. George that are concerned about the morality of claiming certain law abiding citizens were murderers with not a lick of evidence to support the allegation.

In my opinion, there may be enough small pieces of evidence that one could claim LBJ as a suspect. But there is no evidence to even suggest Nixon as a suspect. Same thing for many of the other people who have been named here as possible suspects. In fact, the problem is it goes beyond that: there are members who not only name people as possible suspects but go so far as to label them as part of the conspiracy-again with no evidencewhatsoever.

It is one thing to name "rich oil barons" as possible suspects because of their concern over the presevation of the oil dedpletion allowance, It is another to name a specific oil man (whether Hunt or Murchison) with no evidence (well, I guess we have that claimed party at the Murchisons but my understanding is that has ben fairly well debunked.

It is so reminiscent of McCarthyism. It would be one thing if McCarthy had just stated his opinion that there were communist spies rampant in the State Department. But it was another for him to call a specific person a communist traitor unles he had evidence to back it up.

Now someone could point out that it is one thing to accuse a living person of Communism since such a charge could affect his or her career, expose him or her to public ridicule, etc.-but another thing to call a dead person a murderer since that person cannot be hurt by the charges. (Which is why even the estates of dead persons cannot sue for libel.) Despite the legal technicalities, I believe there are still grave moral concerns in falsely charging a deceased person with murder.

Let's take Dillon. I suspect he had children and grandchildren. How do you think they wil feel when they find out (as I suspect they will) that their father-grandfather has been publicly labeled a murderer?

Perhaps no one here thought of that. That reckless charges here hurt living people. Perhaps someone thought it makes no diference to call Dillon an assassin since he is dead and so no harm done. But I ask you people who HAVE accused Dillon what do you think if your charges are causing great anguish to the descendants of Dillon. Does that bother you in the least?

Well, it should. And it disappoints me that it does not. I had always thought that liberalism stood for political decency and fair play (among other things); that it was liberals who would stand up for the rights of people falsely accused of even non-political crimes. But apparently not for many so-called liberals who post on this forum.

I'll probably get myself in trouble for saying this, but perhaps in context it makes sense since both Joe and Jack Kennedy were reportedly supporters of Sen. McCarthy.

I hope members will take this post seriously and consider the morality of leveling baseless charges against people and how such charges will hurt their family members. Not only that, but in my opinion these baseless charges based on speculation only do nothing to advance assassination research and in fact probably harm it because they expose the entire assassination research community to ridicule.

And the reason the issue "came to a boil" with Dillon was because I knew from Sorenson's book how close he was to JFK and that he had no policy differences with JFK. So it also bothered me that people would post such garbage (well, it is-it stinks) without having read the basic stories of the Kennedy administration writen by Kennedy's closest aides: Sorenson and Schlesinger. As I said before, it is easier to pontificate than it is to read the history, but without knowledge of the history the pontifications are meaningless.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Christopher T. George]

Mark wrote:

I've never seen such a tantrum about the naming of a suspect and there's been many patriotic Americans named as suspects including 2 Presidents and the joint chiefs. Fascinating.

Substitute "righteous indignation" for "tantrum".  I believe there are others on the forum in addition to myself and Mr. George that are concerned about the morality of claiming certain law abiding citizens were murderers with not a lick of evidence to support the allegation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Everyone

First, Tim, many thanks for that nod. Yes, I do think we need to be responsible and careful in examining problems of history, and to not float wild and irresponsible theories.

While I have little regard for Nixon because of the trauma he put the country through in Watergate and his penchant for "dirty tricks," I think we do have to be careful to examine the facts and likelihood that he could have been behind the assassination of JFK.

Somehow I think it is unlikely given that he was beaten by JFK in the 1960 election and was probably viewed as washed-up and an also ran by the majority of the U.S. population. What forces that could have pulled off an assassination would have realistically rallied to his cause in 1962-1963? Even if he pulled off the assassination, what chance would he have of taking power, given that he was not next in line, and would have to win a national election to gain the presidency? So all in all, to me, Nixon being behind the Kennedy assassination seems very much a long shot.

Best regards

Chris George