Familiar DGI Faces In Dealey Plaza

[James Richards]

I don't find such a passage in the book. I wonder if you're thinking of the source who told Fonzi that "Carlos" posed as a photographer in DP, and had photos in a bank vault. (Ron Ecker)

This of course being Bernardo De Torres.

As to Raul Diaz, could this be Raul Diaz Arguelles? Diaz rose to the ranks of Brigadier General before he was killed in Angola in December 1975. He was close to Castro during the revolution and in those early days of Fidel's power, Diaz was mixed up with intelligence activities.

James

[Tim Gratz]

James I suppose it could be but all I have found is a brief one sentence summary (on Gordon's web-site) that states Veciana testified that he had identified in a photo Raul Diaz in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.

(The document references NARA RIF 157-10014-10041 (Miscellaneous Records of the Church Committee, March 22, 1976.)

Is Veciana still alive? Does any member have access to his testimony before the Church Committee? I could not find it on the "History Matters" web-site.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Regarding Ron's post, it makes no sense to me that if Castro's intelligence organization had pre-knowledge of an assassination (in which Castro could clearly be a suspect) it would send one or more spies to the scene for the only purpose of watching the action.

Castro clearly had an outstanding intelligence organization. Outstanding intelligence organizations do not take unnecessary risks. What could be a more unnecessary risk than to send an agent to the scene of the assassination of a foreign head of state?

Moreover, since JFK was making (sincerely or not) peace initiatives with Castro, if Castro was aware of a plot to kill Kennedy, why would he not inform Kennedy's representatives (unless Castro in fact desired Kennedy's death, in which case his preknowledge of the assassination might not be as innocent as Ron assumes). Preventing a murder is a pretty good way to make friends!

Edited June 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

In the previous post I argued that there is no non-sinister reason why Cuban intelligence agents would be in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

Pat had posted that he considered it more likely that Rip Robertson was in Dealey Plaza than Raul Diaz (based on photographic comparisons only).

Which raises the question whether there could be a non-sinister reason for Robertson to be in Dealey Plaza if that is indeed his photo.

I suggest there is one.

We all know there was an expected plot by pro-Castro Cubans to kill JFK in Miami on Monday, November 18, 1963. For that reason Bernardo de Torres was brought in to attempt to spot dangerous Cubans. Hemming says some of his Interpen group were brought in for the same purpose.

If in fact Robertson was in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd might it not have been for the same purpose--to look for dangerous Cubans?

In other words, there were certainly non-sinister reasons for American intelligence agents to be in Dallas. Not so for Cuban intelligence agents.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Regarding Ron's post, it makes no sense to me that if Castro's intelligence organization had pre-knowledge of an assassination (in which Castro could clearly be a suspect) it would send one or more spies to the scene for the only purpose of watching the action.

Castro clearly had an outstanding intelligence organization.  Outstanding intelligence organizations do not take unnecessary risks.  What could be a more unnecessary risk than to send an agent to the scene of the assassination of a foreign head of state?

Moreover, since JFK was making (sincerely or not) peace initiatives with Castro, if Castro was aware of a plot to kill Kennedy, why would he not inform Kennedy's representatives (unless Castro in fact desired Kennedy's death, in which case his preknowledge of the assassination might not be as innocent as Ron assumes).  Preventing a murder is a pretty good way to make friends!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, speculation, speculation, speculation. When are you going to put some meat on these bones.Can we at least see the photo to which Veciana refers,and a comparison of the known Diaz so we can make up our own minds?

[Tim Gratz]

Sorry, Stephen, no can do.

But none of this is speculation, as you falsely assert. What part did you think was speculation?

Per James, there was indeed a Cuban intelligence agent named Raul Diaz who was very close to Castro. That is NOT speculation.

And Antonio Veciana, believed to be a truth-teller by most assassination researchers, testified before the Church Committee that he recognized a photo of a man named Raul Diaz, who he identified as a Cuban intelligence agent, in Dealey Plaza. Neither is THAT speculation. Veciana's testimony was recorded before a court reporter and is part of the official records of the Church Committee.

As you know, suspicions of CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination were fueled by Veciana's testimony to the Church Committee that he saw Maurice Bishop (widely believed to be CIA operative David Atlee Phillips) with Oswald in Dallas. Veciana was clearly not on a crusade to pin the assassination on Castro.

There is good reason to believe Veciana would be familiar with Cuban intelligence agents. I assume you recall that Veciana's cousin, Guillermo Ruiz, was a member of Cuban intelligence.

If Veciana was correct that Raul Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, and if, as seems likely, Raul Diaz was the man identified by James, that, I submit, is strong evidence of Cuban complicity in the assassination.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Tim, In early 1961 Veciana tells his boss,Julio Lobo, of his intense hatred of Castro.Shortly after this he is contacted by "Bishop"and begins to work on plans for Castro's assassination, the first one during the visit of a Russian astronaut in late 1961. Veciana then forms Alpha 61 under directions from "Bishop", he tells Veciana that the money to support this op comes from the CIA, and commercial sources.The last attempt on Castro's life comes as late as 1971 in Chile. In 1973 "Bishop" pays Veciana $253,000. This man was bought and payed for by CIA, and big business dollars,a man who hated Castro enough to murder him, and yet we are supposed to belive that he would not stoop to telling a lie to tie Castro into the assassination?And on top of this you cant even post the photo evidence?

Regards, Steve.

[Ron Ecker]

Regarding Ron's post, it makes no sense to me that if Castro's intelligence organization had pre-knowledge of an assassination (in which Castro could clearly be a suspect) it would send one or more spies to the scene for the only purpose of watching the action.

It wouldn't be just to watch the action, like the government ghouls at Main and Houston did. It would be to give Castro a first-hand account of how it all went down, which Castro would want if there was going to be any U.S. attempt to blame it on him.

Castro clearly had an outstanding intelligence organization.  Outstanding intelligence organizations do not take unnecessary risks.

What risk? Was the DPD going to start rounding up everyone who looked Cuban in Dealey Plaza, or every human being there for that matter? I know that racial profiling was not an issue back in 1963, but I see no reason why the cops who were trying to catch some gunman on the grassy knoll would start looking around for Hispanic-looking people to detain, any more than they would look around for people who obviously looked right-wing, like Joseph Milteer. (Though I don't blame them for detaining that old man with the super-long coat on, whoever he was.)

Ron

[Shanet Clark]

I have seen that photo.

Joe Kennedy is on one side.

Ernest Hemingway is on the other.

The big stinky fish in the middle is ........

[Mark Knight]

Antonio Veciana, believed to be a truth-teller by most assassination researchers

Who conducted the poll of assassination researchers? When? What was the specific vote [if you don't have numbers, I'll settle for percentages]?

Or...exactly how did you reach this conclusion? I've seen no information to back up your assertion that "most" researchers believe Venciana "to be a truth-teller."

Is this statement verifiable, or is this some "trust me" equine defecation?

I'm just after the truth. And if Venciana only told the truth most of the time, what convinces "most assassination researchers" that he's telling the truth this time?

Let me try a simple analogy. Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Quakers are known for having high moral standards. Nixon said, "I am not a crook." People of high moral standards do not obstruct justice, and people of high moral standards do not lie. Yet Nixon's own White House tapes show he was involved in the obstruction of justice...which, by my standards, does make him a crook. So if I believe Nixon to be primarily a "truth-teller," there is nothing to rule out his lying in the aforementioned scenario, since the evidence that he lied is obvious.

So what makes Venciana's word [pardon me here, Mr. Ford]...unimpeachable?

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen wrote:

. . .and yet we are supposed to belive [sic] that he would not stoop to telling a lie to tie Castro into the assassination?

So Stephen if Veciana was a xxxx how do we know he was not also lying about seeing Bishop with Oswald? Or about being interviewed by Diosdado shortly after the assassination?

The reports that seemed to link Castro into the assassination seemed to surface in the period immediately after the assassination. Veciana did not apparently publicly place Diaz in Dealey Plaza until mid-1976. Could Veciana be lying or mistaken about Diaz? Of course.

But if we have numerous reports of several Cuban intelligence officers in Dealey Plaza, coming from independent sources, it gets a little old to say everyone was lying or mistaken. Moreover, we can at least say that if even ONE of the reports was true, there is a strong probability of Cuban complicity in the assassination.

For, with great deference to Ron, whose writings I respect immensely, his logic that Castro's agents were in Dealey Plaza to carefully note what happened under the expectation that Castro was going to be blamed makes absolutely no sense. If Castro was concerned he was going to be blamed, all he had to do to prevent it was to report what his agents had heard.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, just tell me this: how many assassination researchers have ever cast doubt on Veciana's report that he saw Bishop with Oswald?

I will give you one: me. I think it possible Veciana was fabricating that report. (According to Hemming, it was Jake Esterline that Veciana saw with Oswald, not Bishop.) One reason I was suspicious of Veciana's statement was because of the POSSIBILITY that Veciana was lying about being interviewed by Diosdado.

But, smarty Mark, can you please name a SINGLE assassination researcher (other than me) who has questioned Veciana's statements about Bishop?

It seems to me that Veciana was a hero to the "Blame the CIA" crowd because he first associated LHO with a CIA officer.

So let's either brand Veciana a xxxx and discard his Bishop story once and for all, or credit him as a truth-teller regarding both Bishop and Diaz.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

Tim, no need to get so hot under the collar. I just saw an unsupported statement and asked for support of it.

Problem is, you answered my questions with more questions.

I haven't delved into the veracity of the verbiage of Veciana [i'm working on that alliteration thing--among other literary devices--so you won't make any more comments questioning my intelligence without sounding foolish yourself], so I can't say who has questioned Veciana's honesty.

If I recall correctly, it was you who brought up whether or not he was telling the truth; I just asked for some proof that your generality about "most assassination researchers" was true. I could claim that most generalities are fabricated at the time they're written [as this one was], but if called to provide evidence to prove it, I couldn't.

I'm trying to learn about Veciana and whether he is to be believed or not...which is why I asked for support for your statement that "most assassination researchers" consider him to be a "truth-teller."

I seldom ask a question when I already know the answer...as I consider that rhetorical device to be unnecessarily overused.

[Ron Ecker]

For, with great deference to Ron, whose writings I respect immensely, his logic that Castro's agents were in Dealey Plaza to carefully note what happened under the expectation that Castro was going to be blamed makes absolutely no sense. If Castro was concerned he was going to be blamed, all he had to do to prevent it was to report what his agents had heard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where did I suggest Castro would want to prevent it? If he knew it was going to happen and didn't report it, obviously he wanted JFK dead just as much as the MIC did and just as you have been arguing. But he might still want someone there to report back to him on how it went down. While he might be concerned that they would try to blame the killing on him, he didn't have to be too concerned, since he could stay one step ahead of their blame game. For all we know, Castro through some double, triple, or quadruple agent arranged for Oswald to get away and be taken alive, screwing up their whole plan to blame the bearded one. This is all hypothetical, of course, since I haven't seen any evidence that there was a known Castro spy in DP. I'm offering a possible explanation if one should turn up. You said that one is talked about in The Last Investigation, but I couldn't find it.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

I don't find such a passage in the book. I wonder if you're thinking of the source who told Fonzi that "Carlos" posed as a photographer in DP, and had photos in a bank vault.

This is from Fonzi's article on the Cuban-exile web-site:

In talking with Veciana over the weeks about he Kennedy assassination, it appeared that for the first time he was becoming interested in some of the details. One day he told me he had been talking with a close friend, Dr. Manuel Abella, about the assassination. He said Abella mentioned he recalled seeing a photograph of the crowd in Dealey Plaza just prior to the assassination. He thought the photo was in Life or Look, he wasn't sure. However, Abella said, he recognized a face in the crowd of a man he knew from Cuba as a Castro agent. I had spoken with Abella and checked back issues of the magazines he suggested, but didn't find the crowd shot he described. Veciana had said that someday he would take Abella to the library and help him search for the magazine. Now Veciana saw my request to go to the library as a opportunity to do that also.

The next morning, Dr. Abella, a cigar-chomping pudgy little guy, was waiting with Veciana at his home. We drove downtown to the Dade Public Library in Bayfront Park, the site of the every-burning Torch of Freedom donated by Miami's Cuban exile community. That morning there happened to a demonstration in progress at the Torch. A shouting group of masked Iranian students was calling for the ouster of the Shah. Veciana looked at them, smile slightly and shook his head. He was used to more active forms of demonstrative dissension.

At the periodical desk I asked for the bound volume of People magazine with the Phillips article and for the volumes of Life and Look with issues that might have crowd photos of Dealey Plaza. We took them to the empty table at one end of the room. Veciana sat down and put on his glasses. I stood beside him and found the article about Phillips in People. There was a half- page black-and-white photo of him standing under a highway sign, obviously taken near Langley. The sign said: "CIA NEXT RIGHT." Phillips was depicted almost full-figured, casually dressed, standing with his hands in his pockets and wearing a guyabera. The resemblance to the Bishop sketch was clear: The square jaw, the distinctive lower lip, the straight nose, the forehead and yes, the darkened area under the eyes. Only the hair style was different.

Veciana looked at the photo. He looked at the photo. I watched his face for some reaction but there was none. He kept starting at the photo. "Is it him?" I asked. Veciana didn't answer. His fact was totally expressionless but his eyes were intensely focused on the photo. Finally, he turned the page of the magazine. There was two additional photos of Phillips, both smaller and both showing Phillips' face less directly and less clearly. Veciana turned back to the large photo. "Is it him?" I asked again. Almost a half a minute had passed and the suspense was pressing on me. Without taking his eyes from the photo, he said, It is close." I wanted to shout at him: It is close? What the hell do you mean, it is close! Is it him or isn't it him? I didn't shout. Instead, I leaned closer and asked again softly: "Is it him?" Veciana did not take his eyes off the photo. "Does he have a brother?" he asked. The question took me aback. "I don't know," I said, but is he Bishop?" Veciana finally shook his head. "It is close, but it is not him." I remember feeling a sight of relief at the end of the suspense. "Are you sure it's not him?" I asked. "No, it's not him," Veciana said again. Well, I thought, that sounds pretty definite, and turned to the other volumes that Dr. Abella was waiting to look through. Then Veciana, still looking at the photo, added: "But I would like to talk with him."

"You would like to talk with Phillips?" I asked, not quite getting his point. "Do you think Phillips is Bishop?" "No, he is not Bishop," Veciana said, "but he is CIA and maybe he could help."

Maybe he could, I thought, and turned to help Abella leafing through the other bound volumes looking for that crowd shot with the Castro agent. Abella had described the photo precisely, but it was neither in Life nor Look. Then Abella said maybe it was in Argosy or True, because he remembered articles about the Kennedy Assassination in those, also. So I went to get the bound volumes of those publications and we began looking through them. Again, we had no luck, but it had taken us about 15 minutes in the searching. Veciana, meanwhile, had remained seated at the table staring at the same photo of David Phillips.

Does anyone know if Dr Manuel Abella is still alive? And query whether the Castro agent Abella thought he saw was the one Veciana testified to before the Church Committee? If so, Abella confirms Veciana. If not, it is possible Abella and Veciana are refering to two separate DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Tim Gratz