Familiar DGI Faces In Dealey Plaza

[Tim Gratz]

Does anyone have a copy of Veciana's testimony to the Church Committee?

[Tim Gratz]

Interestingly enough there is a Manuel Abella who has an unlisted phone number in the Miami phone system.

He might be worth contacting.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

[. Could Veciana be lying or mistaken about Diaz? Of course.

Tim, so you now admit that this whole theory is pure speculation after all?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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. 

Oh?  You are an "assassination researcher?"  Had me fooled.

I think it possible Veciana was fabricating that report.  (According to Hemming, it was Jake Esterline that Veciana saw with Oswald, not Bishop.) 

If Hemming is correct, then we no longer have Oswald consorting with a chap named "Bishop" who might have been CIA; we now have Oswald consorting with a chap who demonstrably is CIA.  Now, what do you think an upper management CIA type might have been doing with Oswald?  Discussing Oswald's decision to kill the President for Castro?

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?

"Smarty?"  This denigrates you far more than it does Mark Knight, whose only crime, that I can see, is asking you to back up your assertions with facts.  Apparently, you don't much care for people who do that, do you?  Not that you bother yourself with providing facts.  Stream of consciousness book reports seem to suffice in your world.

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

Well, if Hemming is to be believed per your above assertion, then I guess Hemming's a hero with that gosh-darned "Blame the CIA" crowd, too.  Are you ready to brand him a xxxx too?

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.

There's the small matter of providing proof that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, which one assumes you'll get around to at some point in this lifetime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

[Quoting me: "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."

Oh? You are an "assassination researcher?" Had me fooled.

Robert, I assume by this snide remark that you consider yourself the keeper of the credentials for assassination researchers.

At least I have read the basic books and documents re the Kennedy administration, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile crisis, etc., which appears to be more than some of the members of this Forum have done or are willing to do.

In addition, of couurse, I have published articles re the assassination in a newspaper of over 15,000 circulation, articles that have been reprinted on several web-sites.

I am also a credentialed life-time member of a respected assassination research group.

I think it says something about the weakness of your arguments that you choose to engage in ad hominen (and puerile) attacks on me simply because you do not agree with my views regarding the assassination.

No wonder you can't get the assassins right; you can't even get the assassination researchers right!

Edited June 24, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

If Hemming is correct, then we no longer have Oswald consorting with a chap named "Bishop" who might have been CIA; we now have Oswald consorting with a chap who demonstrably is CIA. Now, what do you think an upper management CIA type might have been doing with Oswald? Discussing Oswald's decision to kill the President for Castro?

Robert, I never wrote that OSWALD killed Kennedy for Castro. To the contrary, it has been my position that Oswald was PROBABLY a U.S. intelligence asset (hence his meeting with Bishop or Esterline) who was selected as a patsy by the actual conspirators (whether the Mafia, Castro or a partnership thereof).

I have ALWAYS thought that the association of Oswald with US intelligence organizations exculpated rather than inculpated such organizations in the assassination. Only a fool would use of of his own assets as a patsy.

[Tim Gratz]

In a different thread Robert argued, when I mentioned that Fabian Escalante had confirmed a close relationship between Rolando Cubela and Santo Trafficante, Jr. that I could not take Escalante's testimony "Piece-meal".

Now Robert has a real dilemma since, by his own logic, he must now either accept Veciana's testimony that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, or reject all of Veciana's testimony, including his testimony that he saw LHO with a CIA officer--one of the primary bases, of course, for implying CIA involvement in the assassination.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Tim here's some more truth telling from your man Veciana. I'm starting to warm to him.

"After the assassination, Veciana said Bishop made a strange request, he asked me to get in touch with a cousin of mine who worked for the Cuban Embassy in Mexico city, Guillermo Ruiz. Bishop asked me to see if, for money, Ruiz would make a statement that LHO had been at the Embassy a few weeks before the assasination. Bishop stated that it did not matter whether this was true or not, what was important was that Ruiz, a member of the Cuban diplomatic service should confirm that he had been there. and thus tie him to Castro.

Now if Bishop is who we think is, and Veciana is a truth teller, then we have a high ranking agency operative attempting to link Castro to Kennedy by any means possible. And so begins a false legend?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

If Hemming is correct, then we no longer have Oswald consorting with a chap named "Bishop" who might have been CIA; we now have Oswald consorting with a chap who demonstrably is CIA.  Now, what do you think an upper management CIA type might have been doing with Oswald?  Discussing Oswald's decision to kill the President for Castro?

Robert, I never wrote that OSWALD killed Kennedy for Castro.  To the contrary, it has been my position that Oswald was PROBABLY a U.S. intelligence asset (hence his meeting with Bishop or Esterline) who was selected as a patsy by the actual conspirators (whether the Mafia, Castro or a partnership thereof).

Context is everything, Tim.  My comment above was in direct response to your assertion that: "Veciana was a hero to the "Blame the CIA" crowd because he first associated LHO with a CIA officer." [per your post #27 above].  Now Hemming had done something similar.  Hence, for the "Blame the CIA" crowd that you refer to, there seems to be some evidence that this was possible. 

It would be interesting for your position if you could cite actual dates, times, places, names when Oswald was seen consorting with the Cubans who patsified Oswald.  There seems a shortage of information coming from you in that regard, which we do hope you'll get around to rectifying.

I have ALWAYS thought that the association of Oswald with US intelligence organizations exculpated rather than inculpated such organizations in the assassination.  Only a fool would use of of his own assets as a patsy.

Unless, of course, the patsy wasn't intended to live.  Once Oswald was dead, who was in a position to prove anything about his purported relationship with CIA, FBI, ONI or what-have-you? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

In a different thread Robert argued, when I mentioned that Fabian Escalante had confirmed a close relationship between Rolando Cubela and Santo Trafficante, Jr. that I could not take Escalante's testimony "Piece-meal".

Actually, Tim, you asserted strongly [without evidence, mind you] in every prior post that because Escalante was in Dallas and was clearly a conspirator, his latter-day revelations were to be dismissed wholesale.  Until you stumbled across the nugget that Escalante accused Cubela and Trafficante of having a relationship.  That you were prepared to credit, because it served your purpose.  It's a most bizarre legal tactic to impeach your own witness' credibility, just prior to calling him to the stand, don't you think?

Now Robert has a real dilemma since, by his own logic, he must now either accept Veciana's testimony that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, or reject all of Veciana's testimony, including his testimony that he saw LHO with a CIA officer--one of the primary bases, of course, for implying CIA involvement in the assassination.

I feel no "real dilemma," Tim.  Yesterday, you were trolling here for Veciana's testimony before the Church Committee [see post #31 above.]  That came after you asserted that Veciana testified that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, leading one to suspect you made the accusation first, and only then sought the basis for making it. 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to cite the Church Committee or HSCA testimony in which Veciana asserts his personal knowledge that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza.  One might think that Fonzi would have chosen to include some information in his book about so direct and provocative an assertion by Veciana.  But all I can find in his book is what has already been posted: that Veciana's pal Abella thought he recalled having seen a photo of Dealey Plaza [not found] that included somebody who looked like a Castro agent.  If that's the sum total of your "evidence" re: Veciana, then let's dismiss this as second-hand, uncorroborated hearsay and move on.  If you have direct testimony from Veciana - before the HSCA or Church Committee - that he saw Diaz in Dealey Plaza photos, then please cite it so we can determine if Veciana told the truth.

Seems to me that you should have that testimony at hand, in order to make the assertion in the first instance.  If you do not, have we caught you putting words into Veciana's mouth that he never spoke?  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited June 24, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In a different thread Robert argued, when I mentioned that Fabian Escalante had confirmed a close relationship between Rolando Cubela and Santo Trafficante, Jr. that I could not take Escalante's testimony "Piece-meal".

Actually, Tim, you asserted strongly [without evidence, mind you] in every prior post that because Escalante was in Dallas and was clearly a conspirator, his latter-day revelations were to be dismissed wholesale.  Until you stumbled across the nugget that Escalante accused Cubela and Trafficante of having a relationship.  That you were prepared to credit, because it served your purpose.  It's a most bizarre legal tactic to impeach your own witness' credibility, just prior to calling him to the stand, don't you think?

Now Robert has a real dilemma since, by his own logic, he must now either accept Veciana's testimony that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, or reject all of Veciana's testimony, including his testimony that he saw LHO with a CIA officer--one of the primary bases, of course, for implying CIA involvement in the assassination.

I feel no "real dilemma," Tim.  Yesterday, you were trolling here for Veciana's testimony before the Church Committee [see post #31 above.]  That came after you asserted that Veciana testified that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, leading one to suspect you made the accusation first, and only then sought the basis for making it. 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to cite the Church Committee or HSCA testimony in which Veciana asserts his personal knowledge that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza.  One might think that Fonzi would have chosen to include some information in his book about so direct and provocative an assertion by Veciana.  But all I can find in his book is what has already been posted: that Veciana's pal Abella thought he recalled having seen a photo of Dealey Plaza [not found] that included somebody who looked like a Castro agent.  If that's the sum total of your "evidence" re: Veciana, then let's dismiss this as second-hand, uncorroborated hearsay and move on.  If you have direct testimony from Veciana - before the HSCA or Church Committee - that he saw Diaz in Dealey Plaza photos, then please cite it so we can determine if Veciana told the truth.

Seems to me that you should have that testimony at hand, in order to make the assertion in the first instance.  If you do not, have we caught you putting words into Veciana's mouth that he never spoke?  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, care to answer the above before it gets lost in the mire?

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen asked me to reply to the following question by Robert Charles-Dunne:

Seems to me that you should have that testimony at hand, in order to make the assertion in the first instance. If you do not, have we caught you putting words into Veciana's mouth that he never spoke?

Well, I find it incredible that Robert would think I would simply manufacture something like that. That accusation questions both my honesty and my intelligence. If I was not honest, do you think I am stupid enough to make up something like that and assume I would not get caught?

I made the statement based on a summary of Veciana's testimony on the web-site of Gordon Winslow, a very well-respected assassination researcher. I have not seen his actual testimony but I would like to because it might shed further light on the Diaz character. In a post here I had asked whether any other forum members had a copy of his Church Committee testimony. No one has responded to date.

Interestingly, I suspect that Robert believes that Veciana testified to the Church committee that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas with CIA operative Maurice Bishop, and Robert apparently does not have a copy of Veciana's testimony. Robert bases his belief that Veciana testified about Bishop's meeting with Oswald based on public reports of his testimony. For him to argue I should only publish a summary of his testimony if I have an actual transcript of the testimony is sophistry. If I had a copy of his testimony I suspect he would then demand to know that it had been certified!

I would like to see his testimony, though, and I hope that a member might have a copy of it since our members collectively have so many resources at their disposal.

Edited June 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Stephen asked me to reply to the following question by Robert Charles-Dunne:

Seems to me that you should have that testimony at hand, in order to make the assertion in the first instance.  If you do not, have we caught you putting words into Veciana's mouth that he never spoke? 

Well, I find it incredible that Robert would think I would simply manufacture something like that.  That accusation questions both my honesty and my intelligence.  If I was not honest, do you think I am stupid enough to make up something like that and assume I would not get caught?

It goes without saying that no such "accusation" was made.  Given the chronology of your posts - asserting that Veciana testified to something, and only then seeking that testimony - one could rightly wonder if you had mischaracterized Veciana's testimony, whether deliberately or inadvertently.  Fact of the matter is that you claimed Veciana testified Diaz was in Dealey Plaza.  I'd like a citation.  If you cannot provide one - as you clearly cannot - then one is entitled to wonder how you divined such a fact.

I made the statement based on a summary of Veciana's testimony on the web-site of Gordon Winslow, a very well-respected assassination researcher.  I have not seen his actual testimony but I would like to because it might shed further light on the Diaz character.  In a post here I had asked whether any other forum members had a copy of his Church Committee testimony.  No one has responded to date.

You asked for the testimony after you claimed to know what Veciana testified.  It is not the usual practice to assert something first and seek the basis for it later.  Nor is it the responsibility of other Forum members to pull your fat out of the fire for you. 

As I've already stated, if Veciana testified before the Church committee that he had personal knowledge of Diaz's presence in Dealey Plaza, one might think that Fonzi - who tried to locate such photos - might have included that fact in his book.  Moreover, since Fonzi was seeking old photos at the library with both Veciana and Abella - the latter man being the one who claimed that Diaz was captured in such a Dealey Plaza photo [no luck finding it, though] - one wonders why Veciana was not equally anxious to locate such a photo at the library.  As you know from the passage in Fonzi's book, Veciana had zero interest in trying to find a photo of Diaz - a curious turn of events if he were the source of the Diaz-was-there-in-Dealey-Plaza assertion - but sat and stared at a photo of David Phillips.  As for Gordon Winslow, I will be charitable and state only that he is not exactly without his own agenda, which - surprise - is virtually indistinguishable from your own.

Interestingly, I suspect that Robert believes that Veciana testified to the Church committee that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas with CIA operative Maurice Bishop, and Robert apparently does not have a copy of Veciana's testimony.

The fact that I have asked you for a citation isn't proof that I don't have the testimony; it merely determines whether or not you do.  You've answered the question.  You made an assertion without having actually seen the evidence.  There's nothing new about that.  Instead, you've relied on somebody who has their own identical axe to grind.  There's nothing new about that, either. 

And since you're a lifetime member of Winslow's anti-Castro sewing circle, why don't you simply ask him for a copy of Veciana's testimony.  Then perhaps we can determine if he, too, indulges in attributing quotes to people without bothering to know if it's true. 

Robert bases his belief that Veciana testified about Bishop's meeting with Oswald based on public reports of his testimony.  For him to argue I should only publish a summary of his testimony if I have an actual transcript of the testimony is sophistry.  If I had a copy of his testimony I suspect he would then demand to know that it had been certified!

Suspect what you like; it's irrelevant.  Moreover, you seem to have missed the fact that Veciana publically stated what he witnessed to more than one media source.  He might have been mistaken, he may have lied, or he may have been completely forthright and accurate.  Either way, that assertion came from his lips.  Your assertion seems to have come not from Veciana, but from Abella, who was unable to find the photo evidence he claimed was its basis.  When you can provide a citation for your claim, I would welcome it.  So, dig on, old chum.

I would like to see his testimony, though, and I hope that a member might have a copy of it since our members collectively have so many resources at their disposal.

Again, why not simply ask Winslow?  If he's the source for your information, he should have it, shouldn't he?  If he doesn't, then we'll know what we need to about his methodology and intregrity, won't we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Well, maybe we have caught Robert here. Robert is so well-read that I suspect he has seen the testimony. I now know its source, after talking to Gordon I re-checked the actual document and it was clear on its face.

The summary of the deposition was prepared by a staff member of the Church Committee, most likely the attorney who actually took the deposition. This is almost SOP (for instance, you will find deposition summaries at the front of the depositions included in the "History Matters" web-site).

The document posted on Gordon's web-site is an actual document from the Church Committee. Here is the citation:

NARA RIF 157-10014-10041

Miscellaneous Records of the Church Committee

March 22, 1976

So Robert, unless you think the staff member of the Church Committee made this up, I guess the members can now at last evaluate who is more likely the truth-teller, me or you. I also found it interesting that you are now stooping to name-calling. For your information, I believe many members of Gordon's "sewing circle", as you put it, would be more in agreement with your view of the conspiracy than mine.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen wrote:

[. Could Veciana be lying or mistaken about Diaz? Of course.

Tim, so you now admit that this whole theory is pure speculation after all?

Stephen, any witness could lie about anything, I guess. For all we know, Veciana was lying through his teeth about Maurice Bishop. But if we accept his testimony about Bishop, perhaps we should also credit his testimony re Diaz.

Moreover, even if Veciana was lying or wrong about Diaz, there were reports from other sources about other DGI agents in Dallas. My point is that unless every single report was falsified or in error, if there was one DGI agent in Dallas, that is rather persuasive evidence of Cuban involvement.