Pat Speer

I think the point to be made here is that this match of Diaz is unlikely to be as good as some of the matches James has come up with, particularly Robertson, and for you to decide that this match of a Cuban is concrete evidence while this match of a CIA officer is not reveals your basic bias. Admit it, Tim, you WANT to believe Castro did it, and are looking for evidence to prove your suspicion to yourself. While there are many here and elsewhere who WANT to believe the CIA or the MIC did it, and are looking for evidence that proves what they already believe, you could aim higher. Another point that can be made is that if the CIA did it, that this is in keeping with the post WW2 tradition of lies, more lies, and damned lies, coming out of our government, when if Castro did it, it would be something novel. That is, unless you have evidence of Cuban intelligence conducting other assassinations in other countries. (I know they've lined up more than a few and shot them inside Cuba, but killing your own is not the same.)

I believe their testimony is withheld because both Seymour and Duran worked for American intelligence at one point or another. I also believe the REAL OSWALD met with Duran and that the telephonic impersonation of Oswald in Mexico was related to a counter-intelligence procedure, whereby information picked up by informant or bug was made to appear as though it was picked up via wiretap. Helms himself said "sources and methods" whenever anyone tried to ask him about this. The book ZR RIFLE, written with the help of Cuban intelligence, which concludes that Cuban exiles killed Kennedy with the help of the CIA, or vice-versa, includes the visa application Oswald gave Duran. It has the picture of the real Oswald attached!

A lot of this argument comes down to semantics. Bisselll and Helms believed in the concept of Plausible Deniability, for both the DCI and the President. In other words, they both felt that as part of their job they were supposed to read between the lines of stated American policy, and create their own policy. They believed therefore that if Robert Kennedy or McGeorge Bundy or Robert McNamara or ANYONE representing the White House said something as vague as "Get rid of Castro!" it was their job to decide if that meant killing him or trying to arrange an overthrow. They felt it was THEIR decision, and that nothiing needed to be in writing as long as it was clear to THEM. They felt they had a license to kill that they could use at their discretion, without EVER double-checking with the DCI or the President himself. It is MY OPINION that Bissell and Helms are both sneaky S.O.B.S and that they willingly granted themselves this "license to kill" in order to enact their OWN policy. The Church Committee hearings are informative and mind-blowing... the CIA was undoubtedly out of control. For Bissell and Helms to admit that they never even double-checked with Dulles or McCone is stupifying. It is as if you overheard the Chairman of the Board of the corporation where you worked tell the CEO to destroy the competition, and then went down the street and burned your competitor's factory to the ground, claiming you were told to do it. The Church Committee concluded that the "wink-wink" method of conducting policy was grossly inadequate. In less than ten years, however, we found that Billy Casey, Pointy, and Ollie North had returned to performing these same old tricks. Plausible deniability goes against everything we're taught to believe as Americans. I find it reprehensible.

I believe that part of the ARRB's function was to go through all these documents and determine if they really should be withheld. While there are probably no smoking guns, judging by what info was released by the ARRB, there are likely to be some very interesting details regarding people's personal lives, and some new threads that might make people suspect government involvement. It was more than a coincidence that all the HSCA interviews where the witnesses recalled the wounds differently than in the autopsy photos were withheld until the ARRB ordered their release.

John, while I understand that much of your post is pure speculation, it might be confusing to others. Using Sullivan to get to Kennedy, for example, probably had nothing to do with the murder of John Kennedy, and had everything to do with having a Democrat Nixon ally, William Sullivan, contacting his fellow Irish Catholic and Democrat, Senator Ted Kennedy, to cut some kind of a deal. It's almost assured that some behind the scenes never to be revealed deals were indeed cut. It's not a coincidence that Agnew was forced out and that both Agnew and Goldwater in their books make it clear that NIXON was behind his removal. That Kennedy and the Democrats would prefer Ford to Agnew as Nixon's successor is beyond doubt, as Ford was a fellow member of congress and knew how to play the game. Similarly, your assertion that Nixon was trying to use his knowledge of the JFK assassination to blackmail Helms is only our conjecture, based upon Haldeman's discussions with Daniel Schorr. It could very well be that Nixon knew the BOP was a sore spot with Helms and the CIA and was merely trying to use it to his advantage. While you over-stated much in the early paragraphs, you probably under-stated some of the intrigues revolving around Schlesinger. He was fired by Ford and replaced by Rumsfeld, for example, after refusing direct orders from Ford regarding the Mayaguez incident. Under Carter, he pissed off the right even more, when he proposed the U.S. wean itself from fossil fuels. Firmly back in their good graces by 2003, thanks to editorials like the one you reproduced, he was given the task of running the independent investigation into the abuses of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners. His report pissed a lot of people off by comparing the whole thing to Animal House like frat pranks performed by low-level employees, and evidently disregarded many of the signs pointing to the involvement of military intelligence. I don't own it yet, but hope to find it soon in a used bin someplace. IMO Schlesinger is in sore need of a bio and an autobio.

Robert, I've also been intrigued by the Canadian aspects. (Sorry for the goof above in getting your names switched and addressing you as Charles instead of Robert. I hope it's not a sign of mental decline.) In particular there's the case of Arturo Espaillat, formerly of the Trujillo regime, who was based in Canada for fundraising before heading for Dallas the week of the assassination, according to Hemming. And of course there's the mysterious Bloomfield. As for the proximity of the Montreal YMCA to Bloomfield's residence, I suppose it could be coincidence, given that Osborne was known to stay at YMCAs and I guess he couldn't help where the one in Montreal was located. Who knows. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Intriguingly, Robert Maheu was fluent in French, and he'd previously worked with Espaillat. Then there's that whole Jean Soutre thing. This could be leading somewhere. Could Maheu have been the cut-out in yet another top-secret CIA operation?

This last post feeds into one of the points I've been trying to make. I've read all of William Goldman's books on screenwriting and have seen him lecture two times. He is a disciple of the school of "simplify and accentuate and accuracy to the story and faithfulness to the original source be damned. Were making a movie here, not a damned documentary. Let someone make a documentary if they want to, but this is a MOVIE, and movies should be fun rides," a la his childhood fave, Gunga Din. (Quotes not exact, but that's how he talks.) While he's said that Woodward and Bernstein aren't liars; he's also said that Hal Holbrook was Deep Throat, which feeds into the theory that DT was primarily a literary device. I believe John's theory that DT was originally Felt but then become a catch-all phrase for Woodstein's top-secret sources is possible, but not inevitable. Felt had plenty of reason of his own to want Nixon out, and was probably conversant with a great many other men who had equal or better access to the unfolding events. I was a buyer in the buying office where I worked and yet I knew my boss' bank account numbers in Bermuda, for instance. I don't believe there was anything behind the activities of Felt and his friends, however, more than honest Americans conspiring to expose the truth and help remove a dangerous and mentally unbalanced man from his office, an office that unfortunately made him the most powerful man in the world. Goldman also says that Bernstein and his then-girlfriend, Nora Ephron, tried to write their own screenplay and get Redford to make their movie instead. He's still angry that Redford even considered it. I wonder if this movie script isn't out there somewhere; it may very well have scenes and events regarding Deep throat which could help clarify the situation.

In fairness to Tim, Mark, I should point out that has explained the cover-up before. He's suggested that LBJ orchestrated the cover-up because he was scared of the international ramifications and scared that big bad Fidel could get him next. In recent posts he seems to have retreated somewhat from this weak assertion, by acknowledging that LBJ may have been blackmailed into performing the cover-up. With LBJ's ties to Marcello going back to the fifties, and his neighbor Fred Black's ties to Rosselli, he could very well be right this time.

Tim, the gathering of the family jewels is one of the most important moments of recent history. I'm surprised you weren't aware of it. Schlesinger was brought in by Nixon for only three months. Three months in which he was supposed to clean up the agency. Colby was brought in as his replacement only on the condition he carried on this work. I believe Schles was out and on to Defense the day the report was finished. Although the creation of the family jewels was supposedly Schles' idea, I'd bet my family jewels Nixon had something to do with it and that he gave a copy to Nixon. If one continues to follow the timeline, one can see that Helms was pushed out when he wouldn't help Nixon cover-up Watergate, that Schles was brought in to create the family jewels to give Nixon control of the secrets Helms so closely guarded, that Colson became obsessed with the thought that he'd been set up by the CIA, through the machinations of McCord, Hunt, Martinez and Bennett, that he spread this obsession to Nixon as Nixon's Presidency collapsed, that within months of the collapse, tidbits from the jewels were leaked by a still unnamed source to Seymour Hersh (I wouldn't be surprised if his source was Ziegler, who continued to baby-sit Nixon after the fall)), that the leaking of these tidbits forced Angleton out and forced the creation of the Rockefeller Commission, that Colby briefed Ford on the jewels and that Ford let it slip to members of the media that the jewels included mention of assassination, that this led to the creation of the Church Committee, and that this led to the HSCA. The Helms/Nixon feud is thus at the center of the 1970's. Ehrlichman clearly saw it this way, and built his best-selling book The Company aka Washington: Behind Closed Doors around it.

Tim, your comparing Dillon's friendship with Kennedy to O'Donnell's reeks of desperation. O'Donnell and Powers were professional buddies, friends of Kennedy's who were given jobs entirely on the basis of their loyalty to the man. They'd been close for years. Kind of like Meese and Deaver were to Reagan, and Baker, Rove, and Rice are to the Bush family. Their involvement in a conspiracy against their bread and butter is counter-intuitive. Dillon, on the other hand, had only recently become friendly with Kennedy. His political background was on the other side of the fence. His professional background was on Wall Street, which didn't exactly love JFK. As a result, his loyalties were clearly divided. I have said I think the man had no conscious involvement in the assassination. I have also said, however, that research into his financial holdings might help us decide whether or not he should be considered a suspect. If, for example, we were to find that Dillon held a large interest in Brown and Root, General Dynamics, Bell Heliocopter, a Casino, or any other entity likely to prosper from a build-up in Vietnam and Robert Kennedy's removal as A.G. then we might consider him a suspect. The same could be said if we were to find that O'Donnell had a summer home in Cuba. But I think people's time would be better spent looking into Dillon.

The McDonald story cannot be dismiised entirely. While Saul may have lied to him, and while McDonald may have made up some stuff (a lot of stuff) to fill out his story, the HSCA, amazingly, confirmed that McDonald did a number of interviews to research his book, and that these interviews rattled a lot of cages. In the HSCA report on De Mohrenschildt it reports that McDonald tried to interview Irving Davidson, who was the Washington rep for Marcello, Murchison, Trujillo, and Duvalier, I believe, about his relationship with De Mohrenschildt. The report notes futher that Davidson immediately contacted Clyde Tolson and thought that Clyde should tell Hoover and Johnson. Think about that. I believe Robin Moore is still alive. Someone should contact him and/or McDonald's family to see if there are any notes left over from their interviews. Could be interesting.

You're right, obviously, that the mob in general, and Giancana in particular, is a better suspect than Dillon. I feel it's just as obvious the mob is a better suspect than Castro. And to finish your saying, "it does not take a NASA engineer to create a fraudulent and deliberately deceptive trajectory analysis in order to help frame a dead man for the murder of a U.S. President, but it sure helps sell it to the people!"

Didn't Marc Antony say something like that? "But Brutus was an ethical man, and ethical men do not murder." Ethical men murder all day long. Only when an ethical man murders, he calls it a police action and calls his victims "terrorists" or "insurgents."

Medieval, Tim. While I agree with your point that Dillon was almost assuredly innocent, the point you seem to be missing is that Castro was also almost assuredly innocent. Instead, you adopt this he's guilty until proven innocent attitude like an attack dog with a mailman's butt in his mouth. Let go, Tim. I believe your hatred of Castro has blinded you to the fact that the evidence against him is ALL speculative and hazy. I'll grant you that the evidence against Dillon is equally hazy, and perhaps even more speculative. But your contention that looking into Dillon is a distraction while looking into Castro is worthwhile is 100% incorrect. While the CIA, FBI, WC, and the HSCA all looked into Castro, and found little of substance, none of them looked into Dillon. Couldn't it be, Tim, that the reason no other suspects were identified beyond Oswald is that the previous investigations were looking in the wrong direction? Keep an open mind, my friend. You can tell people you think they are mistaken without insinuating that you consider them idiotic and un-American. I know you can.

This thread is Tim's revenge for me comparing Dillon vs. Castro. I believe it was Dave Powers who ran out of film and not O'Donnell. No way in hell were either Powers or O'Donnell part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. They were the loyal buddies Tim is pretending Dillon to be. While I don't believe Dillon was involved in the assassination, I think he is worth investigating, in light of the many strange circumstances involving the SS. Since his background was in banking, does anyone know of his investments? If he was a big investor in General Dynamics, or Brown and Root, for instance, his involvement might make a little more sense and not sound as improbable.

Tim, I was obviously making a circumstantial "case" against him and was by no means stating he should have or could have been indicted. Are you playing? By singling out Dillon, you imply that Castro could have been indicted on the evidence you've supplied. Yeah, arrest this man...some guy who we know was trying to kill him may have secretly been working for him, and, oh yeah, this guy also might have known some Russian guy who may or may not have had something do with it, but we have no proof or evidence. And let's not forget that according to some guy some other guy said thirty years before that some guy who might not even have been working for Castro was reportedly seen near the scene of the crime. And then there's all those guys who probably were working for Castro who took off for Cuba as soon as they heard about the assassination and the arrest of a pro-Castro activist. They couldn't possibly have been running to save their skin, coluld they, I mean they must have been part of the assassination, right? And, oh yeah, here's the clincher, someone said that the head of an American mafia family who'd previously been humiliated by Castro had made a secret deal with him, even though this might incur the wrath of the rest of the mafia, and that therefore all the signs that point to the mob really point to Castro. Indict this man. The case against Dillon is paper-thin, but so's your case against Castro.

I believe Cesar's gun was recovered somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years. The teenagers who stole it from Cesar's friend came forward as adults and retrieved it from the woods where they'd left it many years before. My recollection is that the FBI tested it and compared it to the bullets taken from Kennedy and the tests were inconclusive. Dan Moldea, who found and interviewed Cesar, mentioned in his book that Cesar was a long-time resident of Simi Valley, where my girlfriend lives and from which I'm writing. I probably passed him on the street about an hour ago. And John, I believe Mel said he'd written a book on JFK and that there was no conspiracy, he'd written a book on RFK and that there was no conspiracy, and had written a book on MLK and that there was no conspiracy. It seems he specializes in telling everyone that there are no conspiracies and that the government doesn't make mistakes. Like a minor league Posner. I asked Mel to read my seminar and get back to me and tell me where I'm wrong. He never came back. So much for those brave lone-nut theorists who are wiilling to admit when others have a point.

The key word is "reputable." How does one become "reputable," Tim? By saying what is palatable to those who make "reputations." The whole point of my little exercise was to break down the case against each man. As I said, I don't believe that either of them were directly involved. I do think automatically disregarding Castro the way some do and automatically disregarding Dillon, and any other member of the American elite, the way you do, is a mistake. If I wanted to be "reputable" I'd go to work for CBS, Disney, or the Discovery Channel, or attempt something along the lines of the "reputable" Gerald Posner. I've spent years re-reading every report put out by the government, relying upon "reputable" testimony by "reputable" experts. And, guess what, these "reputable" men write reports about JFK which disagree with everything they've ever written and published to earn their reputation. I've also read hundreds of books and articles by "reputable" journalists and "reputable" historians, and, guess what? Not one in ten of them knows half as much about this case as yourself. When it comes to the JFK assassination, being "reputable" just means you get paid a little more when it's your turn to lie.

The case against Dillon: A Republican, with a background in intelligence Wall Street connections. Would have reason to believe that JFK's death would be good for business, good for the Republican party, and good for the fight against communism. Headed Secret Service, which was deficient in protecting Kennedy, unresponsive during the assassination itself, and negligent in the assassination's aftermath. (They cleaned up the limousine outside Parkland, destroying evidence, and improperly removed the limousine from Dallas shortly therafter. When a magazine article appeared claiming they'd found a bullet hole through the floor pan, they cut the FBI off without actually investigating.) Then there's the suspicious circumstance of a number of SS agents going out the night before the motorcade and gettiing drunk in a bar run by one of Jack Ruby's friends. Would have reason to believe he'd get away with it, particularly if LBJ was involved. Showed grief in the aftermath. The case against Castro; A communist, with a history of sponsoring violent activity, albeit none towards Americans on American soil. Some purported connections with mobster Santos Trafficante, even though the facts seem to indicate he was anti-mafia and not corrupt in the manner of most dictators. Might believe that killing Kennedy would cut-down on the assassination attempts upon himself. Would probably fear that Johnson would be just as bad or worse than Kennedy. Would probably fear Kennedy's death would cause explosive anti-Cuban feelings. Headed Cuban military and intelligence, which may have had a few individuals in the U.S. at the time fo the assassination, who fled immediately thereafter. Would have no reason to believe he'd get away with it, particularly since the patsy chosen was a man who publicly supported Castro. Expressed immediate disappointment. Has never said killing of Kennedy was divine retribution, a la LBJ, or any other such thing indicating he was struggling with any guilt. In my viewpoint, it's about a draw. I really don't suspect either. While Castro was less friendly with JFK and had the better motive, there is less supicious activity involving him in the assassination and cover-up itself, and he would have had less reason to believe he'd get away with it.

Actually, Robert, that perjurer Helms's testimony is the strongest evidence for our contentions. In order to save his reputation, he had every opportunity to say that the Kennedys had told him to kill Castro, yet failed to do so. He said, instead, that he thought it was Bissell's job to tell Dulles and Dulles' job to tell Kennedy and McCone. He said that one would never talk outright about such matters, as it was important to protect men of high standing from the fall-out of making such decisions. (WHY? THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PAID TO DO!!! WHY WOULD WE WANT SUCH DECISIONS MADE AT ANY LEVEL OTHER THAN THE TOP??? This same issue was resurrected in Iran-Contra.) Anyhow, Helms compared the Castro assassination attempts to the death of Becket. As I recall, King Henry II didn't really want Becket murdered, so the comparison may be more appropriate than Helms intended. In sum, Helms admitted that the assassination attempts were initially planned in the Eisenhower era but were continued on through two other administrations without the knowledge of either President or the DCI (McCone's successor Admiral Rahorn was never told either) simply because of the fear of embarrassing the men in charge by asking them if such a policy was still our policy. Of course, if Helms had personally disagreed with the policy he wouldn't have asked either, because of that whole embarrassment thing. Yeah, right.

Tim, you're not really out there on this one. I believe the mob had the pull and the power to pull it off, with the help of some anti-Castro Cubans, who were in the process of switching allegiance from the CIA to the mob. A lot of Larry Hancock's work points in this direction. When some think about who LBJ would be willing to protect, they think Government, military Industrial Complex, etc. I think there were skeletons in his closet that he was trying to keep hid--and that these same skeletons were in the closets of Warren, Nixon, and JFK himself. There's an enlightening interview with Marcello in the book Pay-off. He considered himself a businessman just like anybody else and if the MIC or ITT could spend beaucoup bucks to insure that they got represented fairly in Washington, why couldn't he? I've always suspected that there was someone with CIA ties who was orchestrating the whole thing. Someone far more substantial than David Ferrie or Clay Shaw. Which is why Robert Maheu holds such an interest for me. If the mob didn't use him they should have.

Robert, I agree with your analysis of the CIA's actions. The DOP was conducting their own foreign policy, both under Bissell and Helms. Helms' testimony pretty much confirms this: he admits to keeping McCone in the dark about the hits, and using Bobby's name to entice Cubela without Bobby's knowledge. While the Kennedys put the pressure on the CIA to do something about Castro, the CIA decdided to murder him all on their own. But you left one question dangling. You said in an earlier post that Kennedy had expressly forbade assassination. Were you guilty of over-stating your case, as we all sometimes do, or are you aware of an incident where JFK expressly forbade the CIA or military from planning Castro's death?

Don , the official story as I remember it is that Bissell got the idea of using the mob, approached Edwards, who in turn approached Maheu, knowing that Maheu was tight with Rosselli. I think there's some dispute whether or not Edwards first approached Bissell or Bissell Edwards. Anyhow, I suspect the former. For one, Maheu admits in his book that O'Connell, who was Maheu's case officer, and who had hands-on dealings with Rosselli, had already met Rosselli at a party at his house. For two, Charles Siragusa, America's top narc, who was the number one thorn in the mob's side, was later to testify that he was approached by one of Edwards' men to arrange the hits, but that he declined. (My memory of this story is a little fuzzy.) Anyhow, this makes me suspect that Edwards came up with the idea, and put feelers out among his men. When O'Connell piped in with "Maheu's got mobsters over at his house for dinner every Sunday!"or some such thing, Edwards pegged Maheu, and went to Bissell to push it through. I also suspect, however, that the mob was already trying to kill Castro (Lansky had reportedly put a million dollar bounty on his head), and that they leapt at the chance to make it official, and have the FEDs owe them a favor. They'd been in the favor business for years, going back to Luciano's WW2-era deals to protect the docks in New York and keep the reds out of Marseilles. Please correct me if you think I've got it wrong or that there's more to the story.

The man who killed Nicole was "cut by his cell phone." I was a big fan of O.J.'s and didn't want to believe his guilt. He lost me, however, when he explained that the cuts on his hand and the blood in his car came when he got cut on his cell phone, which he'd left in his car, and that he walked all over his front yard talking to his girlfriend with blood dripping off his hand. Hogwash! And Al, I'm sure you're right about what a pain in the A it is for cops these days, with everyone and their brother carrying a camera and ready to cry "brutality." But the final verdict on the trial involving Rodney King was correct, in that two of the men were guilty and two of the men were not. In Daryl Gates' book Chief he comes to the same conclusion. Gates cites a number of violations conducted by his officers. Al, I believe you reveal your own bias when you say that Rodney King was violent and threw the tasers back at the officers. The tapes I remember watching showed that Rodney never fought back against the officers at all, but that he was scared for his life and was trying to run away. Briseno sensed that and tried to calm Rodney down by holding him down with his foot and talking to him. Actually meeting Rodney and spending time with him really taught me a lot about prejudice. Like most white people, I saw Rodney as a big black man capable of harm, and was intitially defensive of the police and their need to send a message to those resisting arrest. After meeting the man though my eyes were opened. You see Rodney King is a child. Approximately a ten year old. He could very well be mildly retarded. When he saw the cops he got scared and tried to get away, and the more they beat him the more he wanted to get away. Think of Lenny in Of Mice and Men minus the proclivity to kill soft furry things. Rodney was scared and the police just saw him as a threat, and kept pounding away to teach the "gorillas in the mist" what happens to them when they don't obey. Their motto is To Protect and To Serve, and all they could think about was serving up an ass-whupping. Now Rodney's face has been smashed in and one of his eyes is permanently crying. Tears trickle down his face every few minutes.. Literally. I've worked with cops and respect them. My sister's long-time boyfriend is a cop and an ex-girlfriend and I helped him train rookies on a movie set. They were told we were a domestic violence situation that they had to handle, but in fact we had a former officer upstairs with an M-16 who was supposedly my brother-in-law. Somewhere in the middle of them separating us etc.. he would make a loud noise and the officers were supposed to then respond to that situation "who else is in the house" etc. A number of the trainees tried to impress the older officers by roughing me up when they first came in the house. Even though they knew I was an actor, they threw me against walls, threw me to the floor, put me in painful fingerholds, etc... Since I knew what was coming, I deliberately tried to make sure the "brother-in-law" got these guys. By the end of the day we'd dropped 17 policemen. They were so busy showing off for the other cops they didn't notice the bullet casings on the floor, or the cocaine on the coffee table. Some of the cops were very nice and wanted to calm us down and discuss our problems etc. and even believed me when I told them the noise upstairs was our dog jumping off the bed. Some of the nice guys got killed as well. After two full days of this, I came away with a lot of respect for the dificult jobs cops perform on a daily basis. A year or so later one of the young officers from the station I worked with was killed by a teenage boy who'd broken into a stereo shop. The boy ran away and hid in an attic. A dog was used to track his scent. One by one fellow officers went into the attic to try and get the boy to surrender. Somehow each one fired once at the boy as he pointed his gun at them. I believe he bled to death in the attic with four different wounds by four different officers. No one really believed the scenario but he was a cop-killer so no one really cared. I'm pretty sure the officer who died was one of the men I'd helped train but I don't remember whether or not he killed my "brother-in-law" or my "brother-in-law" killed him. I'd like to think he killed my "brother-in-law."

Are the people propounding "Castro did it" disinformation agents trying to sidetrack our efforts? Just a thought. Sorry, Tim. You stepped right into that one.