Tim Gratz

Quoting John Simkin: It makes no political sense at all to believe the Soviets or Castro killed JFK. On October 29, 1963, less than a month before the assassination of JFK, Desmond Fitzgerald, then head of the CIA operations in Cuba, and a close friend of the Kennedy brothers, told Rolando Cubela, a Castro "minister without portfolio" that he was the "personal emissary" of RFL and that RFK personally supported Cubela's proposal to kill Castro. Cubela was promised the CIA would supply him with the weapons to do so. The same day in Sept 1963 that Cubela had first suggested to the CIA that he was willing to kill Castro for the US, Castro had publicly warned the US about continued US efforts to kill Cuban leaders and threatened retaliation. Castro's threat was taken so seriously that a special meeting of US officials met to evaluate it. That group decided, unfortunately, that Castro was unlikely to retaliate on US soil. Several people in the CIA, including James J. Angleton and Theodore Shackley, strongly protested Fitzgerald's plan to meet with Cubela, believing that Cubela was probably a Castro "dangle" offered to see if the US would take his warning seriously. The Cubela operation continued right up to the assassination of JFK. Castro had the strongest possible reason to kill JFK: not retaliation for past U.S. efforts to kill him, but self-defense against the current effort, that his agent had been assured, had the personal support of RFK (and by implication JFK). Motive does not get much clearer (or stronger) than that. Hard-liners in the Soviet had reasons of their own to get rid of JFK. For one thing, he was making friends for the US throughout the world. And, of course, Castro was a Soviet client, entitled to Soviet protection. John, before you dismiss Trento's conclusions, have you read his book?

Quoting John Simkin: Left-wingers get things wrong all the time. John, I have to disagree with you again. I don't think it is "all the time"; 95% of the time would probably be more accurate.

John, a great and inspiring post about Tom Paine and free speech. Both of our countries owe much to men who were willing to sacrifice their liberties and even their lives for the better good of their countrymen. The Internet can be a force for both good and evil. Let us hope that better communication can help break down the walls between cultures and produce peace, freedom and economic development. Not only is communication important; so is education, and I am very impressed with the interset site you and Mr. Walker have produced. I would encourage people who only come to the JFK Forum to review the rest of your site as well. It is a wonderful learning tool. You might enjoy this quote. It was the motto of a newspaper in the city in which I was raised: "Give the people the truth, and the freedom to discuss it, and all will go well." Freedom is such an important thing, and a universal aspiration (I believe). As you know, we tend to divide freedoms into the following: (1) free speech (can include free press); (2) freedom of religion; (3) freedom of assembly (or association if you prefer). Each is important, of course. Free speech can in a practical sense be limited by economic issues. In the 1960s in America, and I am sure in the UK too, free speech was practically controlled by rich people who owned the media. I believe the internet is helping to democraticize freedom of speech. Stream of consciousness writing, I guess: do you have, or have you considered, a discussion group on the Internet as such, its strengths, weaknesses, how it is or can promote understanding, etc. I bet it would be an interesting discussion!

George, IMO you are absolutely correct that JFK could have been removed from office if this behavior had been exposed. In the more liberal attitude of the 90s, marital infidelity on a much smaller scale almost removed our Pres Clinton. So the question arises why did the people behind the assassination not use the simpler method? One answer that deserves consideration is that they were not aware of it--if this answer is correct it removes some of the subjects.

Can you identify the staffer and Congressman?

The Arlington on-line obituary seems convincing to me that they were brothers.

Great, interesting post, John. I'd read the account of the Wright meeting with Angleton and Harvey in another book but had not read Wright's own version until I spotted his book in a used bookseller's for only $5.00. My comments, for what they are worth: 1. I agree with you there may have been a connection between what was happening in England with Profumo and in the US with JFK. 2. I think JFK could have been removed from office non-violently as a result of his involvement with Rometsch had it been publicized. Indeed, in England Macmillan's government fell even though he was not personally compromised. 3. You suggest the CIA/M15 were using girls with KGB links. If in fact these ladies were KGB assets, perhaps the KGB was using them. That is the simplest explanation. Do you suppose Dulles or Helms contacted his counterpart in the KGB for permission to use the KGB girls? As I recall the story, it was the London osteopath Dr. Stephen Ward (did I get the name right?) who introduced Profumo to Keeler and in her memoirs Keeler states that the osteopath was a Soviet spy. As you know, the osteopath committed suicide (or was it a murder?). I am not sure if you have read Trento's book (I know I have mentioned it before). Trento (whose politics I believe are left-wing) asserts that a faction in the KGB orchestrated the assassination of JFK and the peaceful ouster of Khruschev eleven months later. It makes logical sense that the Soviet Union had "hard-liners" who were as concerned from their perspective about the relaxed relationship that appeared to be developing between JFK and Khruschev as there were "hard-liners" in the US intelligence community who had similar concerns coming from their own perspective. I have no idea who were Trento's sources but I imagine he had some basis (right or wrong) for his assertion. If indeed there was a connection between the removal of JFK and the removal of Khruschev, logic almost compels a conclusion that it came from the KGB and not Western intelligence sources--because the CIA could not orchestrate the peaceful ouster of Khruschev. Final thought: if Rometsch was planted on JFK in a set-up to the assassination, the motive might have been to ensure RFK's acquiesence to a cover-up. Common sense and experience tells us that when there is a full-fledged murder investigation the "sordid" details of the victim's life often surface. RFK may have been as concerned about the possible exposure of his late brother's affair with a woman of questionable political allegiances as he was about exposure of the plots against Castro. Well, this IS a final thought (I promise). You mention the Angleton/Harvey/Wright meeting demonstrates the CIA was looking at sources other than the Mafia to kill Castro. Indeed they were. Some people assert the CIA subtly but deliberately kept the Church Commmittee involved in the investigation of the Mafia plots to prevent the exposure of other more sensitive matters.

I knew about both men but did not know they were brothers. Here are pictures of Cliff and Marshall Carter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If i'm right, Marshall and Cliff were not relatives. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This probably should be easy to check. I suspect they each have on-line bios that list their place of birth and probably their parents.

Since you call LHO a "two-bit creep" I think you must believe he played a role in the assassination. As posted in another thread, I think LHO was more intelligent than he was sometimes given credit for (this assessment of his intelligence is true whether or not he was involved in the assassination). Do not read too much into one smirk. I am not sure myself if LHO had some participatory role in the assassination or was merely a "patsy". If he indeed played a role, it is unfortunate that those who strongly argue he was innocent are exonerating a man who played a role in such a heinous crime. On the other hand, of course, if he was indeed an innocent patsy, how sad that he was himself murdered and how tragic that the current history books link his name to "the crime of the (20th) century". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nobody will understand LHO as long as they insist he was a single individual. Both Lee and Harvey were agents. Harvey had assumed Lee's identity and became the "patsy", and was killed by Ruby. Lee is likely alive today, living in Florida under a fictitious name in a witness protection program. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack: AS I said in another thread I can't wait to read the Armstrong book. (Please don't tell me Lee is in the Keys! Tampa, or St. Pete, would be better!)

Jack: This is perhaps a subject for a separate thread -- and opens another can of worms -- but I'll raise it here anyway. (BTW, I strongly agree with everyone who's commented on the qualilty of several recent threads -- this one is among them.) I would appreciate having your theory of HOW "LHO was placed in a job in the TSBD." As I remember, the Posner posse argues that Oswald got his lead for the job at the TSBD as the result of a casual conversation among four housewives in Irving -- Linnie Mae Randle, Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald and another one named Roberts. They argue that it was Randle -- Wesley Buell Frazier's sister -- who first raised the possibility of a job opening at the book depository, and that her idea was followed up by Paine, who called Roy Truly, the TSBD superintendent who ultimately hired Oswald. If this rendition is true, Linnie Mae was part of a conspiracy to place LHO in the book depository, which, I think, we'd all agree is a shaky proposition. What's the counter argument to that tale of innocence from the Irving Housewives? I think Paine confirmed that version, and Truly confirmed that Paine called him. Were they both lying? Did Linnie Mae ever confirm it? How about Roberts? And if so, how do we hook them up with the conspiracy to get LHO in the shooter's nest? Can you lead me, and perhaps some others, out of that thicket? Thanks. Bob <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I tend to agree with Jack that LHO was brought to the TSBD because of the motorcade route, and not vice-versa. This, I think, has tremenduous implications. If indeed placing Oswald in the TSBD was part of the assassination plan, it necessarily involves Ruth Paine in that plan, does it not? Mr. Root is arguing that the CIA knew where LHO was working and therfore the CIA was involved in the plot. I don't think there is a sufficient nexus here. If my analysis above is correct, I think it necessarily follows that Ruth Paine was involved, but we do not know who was directing her. Threre is one thing that perhaps counters this: the evidence that LHO himself was looking for employment at other places on the parade route, e.g. the Adolphus Hotel. This evidence would suggest he had some participatory role in the assassination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are correct. The Paines were in charge of both Harvey and Lee. (see Armstrong) Lee stayed with Marina on weekdays, and Harvey on weekends...from available records. Both Ruth Paine and Lee now live in Florida, it is believed. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack: I am (well, not literally) dying to read the Armstrong book (I understand all of the contributions you made to it). Glad you agree with my assessment: if there was indeed a conspiracy the Paines (at least Ruth) almost certainly had to be a part of it. Are you "up to speed" on the unusual (perhaps incriminating) phone call that Michael Paine received shortly after the assassination? The Paines ought to be on top of the list of people to be interviewed (right up with Marina Oswald). The problem is if they were indeed part of the conspiracy the "interview" should probably be conducted within the context of a legal proceeding. I suspect most researchers would agree it would be worthwhile to grant them immunity to get further up the chain. Of course, anyone who played a key role in the assassination may have bigger concerns than the commencement of a criminal case against him or her.

Since you call LHO a "two-bit creep" I think you must believe he played a role in the assassination. As posted in another thread, I think LHO was more intelligent than he was sometimes given credit for (this assessment of his intelligence is true whether or not he was involved in the assassination). Do not read too much into one smirk. I am not sure myself if LHO had some participatory role in the assassination or was merely a "patsy". If he indeed played a role, it is unfortunate that those who strongly argue he was innocent are exonerating a man who played a role in such a heinous crime. On the other hand, of course, if he was indeed an innocent patsy, how sad that he was himself murdered and how tragic that the current history books link his name to "the crime of the (20th) century".

There is a relatively easy way to verify who is the "record" owner of real estate. This would require some work (therefore cost) with a New Orleans Title Co. I tend to doubt EHH owned the property.

Jack: This is perhaps a subject for a separate thread -- and opens another can of worms -- but I'll raise it here anyway. (BTW, I strongly agree with everyone who's commented on the qualilty of several recent threads -- this one is among them.) I would appreciate having your theory of HOW "LHO was placed in a job in the TSBD." As I remember, the Posner posse argues that Oswald got his lead for the job at the TSBD as the result of a casual conversation among four housewives in Irving -- Linnie Mae Randle, Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald and another one named Roberts. They argue that it was Randle -- Wesley Buell Frazier's sister -- who first raised the possibility of a job opening at the book depository, and that her idea was followed up by Paine, who called Roy Truly, the TSBD superintendent who ultimately hired Oswald. If this rendition is true, Linnie Mae was part of a conspiracy to place LHO in the book depository, which, I think, we'd all agree is a shaky proposition. What's the counter argument to that tale of innocence from the Irving Housewives? I think Paine confirmed that version, and Truly confirmed that Paine called him. Were they both lying? Did Linnie Mae ever confirm it? How about Roberts? And if so, how do we hook them up with the conspiracy to get LHO in the shooter's nest? Can you lead me, and perhaps some others, out of that thicket? Thanks. Bob <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I tend to agree with Jack that LHO was brought to the TSBD because of the motorcade route, and not vice-versa. This, I think, has tremenduous implications. If indeed placing Oswald in the TSBD was part of the assassination plan, it necessarily involves Ruth Paine in that plan, does it not? Mr. Root is arguing that the CIA knew where LHO was working and therfore the CIA was involved in the plot. I don't think there is a sufficient nexus here. If my analysis above is correct, I think it necessarily follows that Ruth Paine was involved, but we do not know who was directing her. Threre is one thing that perhaps counters this: the evidence that LHO himself was looking for employment at other places on the parade route, e.g. the Adolphus Hotel. This evidence would suggest he had some participatory role in the assassination.

One of my favorites is in the book "JFK" by L. Fletcher Prouty, who writes on page 293: "The Warren Report contains testimony by Forest Sorrels of the Secret Service. Sorrels said that he and a Mr. Lawson of the Dallas Police Department selected 'the best (motorcade) route' . . . " Not only had Prouty never heard of SS agent Winston Lawson, nor did Prouty bother to actually look at Sorrels's testimony which identifies Lawson, but he was too lazy to try to find out exactly who this "Mr. Lawson" of DPD was who helped select the fateful route. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I also tend to doubt Prouty as a source on much. Although I disagree with its thesis (that the Diem coup led to the Kennedy assassination) the book "Triangle of Death" contains a lot of good information. However, its authors do not know who Sam Papich was. Perhaps in this thread we can identify documented factual errors in the assassination literature.

A historian uses primary sources to write about the past. Primary sources are usually created around the time of the event: photographs, letters, newspaper reports, diary entries, official documents, etc. In some cases, primary sources can be produced some time after the event: interviews with witnesses to events, memoirs, autobiographies, public statements (like the one made by Tosh Plumlee on this forum). When I use the term historian I do not mean a person who makes a living from writing about the past. I use it in the sense of the methodology being used. I consider several members of this forum historians although they might be earning their living in a very different activity. All primary sources create problems. This is partly because the person who created the source might be attempting to disguise the truth of what happened. This might be because they wish to project a good image of themselves. In some cases, the person is intent on telling lies. The role of the historian is to examine the primary source in great detail. This will result in the historian interpreting the source in light of their knowledge of other sources and the person who created the source currently being examined. The role of the historian is very similar to that of a detective trying to solve a crime. They both use similar methods in an attempt to discover what happened in the past. A secondary source is what people do with these primary sources: books, articles, television documentaries, etc. When a historian produces a secondary source he/she should provide notes and references. This enables other historians/researchers to check the evidence. One of the major problems concerning the JFK case was that most of the early authors who wrote about it were not historians. Therefore they did not include notes and references in their books. It was therefore difficult to check their information. Over a period of time the best JFK researchers began to work like historians. For example, Anthony Summers was a journalist by training. However, he knew that if he was to be taken seriously he had to write like a historian. That is why he has become such an important figure in this field. I have attempted over the months, with varying success, to persuade people on this forum to write like historians. I believe it is only when we do this that the academic world will take our research seriously. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you, John, excellent points all. You are correct that there can be problems with primary sources. In addition, given the nature of this case, there are of course endless disputes over the authenticity of primary sources. For instance, witnesses claim that FBI agents did not accurately record their statements; we have issues of possible body alteration; forging autopsy photographs, etc. But it is worthwhile for serious assassination researchers to, for instance, read the actual testimony of witnesses rather than relying on how authors summarizre that testimony. Many authors have agendas and this can cause them, consciously or not, to distort testimony. Mr. Posner is certainly a case in point. It is very frustrating to me to read a book which is otherwise well-referenced and then encounter an important point with no reference whatsoever. I find that in evaluating a book I can often judge its validity by the strength of its references. Does it reference primary sources, or are all of the references secondary? And it can become like fourth-hand hearsay: the first author, whether intentionally or not, misquotes or colors the primary source. The second author does not even read the primary source but merely relies on the first author, and he introduces additional error. You can also observe, from time to time, two authors who rely on the same primary source but have different conclusions regarding what the facts are. Thanks again, John.

I don't believe that Nellie was at risk of getting hit. As for Connally himself, yes, he was a brave man, but also one with much to lose if Kennedy lived and everything to gain if he died. Connally was connected to Johnson and would have went down with the ship if the Bobby Baker investigation continued. Something had to be done. LBJ's attempts to get Yarbrough to ride with the President were to no avail. Connally evidently never even asked JFK about it. He was determined to roll the dice. It is historically significant that Nixon, who certainly seems to have known more about the assassination than he ever admitted, calling the Warren Commission "the greatest fraud ever perpetuated" at one point on his tapes, positioned Connally as his heir apparent. One would have to ask "why?" Did Nixon owe him for something beyond Connally's efforts for the Democrats for Nixon? While this is all conjecture, this is all there is for us to go by. It may also be significant that only a few years before the assassination Connally's eldest daughter blew herself away with a shotgun. It's sad but true that people whose children die in such a manner often lose the fear of their own death. I, of course, have no proof of Connally's involvement, but simply feel that this is an element of the assassination too often ignored. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> With all due respect, Mr. Speer (I thought your seminar was one of the best by the way): One: You don't believe Mrs. Connolly was at risk? On what basis can you possibly say that? Two: Connolly's political career would not have been ruined if his buddy LBJ had gone to jail over Bobby Baker. It's a non sequitur. Three: Even assuming for the point of argument that Connolly's political career would be ruined if LBJ was indicted or convicted, why in heaven's name would Connolly risk his life (let alone his wife's) to save his political career? It makes no sense. Four: as I pointed out in another thread, Connolly could have marched into the Oval Office and walked away with JFK's letter of resignation. Bloodshed was unnecessary to gain LBJ the presidency. To reiterate, I think we can safely dismiss as possible conspirators anyone sitting in the limousine that fateful day.

If you are right Connolly must rank as one of the most corrupt, but bravest, politicians in American history. "Gee, I hope our assassin is a good shot!". And he must not even thought about a bullet passing through JFK and hitting him. And by god, he was even willing to put his wife in the line of fire! He must have hated JFK with a passion to put his life and the life of his wife at stake!

In searching Gordon McLendon on the Internet I found this article which I think most Forum members: http://www.historyofklif.com/pgtwo.html

A very interesting post, John. With respect to the plane to Cuba, however, I have these thoughts or questions. Certainly the pilot did not know he would be going on a suicide mission. So how did the pilot expect to get into Cuba? Certainly Cuba was actively guarding its air space after the assassination in fear of a possible U.S. attack. Another point: if indeed there were two patsies in Dealey Plaza why was the second patsy not used? It would have saved Arlen Specter a lot of grief, to be sure!

Ian, since you asked about opinions on the comment RE: "Oswald business"; I'd say "they" are referring to Oswald's trip to Mexico and the Cuban and Russian embassies. Perhaps they were also aware of the tape recordings, photographs and even the alleged money given to "Oswald". This info was something that worried Hoover, LBJ and the CIA... Who attempted to sweep all of it under a rug... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Antti. I have raised the possibility that Hoover and LBJ may have been concerned over the possibility of CIA involvement in the assassination, as well as the possibility of involvement by a foreign intelligence agency. Admittedly, this is speculation, based on the missing tape of the 11/23/63 Johnson-Hoover phone call. But the implications of involvement in the assassination by any intelligence service were probably sufficient to fuel a cover-up.

I think there are very important points being raised in this thread. If LHO was brought to the motorcade route rather than vice versa, does that not necessarily implicate in the conspiracy the persons who got LHO the job in the TSBD?

Oh, I think he would have, not necessarily for altruistic concern for his friend's well-being as much as for his selfish political interest. Connally was a strong man and smooth operator. Politicians like that don't grow on trees. And he was a strong ally of LBJ. LBJ would not have wanted to risk the loss of such a political asset. (If LBJ was smart enough to plan the assassination and orchestrate the cover-up, he was smart enough to know how foolish it would be to risk Connally. Ergo, LBJ did not do it.) Another argument: wouldn't LBJ risk being exposed if Connally was wounded and found out LBJ was behind it? I suspect their friendship would have ended rather quickly. Understand I am not coming from the perspective of a Johnson follower. I knew he was a crook in 1964. On the other hand, I think our society is a far better place for LBJ's pushing enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I suspect we would all like! Thanks!

John, would you be willing to briefly comment on what historians mean when they refer to primary or secondary sources and why the distinction is important. There may be deliberate misinformation in a secondary source or simply mistakes. But when we rely on secondary sources, we can repeat the errors and the constant repetition can sometimes add legitimacy. As an example are the many early books that reported that Desmond Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris on November 22, 1963. It is now clear that Fitzgerald was in DC and it was Cubela's case officer who met with him and delivered the CIA poison pen on November 22nd. I'm not sure how the misimpression was first generated, but it may very well be that other writers simply repeated the error of the first writer because they failed to check the primary source. Many Forum members may be familiar with the terminolgy and its importance but it might be helpful for you to comment. (If you want, I'll give it a try and you can correct me.)