Tim Gratz

Earl T. Smith, the man Dwight Eisenhower appointed as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Cuba in 1957 had a lot to say about this. (1) Smith gave evidence to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960 on Castro and the CIA. (2) F. W. Sourwine: Mr. Smith, when you were appointed Ambassador to Cuba, were you briefed on the job? Earl E. Smith: Yes; I was. F. W. Sourwine: Who gave you this briefing? Earl E. Smith: I spent 6 weeks in Washington, approximately 4 days of each week, visiting various agencies and being briefed by the State, Department and those whom the State Department designated. F. W. Sourwine: Any particular individual or individuals who, had a primary part in this briefing? Earl E. Smith: The answer is, in the period of 6 weeks I was briefed by numbers of people in the usual course as every Ambassador is briefed. F. W. Sourwine: Is it true, sir, that you were instructed to get a briefing on your new job as Ambassador to Cuba from Herbert Matthews of the New York Times? Earl E. Smith: Yes; that is correct. F. W. Sourwine: Who gave you these instructions? Earl E. Smith: William Wieland, Director of the Caribbean Division and Mexico. At that time he was Director of the Caribbean Division, Central American Affairs. F. W. Sourwine: Did you, sir, in fact see Matthews? Earl E. Smith: Yes; I did. F. W. Sourwine: And did he brief you on the Cuban situation? Earl E. Smith: Yes; he did. F. W. Sourwine: Could you give us the highlights of what he told you?... Earl E. Smith: We talked for 2 1/2 hours on the Cuban situation, a complete review o£ his feelings regarding Cuba, Batista, Castro, the situation in Cuba, and what he thought would happen. F. W. Sourwine: What did he think would happen? Earl E. Smith: He did not believe that the Batista government could last, and that the fall of the Batista government would come relatively soon. F. W. Sourwine: Specifically what did he say about Castro? Earl E. Smith: In February 1957 Herbert L. Matthews wrote three articles on Fidel Castro, which appeared on the front page of the New York Times, in which he eulogized Fidel Castro and portrayed him as a political Robin Hood, and I would say that he repeated those views to me in our conversation.... F. W. Sourwine: What did Mr. Matthews tell you about Batista? Earl E. Smith: Mr. Matthews had a very poor view of Batista, considered him a rightist ruthless dictator whom he believed to be corrupt. Mr. Matthews informed me that he had very knowledgeable views of Cuba and Latin American nations, and had seen the same things take place in Spain. He believed that it would be in the best interest of Cuba and the best interest of the world in general when Batista was removed from office. F. W. Sourwine: It was true that Batista's government was corrupt, wasn't it? Earl E. Smith: It is true that Batista's government was corrupt. Batista was the power behind the Government in Cuba off and on for 25 years. The year 1957 was the best economic year that Cuba had ever had. However, the Batista regime was disintegrating from within. It was becoming more corrupt, and as a result, was losing strength. The Castro forces themselves never won a military victory. The best military victory they ever won was through capturing Cuban guardhouses and military skirmishes, but they never actually won a military victory. The Batista government was overthrown because of the corruption, disintegration from within, and because of the United States and the various agencies of the United States who directly and indirectly aided the overthrow of the Batista government and brought into power Fidel Castro. F. W. Sourwine: What were those, agencies, Mr. Smith? Earl E. Smith: The US Government agencies-may I say something off the record? (Discussion off the record.) F. W. Sourwine: Mr. Smith, the pending question before you read your statement was: What agencies of the US Government had a hand in bringing pressure to overthrow the Batista government, and how did they do it? Earl E. Smith: Well, the agencies, certain influential people, influential sources in the State Department, lower down echelons in the CIA. I would say representatives of the majority of the US Government agencies which have anything to do with the Embassy... F. W. Sourwine: Mr. Smith, when you talked with Matthews to get the briefing before you went to Cuba, was he introduced to you as having any authority from the State Department or as being connected with the State Department in any way? Earl E. Smith: Let me go back. You asked me a short while ago who arranged the meeting with Mr. Matthews. F. W. Sourwine: And you said Mr. Wieland. Earl E. Smith: I said Wilham Wieland, but Wilham Wieland also had to have the approval of Roy Rubottom, who was then Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs. Now, to go back to this question, as I understood it, you said - would you mind repeating that again? F. W. Sourwine: I asked if, when you were, sent to Mr. Matthews for this briefing, he was introduced to you as having any official connection with the State Department or any authority from the Department? Earl E. Smith: Oh, no. I knew who he was, and they obviously knew I knew who he was, but I believe, that they thought it would be a good idea for me to get the viewpoint of Herbert Matthews, and also I think that Herbert Matthews is the leading Latin American editorial writer for the New York Times. Obviously the State Department would like to have the support of the New York Times... James Eastland: Mr. Smith, we have had hearings, a great many, in Miami, with prominent Cubans, and there is a thread that runs through the whole thing that people connected with some Government agency went to Cuba and called on the chiefs of the armed forces and told them that we would not recognize the government of the President-elect, and that we would not back him, and that because of that the chiefs of the armed forces told Batista to leave the country, and they set up a government in which they attempted to make a deal with Castro. That is accurate, isn't it, Tom? Thomas Dodd: I would say so, yes... James Eastland: Let me ask you this question. As a matter of fact, isn't it your judgment that the State Department of the United States is primarily responsible for bringing Castro to power in Cuba? Earl E. Smith: No, sir, I can't say that the State Department in itself is primarily responsible. The State Department played a large part in bringing Castro to power. The press, other Government agencies, Members of Congress are responsible... James Eastland: You had been warning the State Department that Castro was a Marxist? Earl E. Smith: Yes, sir. James Eastland: And that Batista's government was a friendly government. That is what had been your advice as to the State Department? Earl E. Smith: Let me answer that this way, which will make it very clear. When I went to Cuba, I left here with the definite feeling according to my briefings which I had received, that the U.S. Government was too close to the Batista regime, and that we were being accused of intervening in the affairs of Cuba by trying to perpetuate the Batista dictatorship. After I had been in Cuba for approximately 2 months, and had made a study of Fidel Castro and the revolutionaries, it was perfectly obvious to me as it would be to any other reasonable man that Castro was not the answer; that if Castro came to power, it would not be in the best interests of Cuba or in the best interests of the United States.... In my own Embassy there were certain ones of influence who were pro-26th of July, pro-Castro, and anti-Batista. James Eastland: Who were they? Earl E. Smith: Do I have to answer that question, Senator? James Eastland: Yes, I think you have to. We are not going into it unnecessarily. Earl E. Smith: I don't want to harm anybody. That is the reason I asked. I would say the Chief of the Political Section, John Topping, and the Chief of the CIA Section. It was revealed that the No. 2 CIA rnan in the embassy had given unwarranted and undue encouragement to the revolutionaries. This came out in tke trials of naval officers after the Cienfuegos revolution of September I957... James Eastland: He (Batista) didn't have to leave. He had not been defeated by armed force. Earl E. Smith: Let me put it to you this way: that there are a lot of reasons for Batista's moving out. Batista had been in control off and on for 25 years. His government was disintegrating, at the end due to corruption, due to the fact that he had been in power too long. Police brutality was getting worse. On the other hand there were three forces that kept Batista in power. He had the support of the armed forces, he had support of the labor leaders. Cuba enjoyed a good economy. Nineteen hundred and fifty-seven was one of the best years in the economic history of Cuba. The fact that the United States was no longer supporting Batista had a devastating psychological effect, upon the armed forces and upon the leaders of the labor movement. This went a long way toward bringing about his downfall. On the other hand, our actions in the United States were responsible for the rise to power of Castro. Until certain portions of the American press began to write derogatory articles against the Batista government, the Castro revolution never got off first base. Batista made the mistake of overemphasizing the importance of Prio, who was residing in Florida, and underestimating the importance of Castro. Prio was operating out of the United States, out of Florida, supplying the revolutionaries with arms, ammunition, bodies and money. Batista told me that when Prio left Cuba, Prio and Alameia (Aleman) took $140 million out of Cuba. If we cut that estimate in half, they may have shared $70 million. It is believed that Prio spent a great many millions of dollars in the United States assisting the revolutionaries. This was done right from our shores.... F. W. Sourwine: Is there any doubt in your mind that the Cuban Government, under Castro, is a Communist government? Earl E. Smith: Now? F. W. Sourwine: Yes. Earl E. Smith: I would go further. I believe it is becoming a satellite. The logical thing for the Russians to do would be to move into Cuba which they had already done, and to take over, which they would do by a mutual security pact. Then, when the United States objects, all they have to say is: "We will get out of Cuba when you get out of Turkey." Thomas Dodd: You are not suggesting- Earl E. Smith: That is a speech I made in February. Thomas Dodd: Yes, but you are not suggesting that the Communists will cease and desist from their activities in Cuba and Central and South America, or anywhere else, if we get out of these other places? Earl E. Smith: Out of Turkey? Thomas Dodd: Yes. Earl E. Smith: It would mean a great deal to them if we got out of Turkey. I am no expert on Turkey. Thomas Dodd: You do not have to be an expert on Turkey, but you ought to be a little bit of an expert on the Communists to know this would not follow at all. Every time we have retreated from one place, they have moved into new areas. Earl E. Smith: Senator, I did not say what they would do. Thomas Dodd: I know, but... Earl E. Smith: That they would move into Cuba to retaliate with us. Smith went on to issue a statement to the Senate Committee: First let me say that to date I have made no public statement regarding my experiences in Cuba because I did not feel that, as a former Ambassador, it was my function to say anything which might be interpreted as critical of the administration which I had served. I have only the greatest respect and admiration for President Eisenhower, whose integrity is beyond question. However, the establishment of a Communist regime in Cuba involves the defense and safety of this country and as you asked me to testify before you, I do so, recognizing that the welfare of the United States must transcend personal desires and reticence. From personal experience I have learned that many very influential sources in the United States are dedicated to the overthrow of all dictatorships. They are as opposed to anti-Communist rightest dictators, who are friendly to the United States, as to the Communist dictators whom they regard as progressive. They adopt a doctrinaire attitude toward this question which is so impractical that they ultimately unwittingly defeat themselves. If dictatorship versus democracy were the only question that faced us, it would not be difficult to make a decision. However, as we are in the midst of a struggle for survival, other considerations are pertinent. If the policy of the United States is to bring about the overthrow of dictators in the hope that democracy will follow, then I believe that the United States must be prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve law and order and relevant chaos during that interim period of transition. If free and open elections are to be held, when a dictator is overthrown, a provisional government must be formed and such government needs outside support to maintain law and order. To do otherwise leaves a vacuum for the Communists to gain control. Such a vacuum did not occur in Cuba while I was the U.S. Ambassador there. Instead, a group was ready to seize power - a Communist group. If we are to intervene sufficiently to bring about the overthrow of dictatorships, then we should intervene to whatever extent is required to fulfill our purpose. Otherwise, in my opinion, we must wait for the normal self-development of a people and not assist revolution. And we must be prepared to receive the criticism of supporting friendly governments recognized by the United States, although they have been labeled dictatorships. To make my point more clear, let me say that, we helped to overthrow the Batista dictatorship which was pro-American only to install the Castro dictatorship which is pro-Russian. * * * * * * * * * * Thanks for posting this, John. In my opinion, Smith's testimony demonstrates what a thoughtful and intelligent man he was. It appears to be the thrust of Tim's article that the US, through its actions against Fidel, drove him into Khruschev's arms. That interpretation (Tim likes that word) is, I think, not supported by the facts. Item: one of the first things the Eisenhower administration did after Fidel came to power was to replace Ambassador Smith (because he was known as being "too" anti-Castro). Item: many of Castro's supporters discovered his dedication to communism shortly after he came to power. The list of those who did so is long indeed. Item: Mr. Weyl's seminar demonstrates that Fidel was a student of communism since his college days. Mr. Weyl is a wise man who knows wherof he speaks. As you know, Mr. Weyl was once a Communist himself. When I get around to it I will post the relevant portions of Mr. Weyl's article here.

This post will comment on the possible participation of CIA employees David Atlee Phillips and David Morales in the assassination. Almost every assassination researcher believes that David Atlee Phillips was the mysterious Mr. Bishop and that Veciana observed Phillips meeting with Oswald in Dallas shortly before the assassination. I think we may have had this discussion before but it is probably posting in this thread: if Phillips was really involved in the plot, the last thing he would want would be to be observed with the patsy shortly before the assassination. Therefore, if indeed Veciana saw Phillips with Oswald, it is highly illogical to postulate that Phillips was a conspirator. Moreover, there is no evidence that he was. The case of Morales is different. As I am sure every Forum member knows, Morales made an admission of sorts in front of his attorney and a friend that he was involved in the assassination. The question may be whether Morales was smart enough to plan it. This issue may be why John suggests the involvement of Phillips. But if Phillips was smart enough to plan it, he was surely smart enough to stay the heck away from Oswald. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This assumes that a man like Phillips does not make mistakes. I would be careful with such assumptions, because they might cut your path to the truth. We do not know how that meeting between Phillips and LHO came about. Maybe it was Lee who just walked up to him. Maybe it was Lee who WANTED to be seen with Phillips. There are numerous indications that Lee was made to believe he was to infiltrate the plot in order to prevent the assassination. But there are also indications that felt he was being setup and that he did not trust Phillips, who according to several sources was his CIA controller. Apart from that, I think Phillips would not have been to worried about being seen with LHO in a public place. Who would remember LHO with Phillips in a lobby anyway, other than people who knew Phillips and were supposed to be trusted CIA people? Remember he chose this public place for a meeting with Veciana, the leader of Aplha 66. I would expect him not to choose such a place for a meeting with Veciana either, but yet it seems that he did. But now that I think of it, we could alos speculate that Phillips was worried about Veciana being able to place him in the presence of LHO and therefore sent Disodado to inquire if Veciana would volunteer this information. I have another consideration that I think you are overlooking. If they had already intended to frame Lee for the assassination at the time of this meeting (Veciana, Phillips, Oswald), and I think it is fair to assume that, then they had not intended to have Lee escape the TSBD and be in custody for televisoin camera's and press coverage. I think they had intended to kill him right away. The fact that Veciana recognized Oswald was because of all the media coverage on him. This would not have happened if they had killed Lee right after the fact, which seems to have been the original plan. There would only have been shown some existing photo's of Lee, like probably the backyard photos. There would not have been moving tv footage. I think the chance for Veciana to recognise Oswald would have been much much slimmer. I'm pretty sure you haven't thought of that. It means Phillips would have felt relatively safe. Gaeton <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I respectfully suggest that being seen in a public place with a man that you intend to frame as the killer of the President of the United States is a mistake of rather collassal proportions, different in kind than, say, forgetting one's briefcase in a public place. Even if the plot included LHO being killed before 11/22/1963 was over (as I am sure it did if this scenario is correct) Phillips could not count on LHO being killed immediately and even if he had been the media coverage would have been phenomenal. Phillips, whose expertise was the media, would have known this. Moreover, the concern would probably not be with a passeby remembering LHO, it would be with VECIANA remembering the incident. So I still believe that if this incident occured what it demonstrates is that: 1) LHO had ties to the CIA; 2) Phillips had nothing to do with the assassination; and 3) the CIA probably had nothing to do with the assassination since it would be foolhardy for the CIA to frame one of its own agents for the assassination. If the incident did occur, I agree with you that logic suggests that Diosdado was sent to talk to Veciana to determine whether Veciana would volunteer information about the incident. Rules of intelligence would suggest that Diosdado would not have been told the resason for his assignment. To get further "up" the chain, though, it would be helpful to determine who gave Diosdado his assignment. As you know, Diosdado is still alive. We need to, however, consider all of the possibilities. What if the Phillips/Oswald meeting never occured but Veciana simply made it up? A number of reasons for such a fabrication suggest themselves. First, Veciana, by his story to Fonzi, was upset with Bishop. But what if Veciana was a double agent. That would explain why he escaped Cuba while his conspirator in that assassination scheme was caught. The connection between Veciana and the Odio family is certainly interesting. Finally, what evidence exists that Phillips was Oswald's "controller"?

I actually agree with Tim Gratz on this one: the Dear Mr. Hunt note is fake; but that still leaves the destruction of the valid Oswald note by the Dallas FBI a matter of serious inquiry, not that there's any hope of solving that one now. But the fact that they did it and at such a local level raises the question of why the Dallas FBI would cover for the KGB. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, from your postings, I think there are several things upon which we agree! For instance, in a post (somewhere) you stated you believed that in 1963 there was a divergence of opinion on several matters between JFK and RFK. I think you are probably correct in that interpretation. (In our discussion about the Diem coup, I pointed out that RFK argued (wisely, I believe) against US involvement in overthrowing the Diem government and apparently JFK did not heed his advise on that matter. ) You stated, in a post on the "Books" section, that you believed that RFK was "continuing support for anti-Castro efforts to a degree that would not have been approved by JFK." Query whether you believe this has anything to do with the "peace feelures" to Cuba going on at the same time the proposed Cubela operation was unfolding? Re the KGB creation of this fake letter, it is of course only one of many times in the JFK case that evidence was destroyed or fabricated by someone. Whenever this happens, one must ask "Why?' In some cases, such as the destruction of the Hosty note, it may be a question of a bureacrat trying to prevent embarrassment at his bureau's malfeasance. In other cases, the reason may be more sinister.

Of course, it could have been Nelson Bunker Hunt, a participant in the "Wanted for Treason" flyer, and a nutburger from the git go. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gentlemen, please! Has it not been established that this document was forged by the KGB in its effort to attempt to link the CIA to the Kennedy assassination (makes one wonder why the KGB would want to do that). The true story of the "Hunt letter" was first told in "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" by Christopher Andrew and Vasil Mitrokhin. Andrew is the well-respected professor of History at Cambridge University and Mitrokhin was the former KGB archivist who defected to England in 1992, carrying with him thousands of pages of top-secret KGB documents. http://www.jfk-online.com/mitrokhin.html http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/2004_01.html

Were there mysterious deaths of individuals involved in the Watergate case, or the investigation therof? Please see Post 107 in Tim Carroll's Online Seminar "The Whole Bay of Pigs Thing."

Query whether JFK would have let LBJ be impeached. He still needed LBJ to carry Texas. Moreover, his own presidency (candidacy) would have been damaged had his VP been impeached or had to resign in a scandal. So JFK had personal reasons to protect LBJ. LBJ must have known about JFK's involvement with Rometsch through either Bobby Baker or J. Edgar Hoover. So they both had "the goods" on each other. I recently came across a discussion of how the Baker scandal was "contained" after LBJ became president. From Ch 14 of Perlstein's "Before the Storm": "In late January [of 1964] when Republicans tried to get Walter Jenkins, Johnson's most intimate aide, to testify before a Senate subcommittee investigation, Johnson put in the fix. Two psychiatrists appeared to testify that ab appearence would--literally--kill him. [Republican] Carl Curtis moved to call Jenkins to the stand anyway. He lost 6-3 in a party line vote. . . . Curtis lost again when he moved to make the record of the sessionpublic. The investigation closed without a single Administration witness being called."

Thanks, you are right. Both of these should count as "confessions" of some sort. But do you have opinions re the truth of the statements?

Tim, a perceptive comment. This passage from the Final Report of the HSCA merits posting: The Warren Commission did not, of course, ignore Oswald's ties to anti-Castroites. From the evidence that was available in 1964, two Warren Commission staff attorneys, W. David Slawson and William Coleman, went so far as to speculate that Oswald, despite his public posture as a Castro sympathizer, might actually have been an agent of anti-Castro exiles.(3) Indeed, pressing for further investigation of the possibility, they wrote a memorandum which read in part: The evidence here could lead to an anti-Castro involvement in the assassination on some sort of basis as this: Oswald could have become known to the Cubans as being strongly pro-Castro. He made no secret of his sympathies, so the anti-Castro Cubans must have realized that law enforcement authorities were also aware of Oswald's feelings and that, therefore, if he got into trouble, the public would also learn of them ...Second, someone in the anti-Castro organization might have been keen enough to sense that Oswald had a penchant for violence ...On these facts, it is possible that some sort of deception was used to encourage Oswald to kill the President when he came to Dallas ...The motive of this would, of course, be the expectation that after the President was killed, Oswald would be caught or at least his identity ascertained, the law enforcement authorities and the public would blame the assassination on the Castro government, and a call for its forceful overthrow would be irresistible.... * * * * * * * * * * This ties into your comment that "whoever thought they were representing a certain cause may have been manipulated by [persons having] a totally different agenda." LHO might have killed JFK thinking he was doing it for Castro when those who were assisting him were in fact anti-Castro.

Tim, I didn't have time to summarize the entire chapter in the Scott book. But it talks about how people associated with the Great Southwest Corp were helping Marina connect Oswald to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (with links Scott characterizes as "highly questionable"); how Attorney McKenzie helped coach Marina for her WC testimony, etc. If time permits I may post more from the book about the Great Southwest Corp, but I highly recommend "Deep Politics" to every member of this Forum. I think it is a must read for any assassination researcher. I must add one comment from the book (relating to Watergate not the JFK assassination). In commenting on the "Silent Coup" thesis that Watergate was motivated by Dean's desire to protect his wife who had been the room-mate of the call girl "madam" Heidi Rikan, Scott states: "Silent Coup" does not consider the possibility that Dean and "Mo" Biner had been compromised, by a hostile force, in order to gain leverage over Dean, possibly to get his compiance in the matter of Hoffa's pardon in 1971. Scott notes that Rikan was friends with Joe Nesline, the top organized crime representative in Washington. Mo, by the way, had been introduced to Heidi Rykan by a close friend of Bedford Wynne.

John Martino (From the John Martino page on the Spartacus web-site): John Martino was born in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in 1910. In his youth he got into trouble with the police as a result of his involvement in illegal gambling. In 1935 Martino moved to Miami. Soon afterwards he was arrested for running a lottery. During the Second World War Martino moved to Long Island and in 1943 he was arrested for loan sharking. Over the next few years he learned a great deal about electronics and became a specialist in gambling machines. This included developing devices that increased the profits of casino owners. In 1956 Martino was invited by Alan Roth to do some work in Cuba. Roth was manager of the Deauville Casino in Havana, owned by Santos Trafficante. Over the next three years Martino made a series of extended trips to the island. A fellow worker at the casino was a man called Louis McWillie, a close friend of Jack Ruby. In the summer of 1959 Martino was once again in Cuba. While in the Deauville Casino he made critical comments about Fidel Castro, the new leader of the country. He was overheard by a Castro supporter who reported him to the authorities. On 29th July, 1959, Martino was arrested and charged with trying to help people associated with Fulgencio Batista to escape from the island. Martino was held in prison for the next three years and was not released until October, 1962. With the help of Nathaniel Weyl, the right-wing journalist, Martino produced a book about his experiences, I Was Castro's Prisoner. Martino returned to the United States where he became involved in anti-Castro activities in Miami. Others involved with him included a former United States Ambassador, William Pawley, Gerry P. Hemming, Felipe Vidal Santiago, Eddie Bayo and Frank Sturgis. In the winter of 1962 Eddie Bayo claimed that two officers in the Red Army based in Cuba wanted to defect to the United States. Bayo added that these men wanted to pass on details about atomic warheads and missiles that were still in Cuba despite the agreement that followed the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bayo had originally fought with Fidel Castro against Fulgencio Batista. He disagreed with Castro's policies after he gained power and moved to Miami and helped establish Alpha 66. His story was eventually taken up by several members of the anti-Castro community. William Pawley became convinced that it was vitally important to help get these Soviet officers out of Cuba. To help this happen he contacted James Eastland, the chairman of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee about this matter. William Pawley also contacted Ted Shackley, head of the CIA's JM WAVE station in Miami. Shackley decided to help Pawley organize what became known as Operation Tilt. He also assigned Rip Robertson, a fellow member of the CIA in Miami, to help with the operation. David Sanchez Morales, another CIA agent, also became involved in this attempt to bring out these two Soviet officers. In June, 1963, a small group, including Martino, William Pawley, Eddie Bayo, Rip Robertson and Richard Billings, a journalist working for Life Magazine, secretly arrived in Cuba. They were unsuccessful in their attempts to find these Soviet officers and they were forced to return to Miami. Bayo remained behind and it was rumoured that he had been captured and executed. However, his death was never reported in the Cuban press. In an article published in January, 1964, Martino claimed in had important information about the death of John F. Kennedy. He argued that in 1963 Fidel Castro had discovered an American plot to overthrow his government. It was therefore decided to retaliate by organizing the assassination of Kennedy. Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had been in Cuba in 1963 and had been recruited by Cuban intelligence to kill Kennedy. Martino told his friend, Fred Claasen, that he was not telling the truth about the Cubans being behind the assassination of Kennedy. He admitted that he had been involved in the conspiracy by acting as a courier delivering money. He also told the same story to his wife Florence Martino. Shortly before his death in 1975 Martino confessed to a Miami Newsday reporter, John Cummings, that he had been guilty of spreading false stories implicating Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination. He claimed that two of the gunmen were Cuban exiles. It is believed the two men were Herminio Diaz Garcia and Virgilio Gonzalez. Cummings added: "He told me he'd been part of the assassination of Kennedy. He wasn't in Dallas pulling a trigger, but he was involved. He implied that his role was delivering money, facilitating things.... He asked me not to write it while he was alive." Fred Claasen also told the House Select Committee on Assassinations what he knew about Martino's involvement in the case. Florence Martino at first refused to corroborate the story. However, in 1994 she told Anthony Summers that her husband said to her on the morning of 22nd November, 1963: "Flo, they're going to kill him (Kennedy). They're going to kill him when he gets to Texas." From Larry Hancock’s book, Someone Would Have Talked (summarizing why he believes Martino's confession is valid: John Martino had pre-knowledge of the plan to kill John Kennedy in Texas. John Martino "talked" in a very believable and credible fashion. At first, he talked only to his immediate family, nervously, hesitantly, and excitedly. Shortly before his death, he talked with two long time friends - part confession and part simply recollection. He made no grand claims, downplayed his own role and limited his statements to things he would have personally come in contact with in playing the role he described with the Cuban exiles whose cause he was demonstrably devoted to at the time. His story is certainly consistent and totally in context with his documented activities and personal associations in 1963. Martino's personal involvement also helps us to estimate the start date and time frame for the plot. • Martino's method of relating his knowledge of the conspiracy is credible and consistent. • Martino does not exaggerate his position nor claim knowledge beyond his described role. • Martino's "switch" from his post-assassination public crusade to his private confession is significant and consistent with his overall remarks about his role. • Martino was demonstrably connected to the "anti-Castro" people he implicates. • Martino offers a unique insight into Oswald's role, associations and manipulation - one which can be investigated for corroboration. • Martino provides insight into tactical details in Dallas which can be investigated for corroboration, including the elements of advance personnel on the ground, a motorcade route known in advance and figuring in the tactical plan, Oswald as a patsy tied to the route, • Oswald framed as a Castro connected shooter and a planned meeting and extraction of Oswald from Dallas. John Martino provides a unique insight into a conspiracy by anti-Castro elements to kill President Kennedy in revenge for his perceived betrayal of the exile cause and to tie the President's murder to Fidel Castro and Cuba in a manner which would institute an American invasion of the island.

[Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do not believe Maureen (then unmarried) was ever shown to be a member of the prostitution ring but her room-mate was the madam of the ring. It is the theory of the book Silent Coup that John Dean orchestrated the cover-up in large part to protect Maureen. I ran into a good synopsis of the theory that the CIA deliberately caused the Watergate burglars to be caught. I'll post it tomorrow (need time to relocate it). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> MO DEAN'S OLD BOYFRIEND, BEDFORD WYNNE There is another remarkable, if perhaps coincidental, connection between Watergate and the events surrounding the Kennedy assassination. We had previously discussed the theory that the Watergate burglary was really about a high-class call girl ring being run out of the Democrat National Committee. In the book Silent Coup, Len Colodny advances the theory that John Dean orchestrated the break-in and the cover-up because his fiancé, Mo Biner (who he later married) was the room-mate of the head of the call-girl ring. (Contrary to a previous posting on this site, I am unaware of any writer that claims that Mo herself was a prostitute.) It turns out that Mo Biner had a very interesting boyfriend before she met John Dean. His name was Bedford Wynne. Bedford Wynne was the senior partner of the Dallas law firm of Wynne, Jaffe and Tinsley, and he served as the Washington troubleshooter for the Murchison oil and construction interests in Texas. A true wheeler-dealer, in January of 1963 Wynne raised $500,000 (in 1963 dollars, remember!) for the Texas Democrat Party. Perhaps parenthetically, one member of Bedford Wynne’s firm, Morris Jaffe, was the attorney for the mysterious Baron George de Mohrenschildt. We already know that around the time of the assassination the congressional investigation of the Bobby Baker scandal was heating up. The November 22, 1963 edition of Life magazine reported that Bedford Wynne was a member of Bobby Baker’s Quorum Club, which had become notorious as a place of assignation between politicians and call girls. Ellen Rometsch had been one of the call girls associated with the Quorum Club. Rometsch’s lovers included President Kennedy and a member of the Soviet Embassy, the same kind of relationship that had caused the Profumo scandal in England. Robert Kennedy had to appeal to J. Edgar Hoover to intervene with the leaders of the Senate to stop the investigation into the "sex angle" of the Bobby Baker case. The exposure of Kennedy's link to Rometsch could have brought down his presidency, but for the intervention of J. Edgar Hoover. (Hoover's participation in this matter is one reason I doubt he had any involvement in the assassination. Had he wanted to destroy the Kennedy presidency, he had far easier ways to do so than a complicated assassination scheme. Of course, it is possible that if Kennedy had been toppled by a scandal in 1963, it could have destroyed Johnson's candicacy in 1964. And, as we know, Johnson was facing his own issues.) Wynne’s family controlled the Great Southwest Corporation in Dallas, a firm that played an important role in the events immediately after the assassination. At 6:30 on Sunday morning, November 24, Marguerite Oswald called Peter Gregory, a friend of Lee and Marina Oswald, who had been giving Russian lessons to Marguerite. She asked Gregory to help get her and Marina a place to stay away from media attention. Gregory called a secret service agent who made reservations for them at the Inn of the Six Flags, in a Dallas suburb. The Inn was one of the principal real estate assets of the Great Southwest Corporation. At the Inn, Marina met its manager, James Herbert Martin, who soon became her personal manager. It was Martin who negotiated the sale of the backyard photographs to Life magazine. (A FBI record linked Martin with a semi-underworld character, but this report was not disclosed until 1972). In February of 1964 Marina fired Martin and replaced him with William A. McKenzie, a lawyer who had been a college friend of Bedford Wynnne and, until late 1963, a member of Bedford Wynne’s firm of Wynne, Jaffe and Tinsley. In late 1963 or early 1964 McKenzie entered a law partnership with Peter White. The new office number of the McKemzie-White firm was found in the notebook of Jack Ruby’s assistant Larry Crafard. White testified that he had “bumped into” Jack Ruby on November 20, 1963. There is much more to the story of the prominence of the Great Souuthwest Corporation and the Bedford Wynne firm in the events following the assassination. It is detailed in Chapter Eighteen of Peter Dale Scott’s masterful book “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”. .

Tim Gratz: I am requesting that you please post this on my seminar, which seeks to examine the Dallas to Watergate linkages. Cited source materials would be very appreciated as well. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WILL DO! IT ALL COMES FROM THE PETER DALE SCOTT BOOK. THERE'S A LOT MORE IN THE BOOK RE FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE RE THE RIFLE, ETC.

IT'S A GREAT WEB-SITE! I'M A FELLOW DOG LOVER!

There is another remarkable, if perhaps coincidental, connection between Watergate and the events surrounding the Kennedy assassination. We had previously discussed the theory that the Watergate burglary was really about a high-class call girl ring being run out of the Democrat National Committee. In the book Silent Coup, Len Colodny advances the theory that John Dean orchestrated the break-in and the cover-up because his fiancé, Mo Biner (who he later married) was the room-mate of the head of the call-girl ring. (Contrary to a previous posting on this site, I am unaware of any writer that claims that Mo herself was a prostitute.) It turns out that Mo Biner had a very interesting boyfriend before she met John Dean. His name was Bedford Wynne. Bedford Wynne was the senior partner of the Dallas law firm of Wynne, Jaffe and Tinsley, and he served as the Washington troubleshooter for the Murchison oil and construction interests in Texas. A true wheeler-dealer, in January of 1963 Wynne raised $500,000 (in 1963 dollars, remember!) for the Texas Democrat Party. Perhaps parenthetically, one member of Bedford Wynne’s firm, Morris Jaffe, was the attorney for the mysterious Baron George de Mohrenschildt. We already know that around the time of the assassination the congressional investigation of the Bobby Baker scandal was heating up. The November 22, 1963 edition of Life magazine reported that Bedford Wynne was a member of Bobby Baker’s Quorum Club, which had become notorious as a place of assignation between politicians and call girls. Ellen Rometsch had been one of the call girls associated with the Quorum Club. Rometsch’s lovers included President Kennedy and a member of the Soviet Embassy, the same kind of relationship that had caused the Profumo scandal in England. Robert Kennedy had to appeal to J. Edgar Hoover to intervene with the leaders of the Senate to stop the investigation into the "sex angle" of the Bobby Baker case. The exposure of Kennedy's link to Rometsch could have brought down his presidency, but for the intervention of J. Edgar Hoover. (Hoover's participation in this matter is one reason I doubt he had any involvement in the assassination. Had he wanted to destroy the Kennedy presidency, he had far easier ways to do so than a complicated assassination scheme. Of course, it is possible that if Kennedy had been toppled by a scandal in 1963, it could have destroyed Johnson's candicacy in 1964. And, as we know, Johnson was facing his own issues.) Wynne’s family controlled the Great Southwest Corporation in Dallas, a firm that played an important role in the events immediately after the assassination. At 6:30 on Sunday morning, November 24, Marguerite Oswald called Peter Gregory, a friend of Lee and Marina Oswald, who had been giving Russian lessons to Marguerite. She asked Gregory to help get her and Marina a place to stay away from media attention. Gregory called a secret service agent who made reservations for them at the Inn of the Six Flags, in a Dallas suburb. The Inn was one of the principal real estate assets of the Great Southwest Corporation. At the Inn, Marina met its manager, James Herbert Martin, who soon became her personal manager. It was Martin who negotiated the sale of the backyard photographs to Life magazine. (A FBI record linked Martin with a semi-underworld character, but this report was not disclosed until 1972). In February of 1964 Marina fired Martin and replaced him with William A. McKenzie, a lawyer who had been a college friend of Bedford Wynnne and, until late 1963, a member of Bedford Wynne’s firm of Wynne, Jaffe and Tinsley. In late 1963 or early 1964 McKenzie entered a law partnership with Peter White. The new office number of the McKemzie-White firm was found in the notebook of Jack Ruby’s assistant Larry Crafard. White testified that he had “bumped into” Jack Ruby on November 20, 1963. There is much more to the story of the prominence of the Great Souuthwest Corporation and the Bedford Wynne firm in the events following the assassination. It is detailed in Chapter Eighteen of Peter Dale Scott’s masterful book “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”. .

I would not necessarily characterize their stories as "confessions" but they certainly merit careful consideration. As you know, Cheramie expressed knowledge of the assassination a few days prior thereto. She was traveling from Florida to Texas with men who were told her they were going to kill the President. I do not believe she was part of the plot. The men beat her and left her in New Orleans. Perhaps Lorenz's story is indeed a confession. She stated she was traveling with the men (and with weapons, I believe) to Dallas to kill Kennedy. As I recall her story, she left Dallas before the assassination. But her story is really a confession of participation in a conspiracy. I know Gaeton Fonzi did not believe her. What do the other Forum members believe about the Lorenz story?

No, I don't "Rremember." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There!! Sorry! Boy, Tim, get some sleep! Diem was overthrown forty-one years ago. Too long away to lose sleep over (IMO, of course).

You say "JFK did nothing to rescind the State Dept cable" despite the previous citation that "He thought it bad policy to 'replace somebody we don't like with somebody we do because it would just make every other country as can be that we were running coups in and out.'" My issue with you, Mr. Gratz, is you pick and choose your history when it has just been stated. I don't get your agenda, but it ain't accuracy. You've asked for sources and had them provided, while you still fail to provide any, other than general silly challenges about which books we've read. As source means interview, date and place, or book, with page number and publishing references. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim you havre to read this stuff carefully. (I confess earlirer tonight I apparently offended you by answering "Nope" to a question with which you would agree with my nope, but I missed that my "nope" was apparently subject to some misinterpretation because you were also answering a question of mine [correctly]. My nope was intended, I thought clearly, as an answer to your question but I in no way fault you for the way you read it.) In any event, what you miss here is that the quotation you make came from ROBERT KENNEDY not President Kennedy. My previous posts here make clear that RFK several times protested the planned coup in South Vietnam but his protests went unheeded by his brother the President. Here is the exact quote from "The Crisis Years" (copied from your previous post): "[President] Kennedy later told Charles Bartlett, 'My God, my government's coming apart!' Robert Kennedy recalled that week as 'the only time, really, in three years that the government was broken in two in a disturbing way.' He later said, 'Diem was corrupt and a bad leader...but we inherited him.' He thought it bad policy to 'replace somebody we don't like with somebody we do because it would just make every other country as can be that we were running coups in and out.'" The "he"s clearly relate to RFK not JFK. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim Gratz: The "he's" do not relate to RFK, who I have plentifully proposed was working divergently from his brother on this issue, as well as Cuba, toward the end. Hubris can be a bitch. Bobby had far worse than survivor's guilt for the rest of his days. My interpretation is that "what you miss here" is that distinction, repeatedly. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The "he"s do refer to RFK. First, they follow the reference to RFK, not to JFK. So grammar rules dictate that conclusion. Second, it was RFK who objected to the coup, so the context also dictates that conclusion. But Bechcloss, fine writer that he is, could have made the paragraph a bit clearer. After seven pages, we're arguing about who a he refers to! You gotta love it! Bill Clinton would. Remember his quibble over the meaning of "is" or whatever it was?

How about Fidel Castro, Jack Kennedy, Santo Trafficante, Jr., Fulgencio Batista and Bernardo de Torres? The subject, of course, would be the best Cuban cigars.

You say "JFK did nothing to rescind the State Dept cable" despite the previous citation that "He thought it bad policy to 'replace somebody we don't like with somebody we do because it would just make every other country as can be that we were running coups in and out.'" My issue with you, Mr. Gratz, is you pick and choose your history when it has just been stated. I don't get your agenda, but it ain't accuracy. You've asked for sources and had them provided, while you still fail to provide any, other than general silly challenges about which books we've read. As source means interview, date and place, or book, with page number and publishing references. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim you havre to read this stuff carefully. (I confess earlirer tonight I apparently offended you by answering "Nope" to a question with which you would agree with my nope, but I missed that my "nope" was apparently subject to some misinterpretation because you were also answering a question of mine. My nope was intended, I thought clearly, as an answer to your question but I in no way fault you for the way you read it.) In any event, what you miss here is that the quotation you make came from ROBERT KENNEDY not President Kennedy. My previous posts here make clear that RFK several times protested the planned coup in South Vietnam but his protests went unheeded by his brother the President. Here is the exact quote from "The Crisis Years" (copied from your previous post): "[President] Kennedy later told Charles Bartlett, 'My God, my government's coming apart!' Robert Kennedy recalled that week as 'the only time, really, in three years that the government was broken in two in a disturbing way.' He later said, 'Diem was corrupt and a bad leader...but we inherited him.' He thought it bad policy to 'replace somebody we don't like with somebody we do because it would just make every other country as can be that we were running coups in and out.'" The "he"s clearly relate to RFK not JFK. If JFK thought the coup was bad policy he would have rescinded the cable and fired Lodge, Harriman and Hilsman. (Harriman was largely involved in the Hilsman memo too. AS I recall, Angleton thought Harriman could be a Soviet mole.) Robert Kennedy protested the proposed coup. Jack Kennedy did nothing to reverse the Hilsman cable of August 24, 1963 and allowed Lodge to assure the coup planners of the US government's support for their actions. The Thomas book also states that RFK was pressing the military for increased covert action in North Vietnam. RFK was correct in his judgments and instincts re Vietnam. But there's no connection between the coup in Vietnam and the Kennedy assassination! At least IMO (was that less presumptuous?).

Thanks for your help and comment (and references). I think getting all of this information in one thread may be of some help. (Thought of you today, Wim; I checked two of your countrymen into the hotel at which I was working.) There's another interesting "music" connection to the intelligence field. If I recall right, one of the members of that great old band Sting was related to a upper echelon CIA official (son in fact). I believe the band member composed music for the tv show The Equalizer. So far as I know, the CIA official's name never came up in the Kennedy investigation. Some of these connections are of no relevance but are amusing or interesting. Does anyone remember that one of (perhaps the chief) counsel for the HSCA was the grandson of the founder of the F.A.O. Schwarz toy store. Again, thanks. I'm going to read your links now. (And I agree with you that John's scenario too summarily dismisses the involvement of organized crime in the assassination.)

Tim Gratz, Segretti's lapdog: From Beschloss, The Crisis Years, pgs 652-653: "Ngo Dinh Nhu warned South Vietnamese generals in August that the Limited Test Ban might foretell wholesale American 'appeasement' of communism and that Saigon must be ready to stand alone.... On Monday morning at the White House, Kennedy was astonished when McNamara, McCone, and Taylor all loudly objected to the sending of the cable. Taylor charged that an 'anti-Diem group centered in State' had exploited the absence of principal officials to send out a message that would otherwise have never been approved.... Robert Kennedy noted that after what he called 'that famous weekend,' Harriman seemed to age ten years. Kennedy later told Charles Bartlett, 'My God, my government's coming apart!' Robert Kennedy recalled that week as 'the only time, really, in three years that the government was broken in two in a disturbing way.' He later said, 'Diem was corrupt and a bad leader...but we inherited him.' He thought it bad policy to 'replace somebody we don't like with somebody we do because it would just make every other country as can be that we were running coups in and out.' As I have stated almost ad nauseum, Nixon wouldn't have needed to give E. Howard Hunt a White House office and exacto knife to rewrite the history of that affair to blame Kennedy if the truth was sufficiently damning. Diem and Nhu were negotiating with Ho, which was to JFK's favor, given the hope that the Vietnamese leadership could be set up to ask us to leave. It was classic Kennedy cleverness. As Shanet said: "In the context of Tim Carroll's onrunning debate on Cuba and the WBOPThing, Diem is part of Charles Colson's Dirty Tricks laboratory for Nixon [as supposedly was Tim Gratz]. Howard Hunt and Charles Colson actively forged State Department 1963 memoranda and telegrams to place Diem's murder directly on Kennedy. So Diem is part of the thread. Leave out the pompous presumptuousness of your arguments and I won't have to continue to use such personal characterizations. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, I have no idea what Hunt was trying to do to forge documents re the overthrow of Diem. First, Kennedy was clearly responsible. As you said above, in late August 1963 the State Dept (probably without JFK's) consent sent out a cable endorsing a coup against Diem. The military and JFK's own brother argued vigorously against the coup, but for two months JFK did nothing to rescind the State Dept cable. In the meantime, Lodge continued to meet with the generals plotting the coup. It cannot, I submit, get much clearer than that. It is not simply a question of JFK's vicarious responsibility for the actions of the people in his State Dept. He had personal knowledge of the cable and plenty of opportunity to reverse it. Second, what was Hunt going to do with the forged document anyway? Use it to try to solidify the history of White House involvement in the coup? Use it against Ted Kennedy? That whole thing makes no logical sense. Calling me "Segretti's lapdog" really goes too far! You know that I was (apparently, anyway) the only person approached by Segretti who not only refused to get involved in his dirty tricks and espionage stuff who but also took affirmative steps to try to stop him. I was reluctant to post the Segretti story because it has no bearing to our discussions but you have now forced the issue. The Segretti story, I think, demonstrates the maturity of my political judgment even when I was a college student. Since I had previously described this to you (by private e-mail) the members of this Forum can decide whether or not your "Segretti's lapdog" remark was a false characterization. And your post above STILL fails to show any connection between the coup against Diem and the Kennedy assassination.

In your Post #40, you stated that I omitted the part of your post that "by all accounts JFK was appalled by the fate of the Nhus" by which I assume you are refering to the murder of Diem and his brother. JFK should not have been surpised that the coup turned violent but the murders are NOT the point. The point is simply that a stable government was removed in the middle of a war situaton with deleterious long-term consequences. A tragic decision. But, I would hope we would agree, the culpability, or lack thereof, of JFK in the Diem coup is of no relevance to who killed him so the topic does not merit further discussion in the assassination forum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim Gratz: Your hopes are dashed! We do not agree. Your history is lacking and the topic merits plenty of further discussion, as I interpret that at least Jim Root would agree. I again suggest that you incorporate the word "interpretation" into your lexicon, and lose the presumptive dismissiveness of those who disagree with you. I believe that it is you who cannot leave partisan history revisionism aside. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, I chose to disregard your personal remarks. For the purpose of advancing the debate, however, please explain how the coup (and murder) of Diem has any relevance to the investigation of who killed Kennedy. Unless you accept the premise that the Diem or Nhu family retailiated against JFK, I don't see any nexus here. So I'd appreciate your thoughts on the connection (if any) between the Diem coup and the Kennedy assassination. I guess one could argue that the military who argued against the Diem coup were so upset by it that they decided to kill Kennedy. But I don't want to try to "guess" why you believe there is a connection or relationship between the events.

Good point about Harrelsom and Holt but I don't think anyone puts much stock in their confessions today. Again, someone please correct me if I am wrong. We will get into each of these confessions in greater detail, but very briefly: (1) In Triangle of Death it has FBI reports that Marcello confessed while under sedation in a prison hospital. (2) Trafficante: (i) was picked up on an FBI wiretap stating after Giancana was killed, "Now there are only two of us alive who know who killed Kennedy" (or words to that effect): (ii) according to the memoirs of Trafficante's lawyer (Ragano?), Mob Lawyer, Trafficante confessed his involvement to Ragano during his last illness (but some people dispute this); (3) Morales made a statement about "getting Kennedy" in front of his attorney and another friend (as I research this I want to verify that each person confirmed the statement to a reputable source; (4) On the day of the assassination, Martino indicated foreknowledge of the assassination to his wife and son. He later discussed it with two newsmen. Martino's confession is extensively covered in Mr, Hancock's fine book, Someone Would Have Talked. We'll cover these confessions in greater detail later. I invite anyone who wants to jump in and contribute the detail on one of these confessions to do so! The confessions of Cuesta and Martino are consistent with Mr. Simkin's theory of the assassination as posted December 15, 2004.