Stuart Wexler

Gary, Who might Kenneth V. be? -Stu

I would agree with you Tim that the primary purpose of the Odio incident was a sincere effort to get Oswald into Cuba to participate in a get Castro plot. But the reference to killing Kennedy is fraught with too many implications for me to dismiss it as a sign of what was to eventually come. At the very least, short of a genuine identification of Angel and Leopoldo, and a genuine investigation of who they were connected to and what, if anything, they were doing in Nov 63, I know of no rational person who would eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy if they subscribed to the Odio story. -Stu

Vince, I respect your decision to "convert." But I remain continually surprised that people see Bugliosi's book as the death knell for the CT. I am not as down on the book as others, but I happen to think that, because Bugliosi was more even-handed than he is given credit for, that the book leaves huge loopholes for those who advocate a conspiracy. Let me, for instance, ask you one thing: do you agree with Bugliosi that the Odio incident likely happened the way Sylvia described it? If your answer is yes, and you are willing to keep an open-mind, I think I can do a fairly good job at convincing you that the Odio incident alone is reason enough to at least be agnostic about a conspiracy (and I will be doing so by staying faithful to what Bugliosi claims/says about the incident.) Regards, Stu Wexler

Hi John, I am sometimes baffled by the way Cuban names work. But one of my questions would be if he has any relation to Juan Francisco Quintana Maya. I ask because Estrada has a Quintana in his name. Also, a simple question, where was he in November of 63-- not just the 22nd... -Stu

Any chance you know the name of Harper's children and/or what Hawaiian island? Regards, Stu

Is John Harper still alive to your knowledge? Do you know where he may be or the best way to contact him? -Stuart Wexler

I bought Kurtz's book at the last Lancer conference and was taken aback by the revelations within it. It extends beyond Leake (who definitely was CIA and was part of one of the most well-documented efforts to subvert Jim Garrison) to apparent revelations from Helms, Gaudet and many, many others. If Leake's book were verified, it would probably be the most significant book ever written on the case. But the problem, as is implied in Pat's post, is with the nature of how Kurtz reveals his information. For example, Kurtz did his Leake interview in 1981. I have little problem believing that Leake may have been more tempted to reveal significant findings toward the end of his life than at the height of his career. But Kurtz wrote a book in 1993. He testified before the Assassination Records and Review Board. As a historian, I cannot conceive of why he would not reveal that Leake material with one of those two opportunities... The same applies for other revelations. For instance, he has Robert Shaw revealing, for the first time anywhere, that there was a wound collar on Connally's back wound. If true, this would strongly imply that Connally was shot with a separate round from CE399. Yet the Shaw interview was in the 80s, and although Kurtz argued against the SBT in his 1993 book Crime of the Century, he did not use that revelation in that book. On the other hand, several things speak in Kurtz's favor. For instance, he clearly does/did not like Jim Garrison. The material from Leake, Gaudet and Helms (as well as Connie Martin and Henry Morris) go about as far in confirming Garrison's case as anything ever written. It seems unlikely that Kurtz would make up material or insert himself into history in a way that would help Garrison. Furthermore, Kurtz leaned towards Castro as the chief sponsor of the assassination and yet, his revelations are almost all in the other direction. Moreover, as a chaired professor at a university, he would have to worry about his career. Finally, if his goal is to insert himself into history, he does/did very little to promote his own work. At the end of the day it is vital that we try and verify the background details for these interviews, including notes (which he promises will be placed in a special archive at his university) and context. -Stu While skepticism is certainly in order here, I am hesitant to simply toss Kurtz out as a (potentially) important witness. It is possible that he was simply well-placed/well-connected in New Orleans. Is it possible that he has inserted tall tales into otherwise serious work? Sure; stranger things have happened. I would want to see something of a contemporaneous nature corroborating his interview with Leake. Still, fabrication of evidence would be a pretty devastating charge against a professor of history! The followup question that comes to mind is: If Leake did tell Kurtz this stuff, what do we know about Leake's reliability. That he was CIA in New Orleans (and I believe that we have agency documentation to that effect, though I don't have it in front of me) would not, of course, rule out the possibility that he had an agenda that led him to spread mis/dis-information. Part of the problem we have in trying to evaluate witnesses from New Orleans (both pro and anti-Garrison) is that they ALL seem to have agendas! Let's see what we get from Kurtz through Lancer this year. Or, perhaps he would like to comment on these issues, if he follows our discussions!

What is interesting about these documents is that none of them day from 5/3/1963 to 11/21/1963. Mind you, NARA is incomplete and there are a ton of blank headers. But this would appear to represent a huge black hole. -Stu

Actually, if anyone could pry Schiller's JFK assassination investigatory materials from him, it would probably be quite revealing. For all his anti-conspiracism, his behind-the-scenes work on the Garrison case, from what little has been revealed, apparently supported aspects of Garrison's case. He apparently did not share that information with Garrison but Schiller's FBI reports seem to substantiate, among other things, that Shaw was Bertrand. Someone want to try and attempt to run him down? -Stu

Can anyone email me privately at swexler2@hotmail.com ... with a way to contact Gordon Winslow by phone. I have the email, but the contact has been intermittent that way. -Stu

Pat, Do you by chance have three things: (1) Quotes to the effect that Zangara was off his rocker by those who knew him? (2) A quote that sums up the fact that Gus Russo believes he was a mob hit man? (3) The evidence of any ties, however loose, Zangara has to the mob? I ask because it would be fascinating to confront someone like Gus with the double standards applied to Ruby and Oswald. It is similar to what you expressed but it worse: these guys love to claim that no one would ever make use of someone as crazy as Oswald. Russo is one of the people who makes that claim. Well, it stands to reason that unless Zangara had much more obvious mob connections than Ruby (#3) that Russo believes a nutty guy was used to go after a political official in a mob-inspired event. -Stu I've read a lot about the Cermak killing, and I'm still undecided. Those who came in contact with Zangara swear he was completely off his rocker. I also found a book published right before the killing that insists that Cermak was himself completely corrupt, and in bed with gangsters. If so, his death might make more sense as the rub-out of a competitor than as the rub-out of an upright politician out to clean up the town. The strangest aspect of the Zangara as mob assassin scenario is that Gus Russo, Tim's hero, subscribes to it. Even better, he claims that Dave Yaras--JACK RUBY'S CHILDHOOD FRIEND--was the brains behind it. Seeing as he believes this, is it possible he honestly believes Ruby's involvement in the Kennedy assassination, where another "lone-nut" just went haywire and killed a prominent politician, was a coincidence? I think not. I think Russo changed the premise of his book at the last second, either on a whim, or under pressure from his publisher, and now he's stuck with it.

Hi David, I'm glad you are fighting the good fight. I wanted to respond to one section of your post, the section on what I have come to call the "Chris Mathews Question." This is the idea that Oswald got his job before the motorcade route was announced and that, therefor, if one discounts a motorcade route change, a conspiracy would have had to have been extremely lucky. There are several possible answers to this question: (1) Is to challenge the question as a historical fallacy. The way a historical event turns out is not necessarily the way it HAD to turn out... To wit, Oswald, if part of a conspiracy, or manipulated by a conspiracy, may have been WHEREVER the motorcade route happened to pass. If the motorcade route took another maneuver, Oswald may have taken off work and found his way into the Trade Mart. Ultimately, this means that once Dallas is announced as a potential shooting site, there are only a few possible key places where Oswald may have decided to work. He did, indeed, apparently ignore other opportunities and may have tried to get work at places that may have been on alternate routes. (2) Is to say that the conspiracy simply took advantage of Oswald's proximity to the potential motorcade route when the situation presented itself. In this situation, more than one possible patsy, or co-conspirator, etc., are available to the conspiracy and the conspirators simply made use of those people who were most available. This would require either a multiple patsy scenario a la Joan Mellen OR that the conspiracy was opportunistic in who it chose to involve in its case. In the latter scenario, Oswald would be more culpable and witting than many attest to, but it is something I do not dismiss. (3) Perhaps most importantly: the conspiracy simply got lucky, although not as lucky as people think. Two of the most notable assassination CONSPIRACIES in world history, those of Lincoln and of Archduke Ferdinand, were highly fortuitous outcomes. In the case of the former, Lincoln's bodyguard left his post to go drinking before Booth came to attack, and Booth was also very lucky in escaping the immediate area (from what I recall, Booth managed to get to choose the only escape avenue that still hadn't been cordoned off at the time.) Again, the Lincoln assassination CONSPIRACY succeeded based on luck. In the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, several conspirators (including Princip) tried to kill the Archduke in almost immediate succession and all FAILED. Most were caught in the escape that followed and tortured in an effort to find out who was involved. Princip managed to escape, and by sheer happenstance, ran into the Archduke's carriage after the Archduke had taken a circuitous (and alternate) route to his original location. Considering that the entire plot was part of an even larger conspiratorial plan on the part of the Black Hand, this was a case of an even larger conspiracy getting very lucky. But in a way we overrate the luck... in the case of both conspiracies, there was a dogged determination to strike at their targets in one way, shape or form. There were failed kidnapping plans in the case of Lincoln, for instance. Taken in isolation, the ultimate outcomes seem lucky, but taken in the context of a set/domain of potential attacks, they were bound to get lucky sometime. An analogy is in order: if I played one hand of poker in my life, the fact that I got a royal flush would seem extremely lucky. On the other hand, if you knew I got a royal flush but that I was an avid poker player, the fact that, at one point, I got lucky, is not so unusual or odd. Most collective human endeavors are a combination of poor planning that ultimately succeeds and good planning that ultimately fails. I don't see why the Kennedy assassination would be exempt. -Stu

I think we have to be careful when evaluating Veciana's honesty. I've always felt that he was telling a half-truth. I think enough has been established to verify the basic claims Veciana makes; that said, the idea that Phillips would just accidentally have Oswald and Veciana meet up is absurd to me. This would be tradecraft at its absolute worst. The more likely scenario is that Oswald and Veciana were MEANT to meet each other and that this was the part that Veciana left out. I also think it's likely (and to some extent was confirmed by Waldron) that the subject of such a conversation and the basis for the meeting was a Castro assassination attempt. Few have really looked at the Veciana-Oswald-Odio connection. Recall that Odio's father was in prison for harboring a Castro assassin that Veciana (AND BISHOP) supported. My bet is that Veciana was the one who put Oswald and co. up to seeing Odio-- the basic idea being the hope that Sylvia would assist Oswald in getting into the very Cuban underground that her father had once assisted. That does not mean that the two men who were with Oswald hadn't already started giving some thought to the possibility that the plot could be turned on JFK. If one studies the context, the CIA had largely removed itself from the "get Castro" game by the time Veciana made his revelations about Bishop without prompting. My bet is that Veciana hoped that by floating *part* of the Bishop-Oswald story, and leaving out the really juicy parts that also implicated Veciana, he could blackmail Bishop and the CIA back into a more overtly anti-Castro position. Once Veciana met Philips (and I believe Phillips was Bishop) and learned that he was retired, he abandoned that approach for fear that it would jeopardize his life unnecessarily. Lots of speculation above, I admit. But it explains quite a bit. -Stu

James et al. My last two presentations at Lancer, with Jim Olivier, have been on the McCurley brothers. We have talked with Jim M. Interestingly, James does bear a striking resemblance to the person to one of the leafleteers... but Charles Steele implied that leafleteer was Charles Steele. We are waiting for an opportunity to run down an independent picture of Steele. James: do you by any chance have one? -Stu

Hi Peter, Having seen those photos you posted, a bunch of questions are running through my mind. Let me throw some out at you? (1) When does your source say these pictures were taken? Are they circa 12:30? Before? After? The 22nd or 23rd or both? Do the panoramic views show motorcycle cops, etc.? This has enormous implications. (2) How many additional photos does this guy have or do you believe he has? (3) Why did this guy keep these photos to himself for so long? (4) Was this guy a military intel guy who just happened to be in the plaza or is he a mil. intel guy who was told to be in the plaza? (5) If the second option, why did he bring a camera? Were there others who were told to bring a camera? If so, when were they told and under what circumstances? (6) Doe he know of other people to contact in mil. intel who have more photos? (7) What are the conditions of the other photos that he has? (They look very good to me.) (8) Does this guy have information re: the assassination that goes beyond the photos he took? I'm most interested in question #1. If he has photos, for instance, showing the position of motorcycle cops, that can help resolve the acoustics issues. I'd love to know if he has photos that possibly show a fake SS agent in the background w/ Smith. Then there are the numerous "identifications" that can possibly be corroborated. I'm fascinated by what you have posted. Thanks, -Stu

John, Could you please elaborate on this? This would be very interesting indeed. I've always wondered if Oswald had joined at one leg of this tour or had explored it as a possible alternative method of getting to Cuba. I came across a document at NARA once that had a Tennessee preacher associated with the march reporting the rumor, again, that Oswald was on this tour. -Stu

Even by American standards? Could you please explain that.

One of the interesting facets of the various MC stories is the persistence of some unusual common threads between them. The most obvious example of this is the "red-haired negro" seen both in the Alvarado story and the Garro de Paz story. Another interesting parallel can be found between the Alvarado story and the Odio story... I believe both have Oswald basically accusing his Cuban compatriots of not being "man enough to do it"; "it" being the assassination. If I recall correctly, there is some Cuban the CIA knew of who was connected to G2 black ops and who had red-hair or a red beard of some sort. I actually do not dismiss the possibilty that these meetings happened in "some" capacity and were "enhanced" post-assassination. I now strongly believe that Oswald was recruited into a Castro assassination plot. Such a plot would have only been known to someone like David Phillips and maybe Anne Goodpasture, because both actually had connections to departments in the CIA that were behind those Castro plots (Phillips was the SAS [whose fingerprints are all over Oswald from August to September] man in Mexico City.) I think Phillips pseudo-fictional account of this plot is not that far off the mark. Now if one imagines that, they can see that there really isn't that much of a contradiction between the CIA's obvious efforts to cover-up surveillance that we would EXPECT them to have while at the same time planting Castro-did-it stories... A contingent wanted to parlay the Mexico City stories into the "plot" against Castro that never happened while others who were intimate with the plot and with the surveillance at the same time (Phillips, possibly Goodpasture) knew about the skeleton in the closet if those plots were exposed. -Stu Robert, You are too kind. I agree that the Mexico City affairs are maddening. As to the issue of why produce a second "witness" with a story akin to the first, it's a good question without a great answer. But it's interesting to note that Gutierrez actually held up better to scrutiny than did Alvarado. This is obscured by the Warren Commission's focus on Alvarado ("D") and not Gutierrez, but the Coleman-Slawson "conspiracy report" released in the 1990s worries more about Gutierrez. Ultimately he was ignored based on an inability to pick Oswald out of some photos and the fact that CIA photo surveillance didn't pick him up. Of course, the same photo surveillance didn't pick up Oswald on the same dates, something Larry Hancock kindly pointed out to me. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...es/contents.htm If the Mexico City stories were not "lone nut" walkons, and I don't think they were, they sure kept coming too. A Cuban DGI defector code-named AMMUG (Vladimir Rodriguez Lahera) apparently told his CIA handlers stories in April of 1964. Then SOLO told the FBI of Castro saying Oswald threatened to kill Kennedy in the Cuban Embassy. Elena Garro De Paz, possibly suppressed in 1963, surfaced with her story in late 1964. Then there was the Luisa Calderon "foreknowledge" idiocy, kept in a hip pocket until needed in the 1970s. Maybe the point of the stories wasn't to accomplish anything other than a constant reminder of what the alternative to the lone nut conclusion would be. Maybe the next walk-on wouldn't be discreditable. Rex

What's in East Windsor, NJ? ... The Americana Diner Basil's Grille Scotto's Pizzeria Domenico's Italian Restaurant The Multiplex Cinemas at Town Center Plaza Many basketball courts The Perry L. Drew School And me... for 26 of my 30 years !!! -Stu P.S. No mobsters ... that I know of.

Duke, Many of us are very interested in the possibility of a Texas Court of Inquiry. Could you ask your friend: How one might go about getting a TC of I? Who do you have to persuade and how do you go about getting access? I've heard that a TC of I would be less controversial because there is no real risk of prosecution. Is that true? And if so, is there at least a penalty of perjury that would face witnesses? Would a Texas Court of Inquiry have the ability to subpoena evidence, including material in federal hands? How realistic does your friend think this avenue of pursuit is? Thanks, Stu Interestingly, long-time Dallas DA Bill Hill has decided not to seek (a shoo-in) re-election, and several candidates are beginning to emerge for next year's election, including one or two judges. More will undoubtedly file in coming months. I have a friend who is a former Dallas prosecutor, and he and I will be having lunch in the course of the next couple of weeks. Any questions, comments or suggestions that would be beneficial to pursuing this avenue of thought?

John, I think we have to be very careful in characterising what Wheaton said in that interview. A careful review of the interview, and I think William and Mark would agree with me, leaves *open* the question of whether or not Quintero was directly involved or whether or not he and Jenkins simply *knew* those people who were. Indeed, my suspicion is that if either or both men had direct involvement, that Wheaton wouldn't be alive: it wouldn't be a simple 2-3 day choice over whether or not they wanted to tell what they knew to the Senate. My hope is that Quintero or others might one day offer what they know about the issue; if they he not have direct involvement, accusing him of such would likely hinder our efforts in that regard. -Stu

Pat, The plan involves stunning the Soviets from action (by framing someone with obvious Soviet ties... someone like Oswald ... for the murder of Castro) and the *Cubans* insisting on U.S. intervention. If someone like Che Guevera openly ASKED for U.S. intervention following a coup, that would have been an entirely different situation than if the U.S. invaded on its own accord. -Stu

As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time reading Lamar's book and discussing the book with others, such as Larry Hancock, I have far more problems with this review than I do with Lamar's book. David seems to make three points: 1) That the coup was one of many far-out anti-Castro plans that was considered but never approved; if it had, someone like Robert McNamara would have known. The coup was just a contingency plan. 2) That Trafficante and Marcello would never approved of a JFK plot if JFK's survival would, in fact, opened up Cuba to them. 3) The book is too long. I tend to agree with point #3, but points #1 and #2 raise serious questions about the rigor of the review. Let's take point #1. Lamar himself acknowledged that C-Day was *portrayed* as a contingency plan. It was Sec. of State Dean Rusk who first pointed this out to Lamar. When asked why he wasn't concerned with the C-Day revelation post-assassination, Rusk expressed to Lamar that Rusk recognized JFK's need for secrecy but that, more importantly, Rusk FELT THAT HE HAD INPUT INTO THE *REAL* PLAN THROUGH HIS COMMENTARY ON THE SO-CALLED CONTINGENCY PLAN. It was Rusk who argued that the ruse of a contingency plan was used to gather input from key administration officials WITHOUT the direct knowledge of said officials (among whom we can count Rusk.) I find no reason to think that McNamara would have been any more aware of the ruse pre-assassination than Rusk; nor do I find it surprising that McNamara may simply have not have been privy to the same post-assassination information that Rusk received. Talbot completely ignores this concept, and instead casts doubt on Rusk himself. But this is too simple-- we have pre-assassination confirmation of an ACTUAL plan through Harry Williams. Talbot dismisses Williams by claiming that he was wishfully thinking. Taken separately, the claims by Talbot might pass muster. But these are independent witnesses who can attest to the plan's existence from both pre- and post- assassination experience. It's the independent corroboration that amplifies each of the figures' credibility. For Talbot to be right, Rusk would have to have been fooled by LBJ administration officials about a C-DAY plot that Williams deliriously believed was an out-and-out plot from his good friend Bobby. But there's more corroboration... this supposed (if we believe Talbot) contingency plan somehow had an exact execution date-- December 1st, 1963. Even those who haven't read the book could have seen the raw documentation at Lamar's presentation at Lancer. No contingency plan should have an execution date... by their very nature, contingency plans are made in preparation for the UNEXPECTED!!!! I would ask Talbot if he is aware of this document, and if so, how he explains it? I would also like to know why he chose to ignore Lamar's explanation for why C-Day was presented as a contingency plan? I would also like to know if he has actually seen any of the AMWORLD documents from NARA? I have. Larry Hancock has. They are very hard to understand in the context of a contingency plan, especially since AMWORLD persisted BEYOND Kennedy's own administration. AMWORLD is the CIA's codename for C-DAY. As for point #2, this is a much easier criticism to dispel. Talbot is wrong to assume that the organized crime figures who had infiltrated C-DAY would have been content with a post-coup, *KENNEDY* backed Cuban regime. RFK was undoubtedly the second most powerful man in the country; one of the few who JFK implicityly trusted. He was also the Attorney General who had led by far the most active anti-mafia campaign in the history of America. Could a mobster safely assume that JFK's most trusted advisor would have stood idly by while mafia figures inserted themselves into post-coup Cuban casino industry? I think not. It would have been safe to assume that Bobby would have done anything in his power to keep the mafia out of Cuba. Indeed, it stands to reason that C-DAY would have accelerated and excacerbated any anti-Kennedy mafia prerogatives. Whatever revenge motives they already entertained, a Trafficante or a Marcello would have known that the best chance for their financial success would have been a successful C-DAY sans the Kennedy's. So kill JFK. Blame Castro. Catalyze C-DAY. Literally kill two birds with one stone. You would now have a free Cuba with no obstacles (ie Bobby) to your freedom of movement. It's a pretty simple concept to undertsand, from my vantage point. Do I believe that Lamar may have the wrong driving force behind the actual JFK plot? I think it's possible that the catalyst for the plot could have been CIA or mafia, although I believe that either way, the latter was definitely a factor in the crime. But as far as nailing down the the context for the plot, its motivations, its dynamics, etc., I believe Lamar has come closer than any previous author. I'm convinced, having read 100s of books and articles, that any future attempt to explain the assassination must be in the parameters the C-DAY invasion plan and its implications. I hope Talbot would be willing to reconsider some of what he wrote. -Stu

Where/how can one find the names of Oswald's drill instructors? -Stu ----------------------------- Don: During May 1975, While in D.C. to testify in executive session before the "Church Committee", I gave Bud Fensterwald the name of the publishing company which did the MCRD San Diego "Marine Corps Recruit Platoon Graduation Books" -- and the same firm that did my Platoon Book [ # 151 - 1954] later did LHO's Platoon Book [1956]. Bud bought several copies, and later sent one to me. Most important was the 50+ fellow recruit names with pictures -- which is in the same format as high school year books. The first task was to see how many of LHO's fellow recruits were interviewed by the WC. We couldn't find even one of the "real" recruits having been interviewed. Very strange indeed. LHO's Drill Instructors was also an interesting matter. Semper Fi [Yesterday - November 10th, was the Marine Corps 230th Birthday] GPH ___________________________

John, I am interested in one component of your post in particular (and agree that a photo of Angel Kennedy circa 1963 would be helpful in evaluating competing claims here): You said that many in Artime's clique dispute Murgado's relationship with RFK. Could you please elaborate on that. Thanks, Stu As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. I have not called anyone a xxxx. However, I have had email communication with all those concerned and so far I find Joan Mellen’s account more convincing. As I also said earlier, I also believe the account given by Silvia Odio of the incident. You obviously think she is lying. It is of course impossible to prove anything without a recording of the 1963 or 2005 meetings. Do you have any evidence of your father’s meetings with Robert Kennedy? Can you provide any back-up witnesses to these meetings? Are you aware that several people who were close to Manual Artime dispute your father’s story about his relationship with Kennedy? As you know, Silvia Odio gave a fairly detailed description of Leopoldo and Angelo. From pictures taken in 1963, we can see that Bernardo De Torres definitely looks like Leopoldo. Could you provide a photograph of your father taken at this time?