Stuart Wexler
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Stuart Wexler
-
-
In my opinion the Odio incident has nothing to do with the plot to kill JFK. Fonzi and others who say it is proof of the plot are, to put it simply, wrong.
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
-
Armando Lopez Estrada's son has contacted me. Apparently, his father is not too happy with my web page on him. He says he is willing to talk about these matters. Has anyone got any questions for him?
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
15 Sept. 2007Stuart, last year I was visiting with an old friend who had been partnered with IW during the Cuban adventure. He said that IW was bankrupt and living with one of his children in Hawaii. Back in the Danny Sheehan days IW owned a bait and tackle shop located on Hwy. 50 in Northern Virginia. He got involved with a Pawn Broker from Maryland and in a couple of years he had lost his share of the business. And shortly after that his wife and he moved to Hawaii to be near his adult children. If you tracked him down I doubt that he would talk to you. He was not much of a talker even with his friends, and all of his friends where in the agency. I met him on a number of times but could not say I knew him. Much of what I know of him was from people that worked with him. He was a legendary shot with a pistol but barely accurate with a rifle. In the technical service he was a great bomb maker, a real natural with explosives. The kind of natural skills from a sort of back woods boy from Louisiana. I told he was the bag man when we purchased the new Soviet man portable ground to air missile in the middle of the war from a North Vietnamese General. And during the fall of Saigon he taped a Mac 10 submachine gun to his hand so he would not drop it if he was shot as he tried to rescue his Vietnamese people so they could be evacuated. IW was the kind of guy you wanted with you when you entered a dark alley or where going to war.
-
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
Yeah, Helms would never perjure himself. I hope everyone realizes we're joking.But Leake????
When people tell people what they WANT to hear, they tend to lose all reason. There's simply no reason to believe Kurtz and/or Leake. As a history professor Kurtz knows damn well that saying someone told him something 25 years ago means nothing. Mellen should also know better.
1. Do we even know for sure Leake was CIA? Outside of Kurtz's words, that is? I suspect not.
2. Supposing Leake was CIA, is there any evidence Kurtz ever met him or talked to him? That is, outside Kurtz's say-so, 25 years on? I suspect not.
3. If Leake had in fact told Kurtz this important info, why did he wait so long to write about it?
The whole thing smells, in my opinion. Kurtz's book is a profound disappointment, in many ways. He referees the battle between LN's and CTs with some insight, but then periodically throws in his own 2 cents, most always based on some personal contact with someone somewhere. But he offers no proof these contacts actually happened.
If Bugliosi wrote
"Oh yeah, I spoke to Smokey Stover before he died, and he admitted that the entrance wound was in the cowlick, as purported by the HSCA. Stover said that Humes, Boswell, and Finck had conspired to lie about the entrance wound location, because they thought it would make the Kennedy family feel better to think the head shot was on target, as opposed to almost missing. Later, when asked to create drawings for the Warren Commission, they BEGGED me not to make them look at those horrific autopsy photos, because it would only remind them of the horror, and their lies. I reluctantly agreed, and BEGGED Earl Warren not to make them look at those horrible photos. Arlen Specter then created some fake memos to protect the doctors' reputations, and make it look like they'd actually wanted to look at the photos and testify accurately."
or something equally out there we'd all call him a xxxx. I'd like to believe Leake's/Kurtz's story. But am unable to do so.
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
There are 116 Documents in the archives regarding SA Wallace Heitman1 104-10267-10376 I page
2 104-10002-10053 10 pages Quintaya, Maya
3 179-10002-10161 10 pages Baile, Raul Castro,
4 179-10002-10162 9 pages Maya, Juan Francisco Quintana
5 104-10418-10386 2 pages
6 104-10001-10099 4 pages
7 124-10193-10395 2 pages
8 124-10193-10397 1 page
9 124-10193-10398 2 pages released with deletions
10 124-10325-10014 4 pages DRE, Enrique Varona
11 124-10326-10121
12 124-10326-10126
13 124-90108-10028 2 pages Subject ACLU
14 124-90129-10118 4 pages Subject Minutemen
15 124-10147-10306 11 pages Subject Negatives Photgraphs & Films
16 124-10147-10307 1 page
17 124-10027-10345 3 pages LHO trip to Mexico
18 124-10115-10001 2 pages
19 124-10115-10002 1 page
20 124-10115-10003 1 page
21 124-10115-10004 1 page MNO Interview
22 124-10089-10091 1 page Testimony of Martin, James Herbert
23 124-10089-10091 240 pages
24 124-10135-10000 83 pages
25 124-90108-10028 83 pages
26 124-10182-10264 233 pages - CC, REQUEST, FPCC, JURE, DRE, ALPHA 66, 30TH OF NOVEMBER
27 124-10147-10220 83 pages
28 124-10216-10372 10 pages
29 124-10216-10378
30 124-10216-10383
31 124-10220-10426 13 pages JURE, DISTRIBUTE, NEWSPAPER, SELL, BOND, ACA, MR, RODRIGUEZ,
32 124-10225-10149 7 pages
33 124-10225-10199
34 124-10280-10045 7 pages CC, SNFE, INTV, ACA, FINANCES, PROPAGANDA, MEMBERS, EMP, RES, MEET
35 124-10280-10047 13 Pages CC, SNFE, MEETINGS, FINANCES, MEMBERS, RES, CUBAN REFUGEE GROUP,
36 124-10288-10189 26 pages CC, AULET, ANTONIO ARTURO HILARIO NAVARRO, RES, EMPLOYMENT,
37 124-10288-10190 10 pages CC, MAYA, JUAN FRANCISCO QUINTANA, BKG, RES, EMPLOYMENT, REL,
38 124-10288-10191 12 pages CC, BAILE, RAUL CASTRO, BKG, PILOT, ILLEGAL ALIEN,
39 124-10288-10192 12 pages DEPORTED, IMMIGRANT STATUS, ACA, CC, BAILE, RAUL CASTRO, BKG,
40 124-10294-10354 4 pages CC, ORCARBERRO, MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, RES, EMPLOYMENT, BKG, CUBAN
41 124-10175-10153
42 124-10229-10013
43 124-10002-10287
44 124-10143-10055
45 124-10151-10043
46 124-10151-10045 4 pages interview w/Marina Oswald
47 124-10157-10259
48 124-10157-10266
49 124-10147-10397
50 124-10001-10104
51 124-10001-10374
52 124-10003-10269 1 page LHO, TELCAL, ADVICE, REL, MNO
53 124-10005-10156 2 pages LHO, 11/22-24/63, DLPD COMPLAINT AND WARRANT
54 124-10005-10184
55 124-10006-10094
56 124-10027-10353
57 124-10035-10442
58 124-10037-10188 1 page ltrs from CIT, ASSISTANCE, MONEY
59 124-10079-10005 2 pages conspiracy theories H.L. Hunt
60 124-10079-10095
61 124-10079-10189 Irish Republican Plot
62 124-10081-10317 1 page released with deletions
63 124-10119-10065
64 124-10144-10397 2 pages EVID, WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, CARTRIDGE, TSBD
65 124-10156-10194 1 page The Student Revolutionary Council
66 124-10156-10198 1 page MOVIMIENTO REVOLUCIONARIO 30TH DE NOVIEMBRE
67 124-10156-10200 2 pages re “Club Cuba Libre, SNFE, JURE, CUBAN SITUATION IN
68 124-10156-10201
69 124-10156-10343
70 124-10156-10344
71 124-10156-10345
72 124-10159-10394
73 124-10160-10145 2 pages JFK Motorcade Wit
74 124-10162-10385
75 124-10163-10060
76 124-10163-10061
77 124-10166-10000
78 124-10166-10002
79 124-10167-10038
80 124-10169-10384
81 124-10169-10442 1 page Evid camera
82 124-10170-10119 evid, note, LHO, General Walker
83 124-10170-10236 MNO German press, contacts
84 124-10170-10238
85 124-10171-10347 RHP, LHO, PERSONAL PROPERTY
86 124-10171-10381
87 124-10171-10399 4 pages
88 124-10176-10296
89 124-10232-10143
90 124-10233-10172
91 124-10233-10275 1 page LHO Post RP Assoc w/JR
92 124-10241-10026 2 pages
93 124-10147-10206 1 page
94 124-10147-10207 1 page
95 124-10147-10210 1 page
96 124-10147-10225
97 124-10147-10231
98 124-10147-10232
99 124-10147-10234
100 124-10147-10235
101 124-10147-10236
102 124-10288-10192 9 pages
103 124-10294-10354 5 pages INTERPEN, WELCH, WALLACE HENSLEY, INTV, BKG, EMP, RES, MIL, GPH,
104 124-10175-10153 1 page
105 124-10229-10013 2 pages
106 124-10229-10013 2 pages
107 124-10002-10287 1 page
108 124-10143-10055 2 pages
109 124-10151-10045 4 pages Marina Oswald relationship w JM
110 124-10157-10259 1 page
111 124-10157-10266 1 page
112 124-10147-10397 1 page
113 124-10001-10104 1 page
114 124-10273-10148 1 page CC, INTV, FAIN, JOHN W., HEITMAN, WALLACE
115 124-10147-10305
116 180-10022-10499 1 page JFK; HEITMAN, W. R.; SCHOOLBOOK, DEPO; OSWALD, LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Particular attention should be paid to document RIF's where there are subject lines, the term "released with deletions" and RIF's with more than 1 page
-
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
Wilson Hudson (Brit under journalistic cover Chile) did give FBI lead and FBI did follow it up to extent that they knew to back off IMHO. Like others (perhaps justifyably) Wilson soundly discredited and the story of Ruby Santo Cuba etc went away like it was supposed to.
Another Mob did it book? Yawn and stamp it "JFK."
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
-
Alpha 66's Antonio Veciana tells of seeing Oswald with his CIA case
officer "Maurice Bishop".
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
Awhile back there was an article written titled The Investigation that Never Was - By Holland McCombsSee
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...ue/holland.html
......referencing the "Black Lamp," a "gay hangout" [to use a kinder gentler euphemism] in Baton Rouge, this establishment ostensibly had a bartender by the name of Frankie Lynn Hydell, there is also the matter of the McCurley Brothers, who are said to have been "involved" with Oswald's handing out Fair Play for Cuba material. While I only recently became aware of the story, and do not have an opinion as to its validity or lack thereof, to say it is "interesting" is something of an understatement in my opinion.
All I can add one way or another, is that it is indeed a fact that Life Magazine was investigating the Kennedy Assassination before Garrison indicted Shaw, and there was something of a information conduit between the two [Garrison and Life Magazine] until Shaw was indicted, it is my understanding that, at that point Life Magazine abruptly terminated said conduit and from that point on, didn't care much for Garrison after that, but the latter information is only what I was told by a fellow researcher.....
I believe there was someone at the last November in Dallas, conference in Dallas, who was slated to give a presentation on this "hangout," and I would imagine......more details.
Perhaps someone could jump in and enlighten us all.......
-
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
-
What is of interest is one of the individuals involved in this peace march was photographed in front of the TSBD approximately 15 minutes after the assassination.
johnw
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
-
Bush is quite clearly an imbecile even by American standards.
However he just this once shows a smidgeon of wisdom in refusing to get involved involved in a debate with that revolting little racist Dr. Ahmaninejad
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
This is why the MC episode remains so fascinating, and frustrating. The Agency certainly stonewalled Lopez, and has resisted all attempts to divine what actually transpired.
It's possible Alvarado was a genuine witness to a genuine event, but mistook someone else for "Oswald."
It's possible Alvarado's tale was true, but he mistook the date on which it occurred, irrespective of whether it was "Oswald" or someone else who received the payoff from the "red haired Negro."
More likely, to my mind at least, is one of the two following conjectures:
Alvarado witnessed a genuine event, which had been staged for the purpose of him seeing it.
Alvarado witnessed nothing, but simply reiterated for US consumption what he had been instructed to relay.
If the Alvarado tale was predesigned to crumble under scrutiny, one questions why it was thought prudent or necessary to rehabilitate the tale by producing another witness to the same event, who provided a more tenable date on which it purportedly transpired. Just how many times did a tall "red haired Negro" hand out money to Yanquis inside the Cuban consulate?
It seems to me quite foolhardy to produce a second witness to so questionable an event, once the first such witness had already been discredited. Perhaps it was a measure of the urgency felt by someone within the Agency that the tale be sold to the highest powers in Washington, despite knowing it to be false.
My own feeling is that the issue was invented out of whole cloth, and when the first salesman failed to sell it, a second salesman was recruited. That they both lied is self-evident, based upon the internal contradictions and inconsistencies contained in their stories. Why they lied, and for whom, is the far more germane issue, I think.
As you may know, Peter Dale Scott is among the few I hold in highest regard within the so-called research community. You have done us all a great service by giving his work a wider audience, and by continuing his work with your own essays. Thank you for both.
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
THE JFK ASSASSINATION – BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION. – By William Kelly – bkjfk3@yahoo.com
It is a myth that the assassination of President Kennedy will always remain an enduring mystery. Though justice may never be served, the murder of John F. Kenney is not an unsolvable crime, but rather a homicide that can be solved to a moral and legal certainty.
...
The reason for the Congressional law that established the “50 year rule” on the classification of all Congressional documents is that is the amount of time it is estimated for the people mentioned in the documents to be dead. Since it is not yet 50 years after the assassination of President Kennedy, some of those suspects are therefore still alive.
It is simply not true that the murder of JFK will forever remain a mystery, and we’ll never know the truth, since thanks to the JFK Act, we have most of the evidence, the documentary records and witness testimony in the public domain.
...
How can ordinary citizens force the hand of an entrenched judicial system? An examination of how the assassination of Medgar Evers and the other civil rights murders of the 1960s were resolved presents a legal road map to follow, and one of the first stops on the way to justice is the grand jury.
...
“As a general policy,” former Justice Department official Ben Civiletti testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in its last session, “the Department of Justice seldom turns down at least exploring, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request,…(and)…to some extent it becomes a matter of public will…but also a matter of judgment that falls within the duties of any particular department or agency of government…as to how far questions…can be explored to a useful or fruitful purpose.”
...
Unsolved cold cases, especially homicides, are reviewed every few years, sometimes by a new detective who looks over old evidence to see if there is anything that has been overlooked, or if there is any previously unknown evidence or witnesses, or recently developed scientific tools that could be used to help solve the crime. There is no statute of limitations on murder, under the rules of criminal procedure homicide is given precedence over all other crimes, and once accumulated, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury
Independent researchers, journalists and ordinary citizens can identify evidence, uncover conspiracies and witness crimes, but if there is no case, no grand jury, no place to present the evidence, then there is no justice. As Mr. Civiletti explained to the HSCA, the DOJ “seldom turns down exploring at least, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request…”
Towards the development of a legal case, the grand jury Petition-Request is a citizen’s petition to a District Attorney responsible for prosecuting offenders to request a grand jury be convened to review the facts of a case and determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.
...
If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, they vote a “True Bill” and indict someone for a crime.
The DA can simply ignore such a citizen’s petition and request and not present the evidence to a grand jury, or even if a grand jury votes to indict, it is still up to the DA to issue the indictment and proceed to take the matter to court.
...
The previous reluctance of district attorneys to prosecute political assassinations, especially decades old crimes, is being overcome by new, young and diversified blood in official positions of authority. Although those District Attorneys at the top of their profession know that investigating political assassinations is detrimental to furthering their careers, and witnessed what happened to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, there is a younger generation of assistant prosecutors who look upon solving such major crimes as an achievement that will advance their future careers.
Former HSCA attorney, Dean Browning, Esq., who specializes in RICO litigation, said that such indictments are possible and that, “I am especially interested in developing an approach to seek indictments of those who conspired to murder the President.”
“I believe that a prosecution is feasible,” says Browning, “especially when invoking the Pinkerton Doctrine,” which holds that “a person associated with a conspiracy culpable for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme.” Agency theory holds that “all conspirators act as the agent or represent the other conspirators involved in the criminal scheme, and are liable for all criminal acts committed by the other conspirators.”
...
It will only take one such JFK grand jury, and there are dozens of potential jurisdictions. There are Federal, State and County grand juries, each with many assistant district attorneys who work under the District Attorney, providing dozens of individuals in which to present the Petition Request.
Establishing jurisdiction in any particular district will not be difficult. Although some will argue that it was not a federal crime to kill the president in 1963, it was a federal crime to conspire to kill a federal employee, whether it is a postman or a president.
Besides the local Dallas district, there are Texas State grand juries, as well as the North Texas Federal District court, which is located in Dallas. The reluctance of any Dallas or Texas official to investigate the assassination will probably make other jurisdictions more inviting, New Orleans in particular, where a new District Attorney recently took over from former DA Harry Connick.
...
It is not too late now, but soon, this case will slip slowly from an unsolved homicide to an historical mystery, unless we act now, and present the best evidence in a Petition-Request to convene a special JFK Grand Jury, and let the legal action take its course, wherever it may go.
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
In an interview with William Law and Mark Sobel in 2005, Gene Wheaton claimed that Raphael Quintero and Carl Jenkins were both involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.I have created a web page on Quintero. I would be grateful if members post any information they have on him.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKquintero.htm
In my opinion Quintero makes a good candidate. He was a member of the Recovery of the Revolution (MRR Party). Its two leading members, Manuel Artime and Tony Varona, have both been closely identified with the assassination of JFK.
In 1976 Quintero was recruited by CIA agent, Edwin Wilson, to assassinating Libyan dissident in Egypt. This suggests that Quintero had previous experience of killing people for political reasons. Apparently, he was suggested for the job by Tom Clines, who had worked under Ted Shackley at the JM/WAVE station in Florida. It is believed that in the early 1960s Quintero carried out assignments for David Morales while he was chief operating officer at JM/WAVE.
-
While I have not yet read Lamar's book, I have to admit I am skeptical of any so-called invasion. I've read enough about the Kennedys to have a feel for how they thought about things, and an invasion of Cuba was not at the top of their agenda in November, 1963. While it's possible they might have given someone, even Guevara, the U.S.' blessing to overthrow Castro, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they have authorized the landing of U.S. troops in Cuba as part of the plan. This would have given the Russians the green light to move on Berlin.
Having not read the exact plans for AMWORLD myself, however, I remain open-minded.
If there's anyone here who thinks the case remains where it was after JFK and Case Closed, by the way, they need to read Larry Hancock's book and my own presentation, among other sources. While my presentation uses the medical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a conspiracy, Larry's book draws a circle around the likely culprits. Does anyone have Liz Smith's phone number?
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
Good Day.... A military service member friend of mine sent me the link to an ebay auction showing photos of OSWALD during his USMC recruit training. I have never seen these photos. The photos (FWIW, 2 of which do seem to show OSWALD handling his rifle) are from his recruit training yearbook....
http://cgi.ebay.com/JFK-Kennedy-Assassinat...1QQcmdZViewItem
Don Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly
Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map, Witnesses, Evidence, Info, etc.
ROSEMARY WILLIS Headsnap Westward Towards "Grassy Knoll" Discovery
BOND Photos Do Not Support GORDON ARNOLD's Presence
ANTHONY SUMMERS 2001-updated, "The Ghosts of November"
President Kennedy.... "4 Principles"
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
"Because of the photograph taken by AP photographer James Altgens seeming to show a rifle shaped object protruding from the second floor window of the Dal-Tex building, several Warren report critics (including myself) felt that was a probably a firing point for one or two shots. The committee has made available to me the original Altgens negative. Using my technique of vario-density eynexing, I was able to enhance the image in the window to the point of clarity where window is now identifiable as a black man leaning the window sill with both hands, and with no gun in view."
---- ROBERT GRODEN, his HSCA-documented comments about the panels report, 1979 http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/grodn.htm
-----------------------------
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
Mr. Simkin:
It is obvious by your comments (on this and some of your other posts) that you have taken up a line of reasoning based on one person’s side of the story. Perhaps if I restate some important points that have been either intentionally or accidentally overlooked in your analysis, it might help others understand the issue. You write in post 62:
As you know, what was said at this meeting is now a matter of dispute. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Joan got such a crucial piece of evidence wrong.
If I had to choose between the two different versions of what was said, I would believe Joan Mellen.
It is safe to assume you are placing a great deal of weight to one side of the story. Especially since you have not contacted me since your kind offer to join the Forum. Perhaps this issue can finally be resolved professionally, by asking to have the relevant portions which are in dispute, of my father’s taped interview transcribed and forwarded to you? I would believe that my father’s voice on a tape and subsequent transcriptions, would be accepted by any reasonable person as validation as to what was said or not. Especially in light of that fact that it is overly apparent that my father’s word, or the word of the two other people present at the interview are not being considered as material or significant.
That notes and tapes of notes were taken after the interview took place, I have no doubt and is not nor has ever been in question. But let’s be fair about the whole issue. Since you are so certain as to the veracity of the claim, I will let you take the lead on this. Since you will soon learn that no such material exits of the actual interview itself, will you at least meet me half way and concede that without documentation during the interview there is room for the possibility that, without malicious intent of course, something could have been misinterpreted?
In reality, the point is mute. It is actually cleared up in Post 57 by the author:
Angelo Murgado says, repeat says, that Oswald was there when he arrived. This is attributed to him, not to me. He is on the record as saying Oswald was already there. So I must say he says that is what happened....HE SAYS.....Fairness decreed that I give his side of the story. So I added the attribution: HE CLAIMS. HE SAYS.
For the record, had this oversight been found and corrected earlier, before the article in question appeared in The Citizen, this “dispute” as you call it, would never have occurred.
I have no problem with dissenting opinions about my father or the substance of his interview. But you and others, no matter how creatively or politely are putting it, are in fact, calling him a xxxx about what happened or did not happen during his interview. I have no choice as his son but to take exception. Do not call my father a xxxx about an interview that two other people witnessed and that no documentation during the interview exists. That sir, is not only absurd, unprofessional, but also can be interpreted as malicious.
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?
Vince Palamara on Vince Bugliosi...and Vince Palamara!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Gary,
Who might Kenneth V. be?
-Stu