Gene Kelly

James:

Who is the second patsy...the one who changed the Plan by betraing Oswald? - Gene

James:

This post is about a month old, and many have weighed in with opinions on Morales... what's the concensus? Is it him? I'd think some people who knew him well - and would have strong instinctual notions about the photo - may've validated your question. Seems like his tall, dark features stand out... while some others look for the appearance of being "official" or operational. I'm assuming its still reasonable to assume it's him..and if so, where would he have been prior to this photo? It does seem amazing that a senior person would risk being on the scene (and being seen), but then the audacity of this "hit" - high noon, head shot, blown his brains out, sitting next to his wife, broad daylight - was calculated for maximum effect. I'm not an expert, or even remotely qualified to say... but i think it's him.

Regards,

gene

Myra:

Yes (sorry for late response). Putting myself in his proud and capable government 'shoes', and after all of his down and dirty (i.e. did the real dangerous field stuff) work in intelligence, he runs up against Bobby... and he ultimately gets creamed, and loses his rank and privlidge. It seems his career was done after RFK had him banished to Rome. A clear demotion. Projecting into his ego and professional pride... I think he got more than just mad. He got even.

Gene

Harvey was senior (and superior) to all of the prominent suspects. He was displaced by Spring 1963, but still very much engaged with Roselli and Exec Action. I think he had the ideal means, strongest motive and an excellent opportunity at that time. There's lots of legend about him, but verry little in the way of facts and pictures available. He certainly became invisible afterwards... and had the perfect 'cover' far away in Rome. All my instincts scream at me that he's the lynchpin (if that's the right term). I wish we could get more factual information and meaningful investigation centered upon him; but I'll bet those facts are very well protected.

Peter:

You sound like you know well of what you speak. At the risk of asking, what are the roles of cleaners and how where they used in this operation? Are they still utilized (and active) today?

--gene

Bill: Subject matter expert for leaflets/propoganda? Answer: CIA, disinformation, David Phillips and E. H. Hunt. Theri reputation preceeds them. As I recall, the message also used the word "inspired" act of god... - gene

Lee:

What is your opinion of Edward Lansdale's presence and role? Was he not well known for his unique expertise in being the "producer" of such complex operations (along with Lucien Conein). If so, then doubles, actors and diversions were more the mark of a professional... and clearly not the signiture of crooks/mobsters, gun-runners and nightclub managers, passionate exiles, right-wing radicals and low level intelligence dangles. Something highly coordinated occurred that day.

Gene

Sorry, Hoover never attempted to make a case linking Oswald to Cuba.

As I understand it both the CIA and the FBI in Mexico City received orders from DC not to investigate any possible conspiracy, and at least some of the people in Mexico City who received those orders were livid about them.

The last thing the "powers-that-be" wanted was evidence of a conspiracy that might lead to a nuclear war.

Whether or not he had anything to do with it, no doubt LBJ reaped benefits from the death of JFK. No doubt LBJ thought he would be a greater president than JFK kad been. His personal purpose was served by the death of JFK. And whether he seriously regretted the death or helped plan it, either way LBJ did not want to start his administration with a war.

Tim:

Don't you think that LBJ did, in fact, begin his administration with a war? His escalation of Viet Nam - almost immediately following the assasination- in essence started a war, one that went on for more than a decade and divided this country in a profound way. I recognize our involvement predated both LBJ and JFK, but it signifcantly escalated during Lyndon's administration. I also realize it wasn't nuclear, but it was a war nonetheless. I think the Cuba /Castro context was simply a superb cover for the murder...as far as the plotters were concerned. Blame it on the enemy (and Communists) close by. Perhaps there were subtexts to the apparent events in Dealey - operations within the operation, so to speak - such as a Northwoods -like precipitation that had no intent of actual murder. But I do agree with your point that an invasion of Cuba was not the real motive for the murder.

Further, IMHO, savy experienced government bureaucrats like Hoover, Johnson and Dulles knew full well what happened and why. I think we shortchange them and underestimate their influence, when we believe they were without clue relative to the perpetrators' motives.

-- gene

IF--and I say it is a very very big "IF", some of the conspirators thought the death of JFK would lead to an invasion of Cuba, they had no idea where LBJ was coming from. One of the reasons I doubt that was a motive for the assassination.

Larry:

Hechsher ... I got it. Fascinating circumstantial affiliations. Berlin/Harvey, first-generation cold warrior and OSS veteran, that infamous circle of friends. Plus, you can't find much biographical on him (e.g. no pictures, not even from James Richards). Apparently bounced out of Saigon for bucking administration policy. Death squads, Condor and Latin American action resume. And he apparently died peacefully, with no sinister implications... no suspicious heart conditions, no refusal of autopsy. Fonzi didn't write about him, the HSCA didn't investigate or pursue as a person of interest. Untainted by Church Committee. The Agency kept him on a low and protected profile. And - my obsession noted - he has shades of Harvey written all over him. Does anyone have a photo? -- gene

Boris Pash...?

Gene, that would be my conclusion as well:

"A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved"

The guys pulling the strings really wanted a) JFK dead RFK neutralized on virtually all his tracks at Justice and c) no serious oversight/interference with their

covert political/power agendas. There may well have been some active double crossing going on as well. I have reason to think that some of

the tactical people including those in peripheral roles such as Martino eventually began to realize that all was not as they had been led to belive.

Indeed this may be the reason for some deaths (Roselli comes to mind) and people like Morales more concerned about the people he had worked

with than his old enemies (as he remarked to Reuben). If you go into some depth on Johnson's mental condition there is also a great deal of evidence

that he suffered from escalating paranoia and may have developed a serious guilt complex.

"Could the unofficial CIA players really control them that easily... drugs, money, other fronts? How did Phillips keep them happy and focused... did we continue to preach/promise that Castro would be removed?"

Not sure it was that clear cut, the clique driving the project did continue its own anti-Communist war from SE Asia to Latin America. And in may cases

they fed the line that they were simply establishing networks capable of supporting a new Cuban initiative. Or that one day a new President would

come along who would reinvigorate the Castro battle (Hunt lined up a considerable exile force with that line). And Veciana never really turned on

Phillips totally. The clique managed to give a lot of the radical exiles cover for a very long time...one can argue that that cover is still going on

today (Posada is an example). ...and nobody is ever going to show us that set of real sekeletons in the closet.

Also, there may be a couple of names left off your list....including the eventual COS in Chile...an old time partner with Morales, Phillips and Hunt and

significant player in the anti-Allende campaign.

-- Larry

Larry: Would that be Hecksher?

John:

I speculate that Harvey hated Bobby more (not necessarily John) for having cost him the JM/WAVE lead... and he was subsequently retired in-place in Rome, which must have been an extreme embarrassment to a primetime player like Harvey. The demotion (and essentially end of his career advancement) sure appears to be the heavy-handed influence of either the President or his AG... who else could've caused banishment (far away) of such an operator? I sure wish I had complete knowledge of everything Harvey did, and everywhere he went, in the ensuing year leading up to Dealey Plaza. Rumor had it that he travelled domestically, and continued to meet with Roselli, even though he no longer had Mongoose, Executive Action, ZR/Rifle, and was then supposedly Chief of Station in Rome (i.e. a ceremonial demotion). And, how do we explain the untimely murder of Roselli and the death of Harvey, so tantalizingly close to the HSCA hearings. -- gene

Robert/John:

While not in the league of the true researchers who participate in this forum, I have studied this topic for a long time and read everyting I could get my hands upon. I strongly believe that Harvey is the centerpiece for the plot and murder. I say this inductively, since there's precious little fact available that can directly tie Harvey to the murder. But its precisely that observation - no pictures, no facts, no anecdotes - that draw me back to Harvey. Using that old investigator's sawhorse (of means, motive, opportunity), I can think of no one who had a stronger impetus to kill JFK. While I've read some accounts (e.g. The Company) that paint him patriotically and devoted to the clandestine cause, he's at the center of everything/everyone linked to the murder. He lost his career to the Kennedy's...and I think he not only got mad, but he got even....as simple as that. And his immediate colleagues (Roselli, Morales, Robertson et al) helped make that vendetta a reality.

So, I think more reaseach, fact, and digging into Mr. Harvey will really shine a bright light on this fascinating and important historical topic that we all are committed to understand and resolve. As a person who's made a career of investigating all sorts of events within my profession (albeit not criminal cases), Harvey has become a really strong gut instinct that won't go away. I think his story is very important to flush out. -- gene kelly

Thanks Larry... that portrayal of LBJ's policy makes logical sense to me. Part of my 'strategy' for understanding the President's murder has always been to closely study the published history before and after. The world affairs are unmistakable pointers --IMHO-- to the plotters and motives. For Americans, that's The Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis followed closely by Viet Nam... kind of the "bookends" spanning the 25 year period before and after dealey Plaza. And then nicely capped off/ended with the forever popular Watergate... all connected in a tragic fashion.

The five years after 1963 (i.e. LBJ's tenure) do seem wholly uneventful with respect to Cuba. JM WAVE eventually gave up (trying to get Castro), and moved the players to SE Asia and Latin America to fight communism on other fronts. So, if the passionate anti-castro exiles were so inflamed about a proposed detente with Cuba -- inflamed enough to murder JFK -- how could they be appeased with shifting that passion to other places? This implies that regaining the homeland (Cuba) and ousting Castro were not really at the root of their needs. Could the unofficial CIA players really control them that easily... drugs, money, other fronts? How did Phillips keep them happy and focused... did we continue to preach/promise that Castro would be removed?

A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved. The true drivers (the ones who manipultaed the manipulators) didn't really want an invasion, nor did the dark-skinned Mexican exiles want one either. And when it didn't happen in the next 5 years, nobody really cared that much. Its as though the ouster of Castro became suddenly uninteresting, and has remained so for 40+ years.

So, it was those principals who shipped out to Spain, Rome, Laos and Latin America... there's your killers. Hunt, Harvey, Morales and Phillips.

-- gene

Charles:

Thanks for the reference on Levenda. What I was playfully referring to is the music of Pink Floyd, and their classic album "Dark Side of the Moon", one of my favorites. -- gene

James/Charles:

What you ponder and desribe is the "Dark Side of the Moon" -- gene

Larry:

I finished your book this past month... just superb reading, excellent story flow, great factual confirmation. Kudos to you. It really puts 20+ years of diverse reading and stories in clear focus for me personally. I particularly liked your recommendations for future research... things that can and should be further investigated to sharpen the picture. The 'circle' of JM/WAVE alumni certainly are at the eye of the hurricane. I'd personally like to see more development of Harvey's role, since (after reading Norman Mailer's Harlots Ghost) I'm locked in on his complicity... and the lack of pictures, detailed information and anechdotes in general makes him all the more suspicious. His close associations with Morales, Roselli and Robertson make him hard to ignore. Plus, all of them spend the next several years well out of the country. Book him, Larry (pun intended).

Regarding the radical exiles relationships with JFK and LBJ, I agree the back-channel episode was precipitous, as well as a significant difference in those two administrations. But there were the machinations that RFK was involved in that surely could've tempered their harsh views... looking ahead, level minds could've seen that LBJ was no less inclined to accomodate Castro. And history showed that he did far less than Kennedy in that regard. Maybe the great equalizer then became Viet Nam... where all of the JM WAVE principals quickly transitioned to. But what's missing for me is how the virulent anti-C exiles passions became dissipated...and why they didn't go after LBJ for similar reasons. Puzzling.

That's where I think the larger conspirators and participants come into play/focus... somebody got what they wanted, and everyone apparently then backed off. Now the exiles fade out of the picture, the kill Castro plots fizzle - as the poet says, not with a bang but a wimper. Perhaps pure revenge for BOP was that this was...nothing more. Mobsters (and their CIA cowboy handlers) esentially get Bobby off their backs. But no chance for casino business in Havana... and pragmatic realization that invasion of Cuba is never going to happen. So the next level of manipulation in this conspiracy - just as Mexican/Cubans used Oswald - was the use of the exiles by the larger conspirators. And those folks all subsequently died coincidentally just before/after their HSCA interviews.

Regards and great book -- gene kelly

If the community was so inflamed about JFK's lack of action against Castro, then why wasn't the same energy directed against LBJ (who sponsored far less in that regard)? I think this comparison speaks volumes about other motives, and participants, far different than simply anti-castro Cubans.

Bill, with all due respect, and please understand that I am not defending "Reclaiming History" but only responding to the faith that you put in Fabian Escalante, IMO you are wrong in your theory and Esclanate is a xxxx and may even have been involved in the assassination himself.

You quote Bugliosi as follows:

"I asked Kelly to estimate the likelihood that Castro, because of this infiltration, would know if any of the anti-Castro groups were behind the assassination. 'With the level of infiltration he had, I can say he would have known with almost 100 percent metaphysical certitude,' he responded. In fact, FBI headquarters said it believed that there were 'more than two hundred agents of Cuban G-2 in the Miami area, all targeted against the exile movement. We know that when it was learned after the assassination that Oswald had a reverence for Castro and his revolution and even had a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New Orleans, much suspicion focused on Castro's possible involvement in the assassination. To a much lesser degree, that suspicion continues to this very day. As the HSCA said, if Castro learned that anti-Castro groups had killed Kennedy, he 'would have had the highest incentive to report' this to American authorities 'since it would have dispelled suspicions' of his involvement in the assassination. Yet no such information ever came from Castro, information he would have undoubtedly have possessed if, indeed, anti-Castro Cuban exiles had been behind Kennedy's assassination."

You then point out what Escalante has written about the assassination in his book.

Now, don't you suppose Kelly was talking about Castro's government making a contemporaneous report to American authorities if his intelligence organization had information that anti-Castro Cubans had killed JFK? Not only would such a contemporaneous report have absolved Castro (history would absolve him) think what might have happened to U.S. Cuban relations had Cuba helped solve the murder (and bring to justice) the murderers of the beloved US President? And Castro would have had another motive to help solve the assassination if his intelligence agency had information that anti-Castro Cubans did it. Not only would he have cleared any suspicions about Cuba and brought credit to himself, but had anti-Castro exiles been convicted of the assassination it would probably have broken the anti-Castro exile movement in the United States.

Escalante in his book (whether true or false) is referring to a post-assassination investigation conducted by G2. I doubt whether Escalante is admitting that G2 had pre-assassination knowledge that JFK was going to be "hit" by anti-Castro exiles. But it was Kelly's point that G2 had so infiltrated the anti-Castro organizations that it would have had pre-assassination knowledge. To attempt to put Kelly's logic into syllogistic form, I think it would be as follows:

PREMISE 1: G2 had so infiltrated the anti-Castro exile movement that it would have learned of any planned assassination plot.

PREMISE 2: Cuba had great incentives to reveal any such knowledge to America after the assassination when Cuba was a suspect.

PREMISE 3: Cuba never contemporaneously communicated any such knowledge.

CONCLUSION: There was no anti-Castro exile involvement in the assassination.

Now I think there may be ways to counter Kelly's argument, adopted by Bugliosi. For instance, what is the probability that Premise 1 is correct? Probably less than 50% if there was a small group of anti-Castro exiles involved in a plot. Even if one assumes the probability of Premise 1 being as high as 90%, I think Kelly's point (adopted by Bugliosi) is flawed. At a high probability level, the premise might be able to demonstrate a great unlikelihood of anti-Castro involvement, but it could not EXCLUDE such involvement as a historical fact (as Bugliosi attempts to do).

Same argument with respect to Premise 2. I think the likelihood of Premise 2 is indeed quite high but even if we assume that Premise 1 is 100% true and Premise 2 is 90% true, the argument STILL cannot be used to exclude anti-Castro involvement.

PREMISE 3 I assume is a given.

CONCLUSION. As noted above, the conclusion must fail if there is almost any possibility that EITHER Premise 1 or Premise 2 is wrong.

There is yet another problem with the reasoning. Had G2 been aware of a planned assassination before Dallas, but Cuba had only communicated it AFTER JFK's murder, I think there would be Kennedy's blood on G2's hands (just as I think there is JFK's blood on Howard Hunt's hands if, as he now claims, he had pre-assassination knowledge of a planned assassination because he did not report it and stop it).

I think Kelly's point would have been far more effective had he argued that Cuba would have had great incentive to report any knowledge of a planned assassination BEFORE the fact and PREVENT it. Even think about the effect on JFK had Castro saved his life! And think about the effect it would have had on public's attitude toward on the anti-Casto organizations.

Is it possible that anti-Castro Cubans planned JFK's murder and G2 was aware of it but took no steps to stop it because Castro would have liked to see it happen? In other words, that Castro would have considered that he gained a greater benefit by sitting on the knowledge and letting it happen than by stopping it. I could see that happening. I could even see G2 encouraging anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK.

Re Escalante's book. Let's assume G2 only discovered knowledge of anti-Castro involvement in the assassination years after the fact. Why the heck would Castro not have revealed that to the HSCA when it interviewed him in 1978?

The only way Escalante's claims make sense, IMO, is if the G2 only discovered the involvement of anti-Castro Cubans in the plot sometime AFTER the 1978 HSCA interview with Castro.

But the claims made in Escalante's book are bogus. As I said before, Communists have no morality. They will lie whenever it suits their purpose. It does not mean that every factual assertion made by a Communist is a lie. It simply means that one must consider that a Communist will lie without any moral concern whenever it suits his or her opinion.

Finally, a comment about Escalante's assertion re Cuesta's alleged "confession". I have discussed this several times with Gordon Winslow who was there and listened to Escalante. Escalante claimed Cuesta had made a WRITTEN confession. Gordon asked Escalante to produce it and Escalante stonewalled him. Now think about this. Cuesta was BLIND. What proof is there in a statement signed by a man who cannot read what he is signing? If Cuesta was really going to confess and sign a statement of confession, why would Escalante or G2 get a tape-recorded confession from Cuesta? Escalante lied about Custa's alleged confession because it would not have been written it would have been recorded--and Escalante has NEVER (to my knowledge anyway) produced even a copy of an alleged written confession to anyone.

Think about it. What if I claimed that I had interviewed someone before his death and he had given me a WRITTEN CONFESSION and I went on to write a book about the assassination but never included a copy of the written confession? How credible is that?

The fact that Escalante lied about Cuesta leads me to conclude that every statement he made about anti-Castro exile involvement in the assassination is a damn lie! As the old legal maxim goes" "Falsus in uno . . ."

Bill, if you want to try to demonstrate anti-Castro involvement in the plot, you'll need more than the unsupported claims of a demonstrable xxxx! (Who himself may even BE a suspect!)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for reading my post and your analysis.

While anything Escalante uncovered or says can't be used in court against any suspects, and he certainly has motive to lie, my point is that Bugliosi concludes that the Cuban G2 penetration of anti-Castro Cuban operations in USA would have provided them with info on assassination plots against Castro or JFK. Then he doesn't bother to go there to see what information is even available.

Whether you belive Escalante or not, the Cubans did come up with more info on the anti-Castro Cuban organizations than the FBI did (at least they spoke Spanish), and they claim that they can identify those suspects who were invovled in the anti-Castro plots that were turned on JFK. And those suspects are the same as ours - Morales, Phillips, Roselli, et al.

Nor do I trust Gordon Winslow any more than I do Fabian Escalante, as Gordon's postion of Archivist of the City of Miami, puts him in the center of the action. The city's municipal building is at the marina where Gordon Campbell kept his boat.

While I was an early participant in Gordon's Research Directory, which tried to network those interested in similar subjects, it also tipped our hands as to what we were working on.

While his website is a weath of great information, including partial transcripts of the COPA-Cuban conferences, Gordon and the Miami Cubans are not independent researchers, but like Peter Pavia, have an axe to grind against JFK.

As Pavia notes in his book, "The most hated man in Miami remains Fidel Castro, but he is followed closely by John F. Kennedy. Kennedy might not have been half the man, or the president, that his hagiographers would like the world to think he was; neither was he the evil traitor who turned his back on the Cuban cause...Operation Moongoose,...from the first, (was) going to include direct U.S. military involvement, but then Kennedy was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson abandoned the plan in 1964."

When the Cubans realized that JFK had no intention of using the US military to invade Cuba, and was actively conducting back channel negotiations with Castro via the UN, they pulled triggers of the guns that killed JFK.

I don't believe the anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK on their own, but they were entwined with and followed the orders and well laid plans of the CIA officers at JM/WAVE (and the mob, via Roselli), and since it was a coup, not just a conspiracy, every significant aspect of the government was covered or neutralized - cabinet, SS, military, etc.

There are two ways to solve the JFK assassination - through a normal law enforcement investigation that develops evidence to be used in court, or through a counter-intelligence CI investigation that also uses illegal sources and information that can't be used in court. The Cubans used the later, as did the USMC investigation, but we must use the former if we want to more than just satisfy our knowlege and counter the coup that remains in power.

BK

Bill, with all due respect, and please understand that I am not defending "Reclaiming History" but only responding to the faith that you put in Fabian Escalante, IMO you are wrong in your theory and Esclanate is a xxxx and may even have been involved in the assassination himself.

You quote Bugliosi as follows:

"I asked Kelly to estimate the likelihood that Castro, because of this infiltration, would know if any of the anti-Castro groups were behind the assassination. 'With the level of infiltration he had, I can say he would have known with almost 100 percent metaphysical certitude,' he responded. In fact, FBI headquarters said it believed that there were 'more than two hundred agents of Cuban G-2 in the Miami area, all targeted against the exile movement. We know that when it was learned after the assassination that Oswald had a reverence for Castro and his revolution and even had a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New Orleans, much suspicion focused on Castro's possible involvement in the assassination. To a much lesser degree, that suspicion continues to this very day. As the HSCA said, if Castro learned that anti-Castro groups had killed Kennedy, he 'would have had the highest incentive to report' this to American authorities 'since it would have dispelled suspicions' of his involvement in the assassination. Yet no such information ever came from Castro, information he would have undoubtedly have possessed if, indeed, anti-Castro Cuban exiles had been behind Kennedy's assassination."

You then point out what Escalante has written about the assassination in his book.

Now, don't you suppose Kelly was talking about Castro's government making a contemporaneous report to American authorities if his intelligence organization had information that anti-Castro Cubans had killed JFK? Not only would such a contemporaneous report have absolved Castro (history would absolve him) think what might have happened to U.S. Cuban relations had Cuba helped solve the murder (and bring to justice) the murderers of the beloved US President? And Castro would have had another motive to help solve the assassination if his intelligence agency had information that anti-Castro Cubans did it. Not only would he have cleared any suspicions about Cuba and brought credit to himself, but had anti-Castro exiles been convicted of the assassination it would probably have broken the anti-Castro exile movement in the United States.

Escalante in his book (whether true or false) is referring to a post-assassination investigation conducted by G2. I doubt whether Escalante is admitting that G2 had pre-assassination knowledge that JFK was going to be "hit" by anti-Castro exiles. But it was Kelly's point that G2 had so infiltrated the anti-Castro organizations that it would have had pre-assassination knowledge. To attempt to put Kelly's logic into syllogistic form, I think it would be as follows:

PREMISE 1: G2 had so infiltrated the anti-Castro exile movement that it would have learned of any planned assassination plot.

PREMISE 2: Cuba had great incentives to reveal any such knowledge to America after the assassination when Cuba was a suspect.

PREMISE 3: Cuba never contemporaneously communicated any such knowledge.

CONCLUSION: There was no anti-Castro exile involvement in the assassination.

Now I think there may be ways to counter Kelly's argument, adopted by Bugliosi. For instance, what is the probability that Premise 1 is correct? Probably less than 50% if there was a small group of anti-Castro exiles involved in a plot. Even if one assumes the probability of Premise 1 being as high as 90%, I think Kelly's point (adopted by Bugliosi) is flawed. At a high probability level, the premise might be able to demonstrate a great unlikelihood of anti-Castro involvement, but it could not EXCLUDE such involvement as a historical fact (as Bugliosi attempts to do).

Same argument with respect to Premise 2. I think the likelihood of Premise 2 is indeed quite high but even if we assume that Premise 1 is 100% true and Premise 2 is 90% true, the argument STILL cannot be used to exclude anti-Castro involvement.

PREMISE 3 I assume is a given.

CONCLUSION. As noted above, the conclusion must fail if there is almost any possibility that EITHER Premise 1 or Premise 2 is wrong.

There is yet another problem with the reasoning. Had G2 been aware of a planned assassination before Dallas, but Cuba had only communicated it AFTER JFK's murder, I think there would be Kennedy's blood on G2's hands (just as I think there is JFK's blood on Howard Hunt's hands if, as he now claims, he had pre-assassination knowledge of a planned assassination because he did not report it and stop it).

I think Kelly's point would have been far more effective had he argued that Cuba would have had great incentive to report any knowledge of a planned assassination BEFORE the fact and PREVENT it. Even think about the effect on JFK had Castro saved his life! And think about the effect it would have had on public's attitude toward on the anti-Casto organizations.

Is it possible that anti-Castro Cubans planned JFK's murder and G2 was aware of it but took no steps to stop it because Castro would have liked to see it happen? In other words, that Castro would have considered that he gained a greater benefit by sitting on the knowledge and letting it happen than by stopping it. I could see that happening. I could even see G2 encouraging anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK.

Re Escalante's book. Let's assume G2 only discovered knowledge of anti-Castro involvement in the assassination years after the fact. Why the heck would Castro not have revealed that to the HSCA when it interviewed him in 1978?

The only way Escalante's claims make sense, IMO, is if the G2 only discovered the involvement of anti-Castro Cubans in the plot sometime AFTER the 1978 HSCA interview with Castro.

But the claims made in Escalante's book are bogus. As I said before, Communists have no morality. They will lie whenever it suits their purpose. It does not mean that every factual assertion made by a Communist is a lie. It simply means that one must consider that a Communist will lie without any moral concern whenever it suits his or her opinion.

Finally, a comment about Escalante's assertion re Cuesta's alleged "confession". I have discussed this several times with Gordon Winslow who was there and listened to Escalante. Escalante claimed Cuesta had made a WRITTEN confession. Gordon asked Escalante to produce it and Escalante stonewalled him. Now think about this. Cuesta was BLIND. What proof is there in a statement signed by a man who cannot read what he is signing? If Cuesta was really going to confess and sign a statement of confession, why would Escalante or G2 get a tape-recorded confession from Cuesta? Escalante lied about Custa's alleged confession because it would not have been written it would have been recorded--and Escalante has NEVER (to my knowledge anyway) produced even a copy of an alleged written confession to anyone.

Think about it. What if I claimed that I had interviewed someone before his death and he had given me a WRITTEN CONFESSION and I went on to write a book about the assassination but never included a copy of the written confession? How credible is that?

The fact that Escalante lied about Cuesta leads me to conclude that every statement he made about anti-Castro exile involvement in the assassination is a damn lie! As the old legal maxim goes" "Falsus in uno . . ."

Bill, if you want to try to demonstrate anti-Castro involvement in the plot, you'll need more than the unsupported claims of a demonstrable xxxx! (Who himself may even BE a suspect!)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for reading my post and your analysis.

While anything Escalante uncovered or says can't be used in court against any suspects, and he certainly has motive to lie, my point is that Bugliosi concludes that the Cuban G2 penetration of anti-Castro Cuban operations in USA would have provided them with info on assassination plots against Castro or JFK. Then he doesn't bother to go there to see what information is even available.

Whether you belive Escalante or not, the Cubans did come up with more info on the anti-Castro Cuban organizations than the FBI did (at least they spoke Spanish), and they claim that they can identify those suspects who were invovled in the anti-Castro plots that were turned on JFK. And those suspects are the same as ours - Morales, Phillips, Roselli, et al.

Nor do I trust Gordon Winslow any more than I do Fabian Escalante, as Gordon's postion of Archivist of the City of Miami, puts him in the center of the action. The city's municipal building is at the marina where Gordon Campbell kept his boat.

While I was an early participant in Gordon's Research Directory, which tried to network those interested in similar subjects, it also tipped our hands as to what we were working on.

While his website is a weath of great information, including partial transcripts of the COPA-Cuban conferences, Gordon and the Miami Cubans are not independent researchers, but like Peter Pavia, have an axe to grind against JFK.

As Pavia notes in his book, "The most hated man in Miami remains Fidel Castro, but he is followed closely by John F. Kennedy. Kennedy might not have been half the man, or the president, that his hagiographers would like the world to think he was; neither was he the evil traitor who turned his back on the Cuban cause...Operation Moongoose,...from the first, (was) going to include direct U.S. military involvement, but then Kennedy was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson abandoned the plan in 1964."

When the Cubans realized that JFK had no intention of using the US military to invade Cuba, and was actively conducting back channel negotiations with Castro via the UN, they pulled triggers of the guns that killed JFK.

I don't believe the anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK on their own, but they were entwined with and followed the orders and well laid plans of the CIA officers at JM/WAVE (and the mob, via Roselli), and since it was a coup, not just a conspiracy, every significant aspect of the government was covered or neutralized - cabinet, SS, military, etc.

There are two ways to solve the JFK assassination - through a normal law enforcement investigation that develops evidence to be used in court, or through a counter-intelligence CI investigation that also uses illegal sources and information that can't be used in court. The Cubans used the later, as did the USMC investigation, but we must use the former if we want to more than just satisfy our knowlege and counter the coup that remains in power.

BK

Please add William Harvey to the list... he had all the right connections and associations, one heck of a motive, and the exclusive means.

Bobby Kennedy knew who killed his brother -- a clique of operatives

of varying backgrounds whose desire for the US to take over Cuba lead

them to happily kill Jack.

Some of those guys made death-bed/drunken confessions to close

friends or family members.

I think the case is resolved to 95% (reasonable conclusion, but not 100%).

I find this resolution in the following:

THE LAST INVESTIGATION, by Gaeton Fonzi

BREACH OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight

SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED by Larry Hancock

BROTHERS, by David Talbot

Add the following links (keyword: Lansdale)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g..._CIA_Agent.html

A partial list of perps for both murder & cover up (very incomplete but I believe it's accurate as far as it goes):

-LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON

-J. EDGAR HOOVER

-WILLIAM K. HARVEY

-DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS

-DAVID MORALES

-E. HOWARD HUNT

-FRANK STURGIS

-GERRY P. HEMMING

-ED LANDSDALE

-EDWIN ANDERSON WALKER

-GENERAL CURTIS LEMAY

-JOSEPH MILTEER

-HL HUNT

-NELSON BUNKER HUNT

-BOBBY BAKER

-JACK RUBY

-DAVID FERRIE

-CLAY SHAW

-GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH

-EMERY ROBERTS

-JOHNNY ROSELLI

-JIMMY HOFFA

-RAY HARGRAVES

-PENTAGON

-CIA/MOB/EXTREMIST ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN EXILES

-FBI

-DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT

-JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY

-SECRET SERVICE

Possible perps:

-Clint Murchison

-Richard Nixon

-John Rousselot

-J.D. Tippit

-Roscoe White

-Cord Meyer

-James Angleton

-William Pawley

-John McCloy

-Allen Dulles

-Earle Cabell

-SA Kellerman

-SA Greer

-Lamar Hunt

-Jesse Curry

-Bill Decker

-Carlos Marcello

-Charles Nicoletti

-Sam Giancana

-Eugene Hale Brading

-Ted Shackley

-Lucien E. Conein

-Alfredo Duran

-Rip Robertson

-John O'Hare

-Danny Arce

-Boris Pash

-Orlando Bosch

(I need to reread Larry's book; I'm spacing on some names.)

...

The JFK assassination (I'm 95% certain) was a failed false flag

attack designed to establish a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba.

A lot of individual agendas were fulfilled on 11/22/63, but the primary

objective -- convincingly pinning Oswald to Castro -- failed when the

patsy was captured alive.

How come they couldn't go ahead and blame Cuba & invade after Ruby killed Oswald?

Using a mobster to silence the innocence-proclaiming patsy put a gaping

hole in the frame job.

A memo from then-CJCS Lemnitzer in Feb. '62 establishes the critera the

super-hawks needed to meet for framing a successful pre-text to invade Cuba.

This is in reference to Operation Dirty Tricks, a contingency plan developed

by the Joint Chiefs to take advantage of John Glenn's 1962 flight should it

have exploded.

The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY

manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba

[sic]....This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of

evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the

Cubans.

Operation Dirty Tricks came and went, so the Chiefs liked the

idea of mounting a false flag attack on Americans on American soil

(Operation Northwoods) -- and there had to be "irrevocable proof"

that the fault lay at the feet of Castro.

Had Oswald been shot the early afternoon of 11/22/63, he could have

been readily presented to the world as a Castro agent.

The FBI, the CIA, and military intel had the frame set. Oswald in Russia,

Cuba, Soviet and Cuban Embassies in Mexico City.

According to one account, Carlo Gambino blamed the CIA for

'Screwing up the Cuba thing. Screwing up the Kennedy thing."

I'd take that to mean the CIA had the ultimate responsibility to see

the frame through with Oswald's early demise -- and something went

awry.

Larry:

Just finished your excellent book... I feel I'm now on another level of factual truth. The work by Talbot then pulls it alltogether for me. Its clear the plotters wove a plan that made ot appear Bobby's actions got his brother killed. Its the classic revenge - by Harvey, Morales, Marcello via Roselli - using Cuba/communism and Castro (the bogeyman) as a convenient storyline. Would you agree? Kudos on your fine work --gene kelly

Best wishes on the tour David, hope you get a little rest in between stops!

I just wanted to exapnd a bit on your point about the assassination efforts against Castro. It's now

clear that that there was a long term effort to assassinate Castro...starting in 1959 in an offer from

Sturgis to CIA personnel in Havana (including Morales of course) to set up a an assassination inside

Cuba while Castro was traveling to military posts. In the same period of time, crime assets in the U.S.

planned to kill him when he traveled to New York to the U.N. In the late 1960-61 time frame, in addition

to the Roselli plots, there were multiple CIA paramilitary operations being organized to attack and

kill Castro inside Cuba. In SWHT I describe one which was orchestrated by Carl Jenkins and utilized, among

others, Felix Rodriquez in a planned sniper attack....another was conducted during a naval mission

by Rip Robertson. None of these would have been known to RFK. Bottom line is that all of talk about

the Kennedy's plans to kill Castro pales beside these actual documented actions by crime and CIA personnel.

Later Johnson tried to blame all the murder plots on JFK and RFK ("murder inc.) but it just doesn't wash...

As your book points out, RFK was right on the money almost immediately:

"Bobby's suspicions immediately focus on the nest of CIA spies, gangsters, and Cuban exiles that

had long been plotting a violent regime change in Cuba."

-- go get 'em, Larry

Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour. Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time.

Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody. (And, Brian, Wrone's review of my book was wonderful consolation, since I have great respect for his work.)

Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.

And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one).

Dawn, thanks for your comments on the book. And no I don't believe Bobby intended to sabotage Garrison in the beginning -- he was genuinely curious about what G was digging up. And no I don't believe RFK was pushing the assassination efforts against Castro (and neither did Castro believe this, as I explain in the book).

More later!

Psychologically, its easier to address an 'enemy' when you depersonalize them. Rationalizing a point of view as "conspiracy theory" serves to depersonalize, allowing for more brutalized behavior. For example, the Vietnamese communists became VC, making it easier to fight (and eliminate) that enemy. So, labelling those who question the historical record (i.e. WC) simply as "conspirasists" somehow depersonalizes and discredits, in much the same way. Its the same simplification of democrats versus republicans, as if we all are capable of being reduced to such a model. The world cannot simply be divided into/described as lone-nutters and conspirasists. In reality, the thinking person challenges and probes, and is much more complex...they see facts and relevance to both sides of the debate. And the truth lies somewhere in between. Sorry for the philosophizing, but it seemed to be analogous.

Well let's follow fellow historian Peter Dale Scott's example instead.

Scott is not a historian in the professional sense. He is an English professor, described on his own website as "a poet, writer, and researcher." That said, Scott certainly stands head and shoulders over the "historian" Dallek.

John Simkin is an example of a historian worthy of the name. Though "historians" like Dallek may not be expected to be experts on human anatomy, it shouldn't be asking too much of them to know the difference between the human neck and back (and what a difference it makes in the JFK case).

My 2 cents and five fundamental points, although not deeply steeped in research on this , as others: The murder of Tippit is just way too coincidental to be unrelated. Keeping it simple, (1) its still unsolved... and the evidence was poorly handled and maintained, (2) the witnesses are inconsistent and enignmatic, plus some were ignored, misquoted or outright threatened; (3) the proximity of this murder to Oswald's rooming house (and Ruby's apartment) is awfully awfully interesting, a strange part of town yet so close to Dealey Plaza. Plus, I see no credible motive (for LHO), but (4) its perfectly logical to 'create' a cop killing (45 minutes after the assasination of a president) to shine a bright light on the suspect. What more compelling incriminating evidence could there be - to convince a shocked public - than a related cop killing associated with our beloved president, in such close timing to the assasination, to drive home cause and effect? This fourth point really resonates with me... if we buy a setup and masterful intrigue (i.e. professional treatment by Lansdale and Conein), its the perfect way to quickly solve the crime, clear the Plaza and send a large contingent of the Dallas Police force (in force, with God on their side) to apprehend the assasin. Lastly, (5) all within 1-2 hours... the most controversial muder of the century, wrapped up in an hour or so! It stinks to high heaven, and (unlike the Warren Commission), I don't buy it. Rosetta Stone, indeed.