Cliff Varnell

I have posted before that I do not think Dallas was a "black Op" to blame Castro and prompt an invasion of Cuba. On that Charles and I agree. One of my primary points is that had there been such an operation, there would indeed have been "irrevocable proof".

And the point you insist on missing is that with Oswald in custody this

"irrevocable proof" could not be brought forward beyond Hoover

pitching it to an un-moved Bobby Kennedy.

The FACT is that Hoover claimed to have evidence of Oswald repeatedly

going to Cuba -- but with Oswald captured alive this charge became

inoperable.

Say what you want, Tim, but there's no way that a gangster killing a

patsy in the hands of Dallas police would direct suspicion on Fidel Castro.

Charles wrote:

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

A very interesting thought.

Explain to me how this would work.

First, Captain Fritz announces to the world that Oswald confessed to killing

JFK as an agent of Fidel.

Then the Castro agent is killed while in police custody -- before or after he

makes a public statement?

It would have to be before, no? You can't even allow him to yell -- "I'm

just a patsy!"

And even though there is no record of this confession, and the patsy was gunned

down by a man with life-long mob ties, the unsubstantiated statements of Fritz are

so powerful that Johnson could claim them "irrevocable proof" of Castro complicity?

That's one best saved for the tourists, Tim.

Let's take one point at a time. Please cite from the historical record.

Thrill me.

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

So lacking the "irrevocable proof of Castro involvement,"

which was the benchmark cited by former-CJCS Lemnitzer for establishing a

pre-text to invade (see Bamford's Body of Secrets), the Yale boys

Harriman/Bundy pulled the plug on the entire Castro-did-it scenario while

LBJ was still in the air Dallas-to-DC.

They were "lacking" in no such thing.

What "irrevocable proof" of Castro's involvement did the DPD or

FBI or CIA possess?

burgundy is me

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

So lacking the "irrevocable proof of Castro involvement,"

which was the benchmark cited by former-CJCS Lemnitzer for establishing a

pre-text to invade (see Bamford's Body of Secrets), the Yale boys

Harriman/Bundy pulled the plug on the entire Castro-did-it scenario while

LBJ was still in the air Dallas-to-DC.

It's all right there in the historical record.

In fact, this goes for the entire assassination: how/who/why:

"It's all right there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you need to

catch them, these men you seek."

I'm still waiting to learn how LHO's post-11/22 survival under the circumstances in which it actually occured could have been sufficient to scuttle a serious, long-planned, all-important retaliatory invasion of false sponsor Cuba.

Charles, how do you sell a guy claiming to be "just a patsy"

as a Castro agent?

Think of Oswald-the-Castro-agent as a product.

There is going to be a product roll-out that involves murdering the

patsy in such a manner which would appear to directly lead to Castro.

But what the actual "product roll-out" involved was a living patsy

shouting his innocence. How on earth does that point to Castro?

And what of two centuries of American jurisprudence that says a man is

innocent until proven guilty?

How would the United States justify to the world an invasion of Cuba when

the man accused of following Castro's orders to kill JFK claims his innocence

and no genuine evidence against him actually exists?

Again, for the record:

The DPD was controlled.

And the Dallas boys were hot to trot.

SWHT pg 288:

On Friday evening, Dallas assistant D. A. William Alexander

prepared a set of formal charges for Lee Oswald. These papers charged

Oswald with murdering the President "as part of an International Communist

Conspiracy."

Same with Hoover back in DC:

id

4:19 PM, Hoover memo related that he had told RFK that the killer

has "Communist leanings" and is a "very mean-minded individual." Hoover

also related and confirmed again in a 5:15 PM memo that the subject Oswald

"went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to

Cuba for." It is true that Hoover did pass on what appears to be some early

misinformation about real time events in Dallas but it is hard to interpret the

Cuba reference as a mistake since it would have had to come from Oswald's

files.

Meanwhile, Bundy calls Johnson from the White House Situation Room and

informs him that the lone assassin is in custody.

LBJ wasn't in the White House as the new prez more than ten minutes before

W. Averell Harriman informed him the Russians weren't involved. From that

7PM meeting on: the official story was Oswald-as-lone-nut. There was NO ONE

big enough to over-rule Harriman.

Access to LHO was controlled.

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the

fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

I can't for the life of me imagine how that would possibly go down. Was the DPD

going to first claim Oswald confessed to killing Kennedy in league with Castro,

and then, almost immediately after, Oswald would himself be shot in DPD

hands before he could make a public statement?

How do you sell that to the world as an excuse to invade another country?

It was one thing for Marcos to use a similar scenario as an excuse to

kill Aquino -- but as an excuse for America to invade Cuba?

No way.

No one would have been in a position to challenge the veracity of such a claim.

What about Oswald? Was his demise to immediately follow

this "false confession"?

I like the headlines the next day: OSWALD KILLS KENNEDY FOR CASTRO; RUBY

KILLS OSWALD FOR JACKIE.

No one in a position to have heard LHO tell the truth about what led him to his cruel fate was in a position to share that info in a believable, verifiable, plan-destroying manner, let alone survive the experience.

Wouldn't Oswald's murder -- having occurred immediately after this un-recorded

"confession" -- diminish the impact of such a confession?

How do you make that stick? First the guy confesses in police custody

and then he's murdered in police custody before he could make a

public statement?

And that would have put B-52s in the air?

Nothing about the pre-assassination sheep-dipping of LHO as a Castro sympathiser/agent

could have been undone by the patsy's oh so brief survival.

His death in police custody un-did all Castro links.

If the assassination's sponsors truly desired to precipitate a post-assassination invasion of Cuba -- rather than use the "it looks like Castro and some of his Soviet masters did it" "evidence" only to control investigators with the threat of WW III -- it would have happened.

Under what pre-text? Because the Dallas police said the man

confessed to being a Castro agent right before he was shot while in police

custody by a mobster?

What kind of case is that?

That's "sponsors" -- as opposed to some assassination facilitators and mechanics who no doubt participated in the hit because of their belief, encouraged by people at the top, that Castro would fall because of their efforts.

Sponsors, as in plural. Not all sponsors shared

the same agenda post-assassination, I submit.

As always,

Charles

Most enjoyable, as always.

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. The obvious speculation

from this is that Oswald had not actively participated in framing himself,

certainly not to the extent of leaving an unmistakable trail to Castro. Nor

was Oswald prepared to confess himself as a Castro-supporter acting for

the "revolution" or in response to American assassination attempts

against Fidel.

The most radical aspect of this view of the assassination is the implication

that immediately following the assassination, there were actually

competing efforts in play.

Some of the individuals involved were desperately working to carry on

their "script" in the face of Oswald's capture. They also had an urgent

need to quickly eliminate Oswald to prevent him from directing attention

to them -- given his realization that he had been set up as a patsy. At

the same time, individuals within the FBI and CIA were working to cover

up their own use of Oswald as an intelligence tool. And, at the highest

level of government, a move was underway to constrain any serious

investigation of conspiracy and portray Lee Oswald strictly as a

"lone nut".

The question is whether or not a detailed examination of events in the

hours and weeks following November 22 supports this view of events.

If it does, we would expect to see that the efforts of all parties would

be reactive, spur of the moment, reflecting no advance planning and,

at all times, in direct conflict with each other.

(quote off)

This forum once was a place of rational discussion and relevant facts related to important issues in history.

Still is.

Ashton, I didn't get into it with you over the throat thing because we have bigger

fish to fry.

I think "the Timeline" is the most important work being done. Everything

else is Parlor Gaming.

Please continue with your Timeline work on the Forum.

Can you please point me to "the Timeline" work you're referring to Cliff?

Thanks.

Myra,

The "Black Propaganda Ops" thread is very interesting.

This forum once was a place of rational discussion and relevant facts related to important issues in history.

Still is.

Ashton, I didn't get into it with you over the throat thing because we have bigger

fish to fry.

I think "the Timeline" is the most important work being done. Everything

else is Parlor Gaming.

Please continue with your Timeline work on the Forum.

In all of the following emphasis mine

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

(quote on)

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York,

W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960,

President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate

“with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of

all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide

William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting

the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments

secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor,

was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president.

He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the

White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

(quote off)

From JFK's taped notations on the Diem coup:

http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/cli...nam_memoir.html

(quote on)

President Kennedy: Opposed to the coup was General [Maxwell] Taylor, the

Attorney General [Robert Kennedy], Secretary [Robert] McNamara to a somewhat

lesser degree, John McCone, partly based on an old hostility to [Henry Cabot] Lodge

[Jr.] which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgement, partly as a result

of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his [CIA] station chief; in favor of the

coup was State, led by Averell Harriman, George Ball, Roger Hilsman,

supported by Mike Forrestal at the White House.

(quote off)

Via PD Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm#_ftn41

"Assassinations Report, 173. Cf. FRUS, #320; 777 (Bundy memo of April 21, 1963).

The other two documents are not in FRUS."

(quote on)

As early as January 4, 1963, Bundy proposed to President Kennedy that the

possibility of communicating with Castro be explored. (Memorandum, Bundy

to the President, 1/4/63). Bundy's memorandum on "Cuba Alternatives" of

April 23 [sic, i.e. April 21], 1963, also listed the "gradual development of some

form of accommodation with Castro" among policy alternatives. (Bundy

memorandum, 4/21/63) At a meeting on June 3, 1963, the Special Group agreed

it would be a "useful endeavour" to explore "various possibilities of establishing

channels of communication to Castro." (Memorandum of Special Group meeting,

6/6/63).

(quote off)

David Talbot's Brothers, pg 226:

(quote on)

When Lisa Howard told [envoy William] Attwood that Castro would like to

restore communications with Kennedy and offered to set up an informal meeting

at her apartment between him and Cuba's UN representative, Carlos Lechuga,

the diplomat responded enthusiastically. In a memo he wrote for [Adlai]

Stevenson and Averill Harriman -- who he was told was the best direct channel

to Kennedy -- Attwood suggested that "we have something to gain and nothing

to lose by finding out whether in fact Castro does want to talk"...Stevenson took

the proposal to Kennedy, who gave him clearance to pursue the dialogue.

Harriman too said he was "adventuresome enough" to like the idea...

(quote off)

ad·ven·ture (ăd-vĕn'chər)

n.

1.

1. An undertaking or enterprise of a hazardous nature.

2. An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving

intervention in another state's affairs.

Brothers, pg 217:

(quote on)

By the time Vietnam began to reach a crisis point late in Kennedy's term, much

of his national security bureaucracy -- weary with the president's sly maneuvers

to avoid war -- was in flagrant revolt against him. The Pentagon and CIA were

taking secret steps to sabotage his troop withdrawal plan. And even trusted

advisors like Harriman, the Moscow-friendly globe-trotting tycoon whom Kennedy

thought he could rely on to help broker a deal on Vietnam, were brazenly

undercutting his peace initiatives.

(quote off)

Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry31073

(quote on)

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the

identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the

duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick.

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the

lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence

in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open.

Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the

highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime

of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia

nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to

using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do

its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending

that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who

was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was

prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the

Mafia and/or renegade elements.

(quote off)

Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow

during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald

association.

(quote off)

"The Secret Origins of Skull & Bones":

http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html

Partial roster of Yale club "Skull & Bones":

W. Averell Harriman ('13)

McGeorge Bundy ('40)

Having to pull the US Navy off the coast of Haiti so they could stage smuggling runs

was in no way, shape or form a "readily controlled pipeline."

That was Harriman's call when it was all said and done -- or so I speculate.

That's a whole lotta' speculating from where I sit; the record says it was a Bundy operation,

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5, emphasis mine:

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

Charles, in this post I'll go with burgundy...

[1] The propaganda value of having a "Castro boogyman" pales in comparison to the concrete value of having a readily controlled dope pipeline running thru Havana.

[2] If tycoons like Averell Harriman and Clint Murchison, Jr. are regarded as possible sponsors of the JFK assassination, I submit their intent was to reclaim Cuba for its place in the dope biz.

[3] Heroin is the most tangible and valuable of commodities, whereas "propaganda value" may bring tangible benefits it isn't, in and of itself, a tangible item. The hard-eyed men who killed Kennedy were after something far more tangible than dropping a propaganda "shock" on the American people.

[4] If Oswald had been gunned down Friday afternoon as planned, Castro was toast.

[5] Or so I'll continue to argue going forward...

1. If I impart nothing else to anyone viewing these pages, let me be remembered for championing the "third alternative" point of view. For these characters, it wasn't a choice between a "readily controlled dope pipeline" or a "'Castro boogeyman [sic].'" They conspired to create and maintain both. And they succeeded.

The hypothetical "choice" did indeed involve "a readily controlled

dope pipeline out of Havana," OR the Castro boogy-man scenario. Not both.

As to the former, on 11/22/63 the Lansky/Trafficante syndicate was still struggling to

adequately replace Havana as a distribution hub. It's proximity to the Florida Keys

make Havana eternally attractive to narcotics smugglers.

Having to pull the US Navy off the coast of Haiti so they could stage smuggling runs

was in no way, shape or form a "readily controlled pipeline."

That was Harriman's call when it was all said and done -- or so I speculate.

2. Big "if," Cliff. One of the glaring and fatal problems with your construction is that it places Harriman and Murchison on the same plane. Nothing could be farther removed from the truth.

I submit their respective smuggling instruments were roughly

equivalent -- Zapata Offshore and Murchison Oil Lease. And both owned shipping

lines, of course. I can't quantify their respective roles in dope trafficking, but

given their respective histories, connections etc. it's productive speculation, imho.

Consider: Johnson wasn't in the White House more than 10 minutes 11/22/63

before Harriman shows up to tell him that the Soviets had nothing to do with the

assassination.

How would Harriman know that as a fact unless he had knowledge of the actual plot?

And if Harriman didn't know that as a fact, how does he responsibly present that

conclusion to the President of the United States less than 6 hours after the shooting?

Looks to me like an employer (Harriman) going over to his employee's

house to tell the guy (LBJ) the proverbial What's What.

And then a few days later a Harriman protege by the name of George H. W. Bush

was briefed by the CIA as to the Cuban exile reaction in Miami.

http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/fa...a-1961-1963.txt

The same George Bush of Houston TX who called the FBI to direct attention

to a right winger.

Is the following a co-incidence? Emphasis mine:

Larry Hancock's Someone would Have Talked:

We were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be

assassinated in Dallas: there were no if's, and's, or but's about it."

Marty Underwood, Democratic National Committee Political Advance Man.

Underwood served as the advance man for Houston on the Texas

trip in November of 1963.

3. Off point entirely. Fatally simplistic, too. See "1" above. Again, you are not providing a viable blueprint for the conspiracy in all of its complexities. And until you're able to describe, even hypothetically, how the plot was layered, you have nothing upon which to base these assertions.

Assertions are to be generally avoided, no doubt. Assertions

are guilty pleasures best taken in the heat of rhetorical battle.

Otherwise, I try to stick to the historical record as closely as possible.

Blueprints and layers are not what I'm about. Simplistic, sure. I'm looking for

consistencies in the evidence. When the consistencies become sufficiently

numerous a preliminary conclusion, a working hypothesis, can be reasonably

formed.

Not one point of historical fact I've presented in this thread has been challenged.

My speculations derived from these facts certainly can be challenged, have been,

and will be. I wouldn't want it any other way, Brother Charles!

And the heroin traffickers had made other arrangements.

Charles, in the context of the narcotics trade this is an utter non sequitur.

When a beautiful woman dumps a guy, he may make "other arrangements"

and still pine after his lost love, no?

The dope trade is a series of "arrangements" wherein producers and

distributors maximize profits over time by eliminating the middlemen.

Meyer Lansky began developing Havana as a smuggler's paradise in the early

'30's, and proceeded for the better part of three decades to make it the hub of

international narcotics traffic. If other locales in the Caribbean had been of greater

potential to the Lansky organization, Lansky would have developed them instead of

Cuba.

Those "other arrangements" forged after the advent of Fidel -- smuggling ops

staged from the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti -- were never as

attractive as doing business out of Cuba.

It's loss was sorely felt. It's return was keenly desired. The propaganda value

of having a "Castro boogyman" pales in comparison to the concrete value of

having a readily controlled dope pipeline running thru Havana.

Lanksy didn't open his casinos in the Bahamas until 1964. I speculate he was

waiting to see how Cuba would play out. Instead of controlling 3rd-Worlders like

Batista, Lanksy had to pay off British Commonwealth types at a much higher price.

And look at all the names listed in "The deMoh & Charles Show." For the sake

of argument, let's say those guys were opening up Haiti as a narcotics hub. All

of them were middlemen. With the exception of WUBINY/WUSALINE (CIA), they

were all temporary to the on-going arrangements that made up the international

narcotics market.

If tycoons like Averell Harriman and Clint Murchison, Jr. are regarded as possible

sponsors of the JFK assassination, I submit their intent was to reclaim Cuba for its

place in the dope biz.

Heroin is the most tangible and valuable of commodities, whereas "propaganda

value" may bring tangible benefits it isn't, in and of itself, a tangible item. The

hard-eyed men who killed Kennedy were after something far more tangible

than dropping a propaganda "shock" on the American people.

If Oswald had been gunned down Friday afternoon as planned, Castro was toast.

Or so I'll continue to argue going forward...

Cliff wrote:

Consider that in 1963 the global real estate most coveted by international

heroin traffickers was the SE Asian Golden Triangle and the Havana-to-Florida

smuggling routes -- not necessarily in that order.

Santo was the big fish in both. Now why do you think Fidel allowed drugs to flow from France through Cuba and then to Trafficante's Florida criminal enterprise?

I don't think that, and I have a hard time seeing where you got that impression.

It was a keen desire for the military re-acquisition of Cuba that lead to the

events of Eleven Twenty Two.

Castro wasn't playing ball with the heroin traffickers in 1963, which is why they

sought his removal.

Ashton, please allow me to add to the time-line another item of (possibly)

extreme import.

Absolutely on topic...

Cliff, I agree that what you've been posting here is of extreme importance, although we disagree on its suitability for this thread.

I'm posting briefly here only to say that I have not abandoned this, that I am working on creating a unified timeline of relevant events for a separate thread, that I'm having to dance between raindrops to do it, and also that I am having to rely on the assistance and contributions of several other people to help me get it pulled together and to get some of the kinks worked out (and there are more than a few kinks, let me tell you).

I can't say with any degree of accurate prediction when I'll be able to post the other thread, but please be aware that it is being worked on diligently, and that all of your data is being very thoroughly appreciated and incorporated. As soon as I possibly can I will post what has been put together on this. I believe you will find it all of great interest.

Ashton

I look forward to the new thread, Ashton.

As far as this one goes, allow me to allude to Bill's original item #10:

10) Brothers Jerry and James Buchanan, CIA propaganda assets, began promoting the Castro-did-it theme immediately. According to Donald Freed and Jeff Cohen (in Liberation Magazine), the source of the Buchanan's tales was the leader of the CIA supported International Anti-Communist Brigade (IAB). "Back in Miami," they wrote, "a high powered propaganda machine was cranking out stories that Oswald was a Cuban agent…" Sturgis is quoted in the Pampara Beach Sun-Sentinel as saying that Oswald had talked with Cuban G-2 agents and fracassed with IAB members in Miami in 1962.

From John Simkin's "Frank Sturgis" post on this Forum:

According to a memo sent by L. Patrick Gray, Director of the FBI, to H. L. Haldeman in 1972: "Sources in Miami say he (Sturgis) is now associated with organized crime activities". In his book, Assassination of JFK (1977), Bernard Fensterwald claims that Sturgis was heavily involved with the Mafia, particularly with the criminal activities of Santos Trafficante and Meyer Lansky in Florida.

Can one throw a rock in this case and NOT hit a dope smuggler?

Ashton, please allow me to add to the time-line another item of (possibly)

extreme import.

Absolutely on topic...

Sunday, 28 April 1963 (on or around)

Undersecretary of State W. Averell Harriman and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro

are both in Moscow. Via Peter Dale Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm

The simultaneous convergence on Moscow of Harriman and Castro was thus

preceded by signals that progress in accommodation between them could be

brokered by Khrushchev (who had every motive vis-a-vis his own hard-liners

to be successful in this respect). But what looked hopeful to some evoked

paranoia in others. Soon the right-wing journalists Robert Allen and Paul Scott,

who wrote from sources in military intelligence, wrote a column under the

provocative title, "Did Harriman Meet Castro in Russia?" They reported that

the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee, chaired by the pro-military Senator

John Stennis, was investigating the allegation that the two men had met "

around April 28, in either Moscow or Murmansk" (where both were visiting).

Castro allegedly was seeking diplomatic recognition in exchange for a reduction

in Soviet troop levels.

While we're at it:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNngo.htm

On May 8, 1963, Buddhists assembled in Hue to celebrate the 2527th birthday of

the Buddha. Attempts were made by the police to disperse the crowds by opening

fire on them. One woman and eight children were killed in their attempts to flee

from the police.

How is this on-topic?

Consider that in 1963 the global real estate most coveted by international

heroin traffickers was the SE Asian Golden Triangle and the Havana-to-Florida

smuggling routes -- not necessarily in that order.

The Lansky/Trafficante crime syndicate and, I'll argue going forward, their

transportation-tycoon business partners (Zapata Offshore, Murchison Oil Lease)

hoped to secure and hold both of these very valuable parcels and thereby eliminate

the Corsican Mafia and all manner of other middlemen (see "The deMoh & Charles Show").

According to a source of mine, who was in 1963 the 13-year old daughter of a Diem

secret police commander, the May 8 police attack was strictly a CIA-run operation.

A Buddhist, she insists that the sectarian hostilities of the spring and summer of 1963

in SVN were fueled by the Americans.

I would speculate that the American behind this was Harriman. The 1962 Laotian

Accords were designed to clear all foreign troops out of Laos, leaving it "neutral"

and thus highly exploitable for its opium production.

But the N. Vietnamese left a sizable military presence in Laos -- a Nikita double-cross?

There was no way Harriman was going to allow Vietnam to go the "neutral" route.

Ashton, please allow me to add to the time-line another item of (possibly)

extreme import.

Absolutely on topic...

Sunday, 28 April 1963 (on or around)

Undersecretary of State W. Averell Harriman and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro

are both in Moscow. Via Peter Dale Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm

The simultaneous convergence on Moscow of Harriman and Castro was thus

preceded by signals that progress in accommodation between them could be

brokered by Khrushchev (who had every motive vis-a-vis his own hard-liners

to be successful in this respect). But what looked hopeful to some evoked

paranoia in others. Soon the right-wing journalists Robert Allen and Paul Scott,

who wrote from sources in military intelligence, wrote a column under the

provocative title, "Did Harriman Meet Castro in Russia?" They reported that

the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee, chaired by the pro-military Senator

John Stennis, was investigating the allegation that the two men had met "

around April 28, in either Moscow or Murmansk" (where both were visiting).

Castro allegedly was seeking diplomatic recognition in exchange for a reduction

in Soviet troop levels.

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread.

This is absolutely on topic. The black ops behind the Castro-did-it black op.

I'm of the view that an understanding of the "DeMoh & Charles Show" unlocks a

deeper understanding of the Kennedy assassination.

...Not in Kansas anymore, Dorothe. Seems to me heroin was their game.

I believe that was Dorothy to Toto, and I find your cobbled-together timeline of great and absorbing interest—but I really do believe it must be taken out of this thread, which specifically is concerned with propaganda, and the de Mohrenschildt/Charles show was the antithesis of propaganda, having been largely a covert operation.

I'm going to stay put in this thread, since it all ties together.

What work did deM do in Haiti?

He developed maps, part of a geological survey of Haiti's oil potential, or so the

legend goes.

HSCA:

De Mohrenschildt stated to the Warren Commission that the undertaking in Haiti was a purely commercial and geological interest, with no other "purpose or intent."(107) De Mohrenschildt explained that the office he used in Port-au-Prince was in fact the office of the Inter-American Geodetic Survey, but that the maps he developed were not to be used by any nation or group for any type of work other than his own geological interests.

I submit deM was more interested in identifying the best embarkation points on

the Haitian coast for smuggling operations.

Bill,

I'll argue going forward that the "deMoh & Charles" show is not a side-track

at all, but fundamental to understanding both the "who" and especially the

"why" of the Kennedy assassination.

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread. With apologies to Bill Kelly, I'll just say briefly here that it seems clear to me now that Operation Red Cross was actually a CIA op to deliver a gaggle of Cubans for something connected with those two, of course having nothing whatsoever to do with picking up any Soviets. (And, naturally, a gaggle of Cubans with arms disappeared, and no Soviets came back.)

Ashton

Ashton,

No apologies necessary. Wondering if the DeMohrenschilt/CJCharles Haiti op was connected in any way with the Bayo-Pawley guys who were coming off an anti-Papa Doc operation?

Ya think?

From Henrik Kruger's The Great Heroin Coup, pg. 146:

Loran Hall, another former Trafficante casino employee, claimed that

both his boss and Sam Giancana had helped plan the [bayo-Pawley] raid.

From the WUBRINY memo:

"Referring to de Mohrenschildt, Mrs. [Dorothe] Matlack said, "'I knew the Texan wasn't

there to sell hemp.'"

Not in Kansas anymore, Dorothe. Seems to me heroin was their game.

[/quote

PLEASE point me toward this WUBRINY memo. I spent long periods of time wit Prouty discussing things and one point he made EVERY time was 'look into Dorothe Mattlack!...and there is precious little on her. She met De Mohrenshschild once when he came to DC to testify, in order to [prep] him I know.....

My mistake, Peter -- it wasn't from the WUBRINY memo, but from the HSCA Staff

interview of Dorothe Matlack, Sept. 4, 1978, (JFK Document No. 015042).

More here under deM's activities in Haiti:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/j.../hscademo.htm#V

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread.

This is absolutely on topic. The black ops behind the Castro-did-it black op.

I'm of the view that an understanding of the "DeMoh & Charles Show" unlocks a

deeper understanding of the Kennedy assassination.

Here's the cast of main characters:

George de Mohrenschildt

Thomas J. Devine (WUBRINY1)

Clemard Joseph Charles

Train, Cabot and Associates

DeM's Texas financier(s)

Herve Boyer, Haitian Minister of Finance

Joesph F Dryer

The un-named French business partner

Ashton, I've stripped your timeline down to deM business -- thanks for putting

this together.

Emphases mine...

Friday, 19 April 1963

George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt leave Dallas, Texas for Washington, D.C. [NOTE: See entry for 20 April 1963 putting De Mohrenschildt in Washington. From there, the couple will travel also to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—where the wife of James McCord recently has traveled via Dallas—and to New York City.]

Saturday, 20 April 1963

According to a CIA memo, George De Mohrenschildt meets with someone in Washington, D.C. on this date, but the name of the person he met with is blacked out in the memo.

Thursday, 25 April 1963

On or about this date, evidence indicates that Clemard Joseph Charles arrives in Washington, D.C., and is in touch with Army Intelligence's Dorthe Matlack. Charles has been recommended by Joseph Dryer of West Palm Beach, Florida (close to CIA's JM/WAVE) as "a man of great interest to the U.S. Government." [NOTE: It cannot be determined if George De Mohrenschildt is still in Washington, D.C. at the time or not, but the following day he will meet in New York City with Clemard Joseph Charles and others.]

Friday, 26 April 1963

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

1. WUBRINY/1 [Thomas James Devine] telephoned on the sterile line at approximately 17000 hours to report on a meeting held this afternoon, as described below.

2. WUBRINY/1 said that M. Clemard Joseph CHARLES, subject of earlier contact Reports, brought to the WUSALINE office [New York office of Wall Street investment firm Train, Cabot and Associates]:

3. Mr. DeMohrenschildt (deM) is the son of a Swedish father who was in Baku on a Nobel Enterprise at the time deM was born, left Baku at age 2. He has had two wives, the present one having been born in Peiking of Russian-French parents. In 1960 deM spent a year in Mexico with his wife and child and a donkey and is publishing a book on this titled something like 'Trois et le Mule.'

4. WUBRINY/1 says that deM is a geologist who is presently involved in exploring the mineral resources of Haiti and in established [sic] a seisel [sic—sisal] plantation. This has been written up in Le Montour [or Le Monteur] of March 13, 1963, the official issuance of the Haitian Government. WUBRINY/1 has a copy of this in the event it is not available in Kubark.

According to this article, a $280,000 survey has been awarded to deM plus a ten year option of a concession on seisel [sic—sisal].

5. deM claims that he has done geological work for the Meek (?) Company in offshore oil, the Arabian Peninsula, and mentioning this WUBRINY/1 says

deM looked around the room and over his shoulder and said, "My connection with this is, of course, confidential."

6. WUBRINY/1 reports that deM claims to be an important person in Port-au-Prince and said that he did not go to the President to gain the concession, but, instead, worked through the Minister of Finance, Herve Boyer [or Boyar]. deM claims to be very close to this Minister, considers him a splendid person and says that he is likely to survive any change in the regime.

7. WUBRINY/1 characterized deM as being a typical international financier and wheeler and dealer who

apparently shared with M. CHARLES various business interests including a bank and seisel [sic—sisal] business.

8. Regarding financial developments in Haiti, WUBRINY/1 said that M. CHARLES and deM said that they were anxious to develop a number of business interests in the country, including an office in deM's bank [sic—should this be Charles's bank?] which would enter into car financing and would buy some of the bank's commercial paper. WUBRINY/1 said that M. CHARLES made an unusual statement in this connection and announced that the third partner (in addition to M. CHARLES and deM) a Frenchman is arriving in New York n Sunday and a meeting has been set up for WUBRINY/1 to meet him on Monday.

In this connection, M. CHARLES amazing statement was, "It is not appropriate for a banker to ask for money, " and he then deferred further discussion until the arrival of the French partner.

9. WUBRINY/1 said that M CHARLES and deM in listing the various investment possibilities in Haiti mentioned an insurance company, a banking company, a telephone company, a hotel (buy an existing one), a hydro-electric system, a wharf (interesting because of the availability of lumber in Cuba for this and the need to get it out).

10. WUBRINY/1 said that

both men showed an element of bluff in their presentations

and they spoke depreciatingly of the President, but spoke glowingly of the investment possibilities in Haiti.

11. WUBRINY/1 reported that deM was "a paper grabber" stating that every available handout in the office of WUBRINY/1 was sought by deM such as prospecti, lists of Directors, stockholders, etc., etc.

12. I congratulated WUBRINY/1 on eliciting such a tremendous amount of information in one short meeting and asked him to keep it up when the meeting schedule for Monday comes off.

C. FRANK STONE, III

Chief

DO/COEO

DO/COEO/EFS:jj(29 Apr 63)

Distribution:

Orig - EO subject

1 - EO chromo

1 - WUBRINY Ops

[ NARA 1993:07.31.11:47:55:210047]

• On the same day, CIA's Gale Allen, a case officer of the Domestic Operations Division (DOD), initiates a request for an expedite check of George De Mohrenschildt, "exact reasons unknown."

Monday, 29 April 1963

CIA Office of Security finds that it has "no objection" to George De Mohrenschildt's acceptance of a contract with the Duvalier regime of Haiti in the field of "natural resource development." The Office of Security furnishes CIA's Domestic Operations Division (DOD) with a copy of a 1958 summary of the case of George De Mohrenschildt (#775).

[NOTE: There is no known reason why DeMohrenschildt had been "of interest" to the CIA in 1958. This April 1963 event is indicative of one of the oddest anomalies of the many surrounding De Mohrenschildt: his entire raison d'etre, purportedly laid over years or decades, regarding working in Haiti was related to his geological credentials, experience, and research. Later, there even are maps he supplies for possible oil resources around Haiti. Yet this "natural resource development" that he's about to embark on in Haiti with Clemard Joseph Charles is primarily for starting a hemp farm.]

Thursday, 2 May 1963

• [T]here is a meeting between CIA and Clemard Joseph Charles in New York City: "Charles expressed hope that President Kennedy and other high U.S. Government officials will give him an opportunity to present his plan to save Haiti from 'Duvalier and Communism.' He plans to visit his friend and American business partner, Joseph F. Dryer, in Tampa and hopes that an audience with high U.S. Government officials could be arranged after the weekend 'most discreetly.' Utmost caution imperative in this regard since "Papa Doc" Duvalier would kill his family if he learned about Charles' cooperation with U.S. After the four hour interview Charles insisted that we meet his good friend and business partner, DeMohrenschildt. He told us that he has absolute confidence in the honesty and ability of Charles whom he considers a potential leader in a Democratic Haiti. Charles' great advantage is that he has never been tied up with any political party." [NARA 1993.07.31.11:51:57:280047]

Let us add further from another timeline Ashton presented in another thread:

The 10 May 1963 memo from State Department's Haitian Desk characterizing

Clemard Joseph Charles as someone close to the Duvalier government and an

"undesirable character."

And this from the WUBRINY contact report of May 21, 1963:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=9

1. WUBRINY1 telephoned on the sterile line at approximately 1630 hours to pass the

following information:

2. Mr. deMOHRENSCHILDT dropped into the SALINE offices this afternoon. He

said that M. Clemard Joseph CHARLES has returned to Haiti and is being seriously

considered as the next President. Subject said that M. CHARLES is receiving

considerable support and in subject's opinion would make an excellent President

of Haiti as soon as Duvalier can be gotten out.

3. deMOHRENSCHILDT said that he has obtained some Texas financial backing

and that he has visited interested people in Washington regarding M. CHARLES

candidacy. He did not identify these contacts to WUBRINY.

Conspicuously missing from this time-line is any report on the Monday, April 29, '63

meeting between Devine, deM, Charles and the un-named "French business partner."

In light of the above, let's review our cast of characters.

George de Mohrenschildt

According to the official story, deM was in Haiti from 1963 to 1967 on

oil business.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm

If that's the case, "the Baron" spent four years in Haiti finding not one drop of oil.

He also spent four years not growing any hemp. According to Gaeton Fonzi, the sisal

plantation was "derelict" and never visited.

DeM, suspected of aiding a CIA plot to overthrow Duvalier, also spent four years not

affecting the overthrow of the Haitian tyrant.

According to the official story, deM also looked after the Haitian interests of his long-time

employer, Clint Murchison, Jr. This appears to be the singular success of deM's career

in Haiti.

Clint Murchison, Jr. was in business with Vito Genovese, Meyer Lansky, and Carlos

Marcello, major mafia figures whose principal business was narcotics.

Was it Murchison who was supplying the "Texas financing" deM mentions?

From the memo: "WUBRINY/1 says deM looked around the room and over his shoulder

and said, 'My connection with this is, of course, confidential.'"

Of course, George. Knowledge of guilt so noticed. The ultra-discreet Thomas Devine would

keep anything illegal most confidential.

Thomas J. Devine (WUBRINY1)

George H. W. Bush formed Zapata Offshore with Thomas J. Devine of the CIA

in 1953.

http://www.realnews.org/stories/2007-06-01_bushcia.html

The new revelation about George H.W. Bush's CIA friend and fellow Zapata Offshore board member will surely fuel further speculation that Bush himself had his own associations with the agency.

Indeed, Zapata's annual reports portray a bewildering range of global activities, in the Mideast, Asia and the Caribbean (including off Cuba) that seem outsized for the company's modest bottom line.

Zapata Offshore's annual reports showed a modest bottom line which must account for

George H. W. Bush's accumulated wealth during that period, as well as the "outsized"

operations of his company.

According to Tarpley & Chaitkin, Zapata Offshore provided services for oil drilling

platforms, as well as operating several mobile drilling platforms themselves.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8.htm

Zapata Offshore could send helicopters on "maintenence runs" out to the platforms

and back to the U.S. mainland without rigorous custom's checks, or none at all.

Given Bush's connections with the contra-cocaine smuggling scandal of the

80's, it's fair to speculate that Zapata Offshore was a narcotics smuggling

enterprise.

http://www.fair.org/extra/8910/north-banned.html

"Poppy," indeed.

Clemard Joseph Charles

Question: When is it "not appropriate" for a banker to ask for money,

or otherwise broadcast his services?

Answer: When the banker launders drug money. In such a case, the

client approaches the banker, not the other way around, or else the

banker loses considerable leverage in the negotiation.

Let's get an overview of Clemard Joseph Charles career and those of

some of his later associates...

From Pete Brewton's The CIA, the Mafia, & George Bush, in the

"Cast of Principal Characters" section:

CLEMARD JOSEPH CHARLES, Haitian exile who laundered money for Mario Renda

to bribe union officials; CIA asset; mob money launderer; associate of Miami lawyer

who represented Lawrence Freeman.

LAWRENCE FREEMAN, disbarred Miami attorney and convicted money launderer for

cocaine smuggler Jack DeVoe;...former law partner of CIA super-operative Paul Helliwell

and alleged money launderer for Mafia boss Santo Trafficante.

MARIO RENDA, Long Island money broker...convicted felon and Mafia associate with

a number of CIA buddies.

JACK DEVOE, convicted cocaine trafficker and CIA-connected arms smuggler...

Charles operated at the nexus of the CIA/drug-smuggling/arms-smuggling/money

laundering. He was regarded as an "undesirable character" even before he

hooked up with the CIA!

Train, Cabot and Associates

Would descendants of opium smugglers ever be tempted to pick up the old

family trade?

Did these families ever fully divest of their interest in international narcotics

distribution?

DeM's Texas financier(s)

Was deM acting as an agent for the mobbed-up Murchison?

Herve Boyer, Haitian Minister of Finance

Here's a great article about Mohamed Al Fayed and the corrupt nature of

the Haitian government in the pertinent time period, and the activities of

Boyer, Charles, and deM post-JFK.

http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%206/page35.html

By 1962 the US had cut off aid and President Kennedy had sworn to destroy the dictator even though Haiti - 80 kilometres off the south-eastern tip of Cuba - was seen as an essential bulwark in the fight against communism creeping throughout the Caribbean and Central America. Most foreign investors had already abandoned the country along with the educated local elite and the expat community of writers, artists and adventurers. As a result, by 1964 anyone who landed in Haiti with the air of prosperity and the right connections got a royal welcome.

Did deMo do anything other than socialize, and sweat the JFK investigations?

Joesph F Dryer

Charles' U.S. contact testified before the HSCA.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscademo.htm

Emphasis mine...

Dryer said he met George de Mohrenschildt through Charles. Dryer said that

de Mohrenschildt claimed he came to Haiti to scout for oil, but Dryer stated that "I

could never figure out what he did." Dryer expressed the belief that de Mohrenschildt

had "some intelligence connection," but Dryer did not know with which country.

The un-named French business partner

In this scenario the Frenchman belongs to the Corsican Mafia, which controlled

the production of heroin in the late-40's, 50's and 60's. The deal set up in the offices

of Train, Cabot involved the Frenchman bringing the heroin to Haiti under the auspices

of Boyer and Charles, with deMohenschildt sheparding its delivery to Zapata Offshore

facilities (their own drilling platforms or other platforms they "serviced") where it would

be transported to the mainland and turned over to Sicilian/American syndicate

distributors Stateside.

From the Staff interview of Dorothe Matlack, Sept. 4, 1978, House Select committee on

Assassinations (JFK Document No. 015042)

"Referring to de Mohrenschildt, Mrs. [Dorothe] Matlack said, "'I knew the Texan wasn't

there to sell hemp.'"

Not in Kansas anymore, Dorothe. Seems to me heroin was their game.

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

If your favorite indoor sport is trying to figure out or "prove" whether the purported bullet wound that "everybody knows" was in John F. Kennedy's throat was an inny or an outty, this article is useless to you, so please pass on by and find something else to do.

It doesn't work that way around here.

But out of respect for you, Brother Ashton, I will simply note

a far more compelling counter-argument and withdraw.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

In re Silence:

I am sincerely flattered.

Keeping up? I do not believe Cheney ever contemplated running for the presidency. If he had, I think that hunting accident did him in!

You fail to catch my drift...Cheney was de facto C-in-C prior to the 2006

election.

Cliff, that did not, however, answer my question.

And to say Baker is running THIS Bush WH is to laugh! Look at how the POTUS treated the recommendations of the panel upon which Baker served.

You're not keeping up.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-infor...12112006-1.html

The 2006 election cost Cheney the presidency.

[cue Silence of the Lambs]

Lecter: I've read the case file -- have you? Everything you need

to find him is right there in those pages.

Starling: Then tell me how.

Lecter: First principles, Clarice! Simplicity! Read Marcus Aurelius -- of

each particular thing ask, What is it in itself? What is it's nature? What does

he do -- this man you seek?

Starling: He kills women.

Lecter: That's inciden-tull. What is the first and principal thing he does?

What needs does he serve by killing?

Starling: Anger...um...social acceptance...and, uh...sexual frustration--

Lecter: --No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet,

Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.

Starling: No, we just...

Lecter: No, we begin by coveting what we see every day.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0234-66A.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmurchison.htm

And why pray tell would Harriman want a contingency plan to kill the President whose election he had supported?

I think you're under two mis-impressions.

1) You think the President of the United States is in charge. (And right

now it isn't Cheney, either. It's James Baker.)

2) You think that the D/R dichotomy is real at the elite levels. (The Bush family

embodies the legacy of W. Averell Harriman -- the Clintons embody the legacy of

Pamela Harriman.)