Scott Kaiser

According to my father's date and time to appear and testify at the Watergate Hearings was on February 7, 1973, I'm looking for witlessness's testimonies, is it ironic that my father would be killed on February 7, 1977 just days before he was suppose to testify at the HSCA?

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

Lots of stuff here...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Watergate_Documents

David,

Thank you so much brother, I'll look through this and see if I can find anything on my dad, it means so much to me because that would have been my father saying something or testifying about something, and I'm hoping I can find something anything, would be nice.

Thanks again man!

...My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means...

Scott

Scott, if Frank Sturgis was 6'2" tall, then the man standing to his right in the videos you kindly shared in this thread must be 6'8" tall, since he's much taller than Frank.

Is it possible Frank Sturgis wore high-heel boots in his later years?

--Paul

Paul,

I'm not sure if you've been missing any of my pass posts or you're just trying to give me a hard time, I really don't know what it is, and I thought perhaps you would have just let it go by now, but it seems you want to drag this on and for what reason? I really don't know, you're a reseacher why don't you find out yourself how tall Frank is. I really don't care to argue the fact of Frank hight. Is it not enough that (you) don't want to believe me? I guess it wouldn't help telling you that I knew Frank for nine years either would it? In that film, I'm telling you, its Frank Sturgis, Lee Harvey Oswald, Marita Lorenz and Gerry Droller aka Frank Bender, so how hard is that to understand? Or should I say what part of that don't you understand? UGH!

Sometimes we just need to except it when we're wrong and leave it alone, but not you! You want to drag this out and I'm okay with that, but in the end you're the one who is going to come out loosing on this one. When I'm wrong I except it and move on, I will go as far as saying I'm wrong. But that's not your intention, so what is?

And Paul, you can easily tell by looking at that film that the terrain is uneven. And yes, that white guy standing next to Sturgis looks like a tall skinny white dude, I'm sorry I don't know how tall he is, but it appears he does look taller then Frank. Perhaps, someone can find how tall Frank was, maybe you could ask James Hunt Frank nephew, maybe he knows or ask his step daughter, maybe you'll find it somewhere, but I'm telling you he was taller then my dad, I do remember.

I found this to be very interesting, posted by Esther Howes in one of the Forums on Facebook.

Esther Howes

Excerpt from a letter from Billie Sol Estes' lawyer

August 9, 1984

Mr. Stephen S. Trott

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530

RE: Mr. Billie Sol Estes

Dear Mr. Trott:

My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter of May 29, 1984. Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson, which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960's. The other two, besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the following criminal offenses:

I. Murders

1. The killing of Henry Marshall

2. The killing of George Krutilek

3. The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary

4. The killing of Harold Orr

5. The killing of Coleman Wade

6. The killing of Josefa Johnson

7. The killing of John Kinser

8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy.

Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes' knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

Scott,

You say your father was called twice to testify on Watergate. Did he testify both times?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Yes he did, I'll attach the day and date he was called, here is some information you could go on, and Tommy if this is going to cost me anything or if someone is going to charge me please PM me at my private email at scott@kaiser-industries.com or this forum, and if we need to work something out or if I need to send you the money by Western Union I will, thank you for helping me in re-discovering who my father was, it means a lot.

Scott

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20673422/watergate%205.jpg

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

The Rockefeller Commission of the U.S. Congress in 1974 investigated Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt in connection with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Specifically, it investigated allegations that E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis were CIA agents and were present in Dallas at the time of the assassination and could have fired the alleged shots from the grassy knoll. Some support for Hunt's involvement came from Kerry Wendell Thornley, who believed he had conversed with Hunt (who Thornley claimed used the alias "Gary Kirstein") on numerous occasions from 1961 to 1963 regarding plans to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Newsweek magazine reported and printed photographs of three men, including two supposedly resembling Hunt and Sturgis, who were detained at the grassy knoll shortly after the assassination. The Newsweek article stated the official reports that the men were released and were only "railroad bums" who would find shelter sleeping in the boxcars of the trains located near the grassy knoll. According to Newsweek, the men were released without further inquiry.

According to the 1975 Rockefeller Commission report, Hunt testified that he had never met Sturgis before they were introduced by Bernard Barker in Miami in 1972. Sturgis testified to the same effect, except that he did not recall whether the introduction had taken place in late 1971 or early 1972. Sturgis further testified that while he had often heard of "Eduardo," a CIA political officer who had been active in the work of the Cuban Revolutionary Council in Miami prior to the Bay of Pigs operation in April 1961, he had never met him and did not know until 1971 or 1972 that "Eduardo" was E. Howard Hunt.

In a deathbed statement released in 2007, Hunt named Sturgis as one of the participants in "The Big Event", which Hunt's son claims to be the code name for the assassination. However Hunt never mentions Kennedy, Oswald, Dallas, or the assassination in any way in the "confession".

Whenever we get quotes from Presidents or their Aides in black and white in reference to this conspiracy or any historical event, it's always intriguing.

I've never bought the reason LBJ didn't run for re-election was just solely Vietnam. My own theory is that RFK did his own investigation, got some of his contact in the government to press LBJ on it, and if they did find that LBJ was involved in any way, they threatened him with Impeachment. Of course, especially back then, they were not going to embarrass the President or the Office of POTUS. So maybe LBJ was told by the Kennedy people or AG/Justice Dept. that declining to run would save him a public trial. And that he would be under secret house arrest for the rest of his life as long as he stepped away quietly. And that his legacy would not be tarnished if he accepted this deal.

I know it all sounds like an episode out of '24', but maybe that's the way it happened.

But they in power will still not tell us the truth. The only reason I can ponder is that the truth is so disturbing that they will just not tell us. Say if it was LBJ behind it, I can see why. Why tarnish the office, it would be embarrassing for the nation. We would just be another Banana republic. Or there is something even greater that they think we can't handle.

I think everybody here has their own theory, and there is nothing wrong with that so long as no one is trying to shove their theory down my throat, like Mr. Von for example, I respect his work as I do everyone else's. I am not a reseacher, or a CTer what ever that means, or a lone nutter, or an Oswald did it kinda guy. I'm me, with a personal vendetta.

But, that doesn't mean I can't express my thoughts, I beleive that if LBJ was the person behind the assassination he wouldn't have been so worried about who may be out to assassinate him. I beleive that LBJ created the cover-up hence the Warren Commission and wanted to put this to rest hoping that the American people would buy into what the Commission tried to sell in a short nine month period. That's my take on LBJ for JFK and I'm.

Scott Kaiser

Lot of fireworks here, but also some good information.

I too was always interested on how the motorcade worked in Dallas. But also was intrigued that other motorcades like like Mr. Von Pein has provided were similar in secret service protection. Since the Secret Service had done so many different motorcades for JFK before Dallas, does anyone have information why this motorcade protection was used in this motorcade vs that motorcade?

Now here's my take on what happened in Dallas. Mind you this is all speculation, I have no real evidence to back it up, but thought I'd throw it out there for the members to debate about.

So from the evidence we have, we know that JFK was being hunted down for assassination by Somebody/Something in Chicago and Tampa, 2 visits before Dallas. In Chicago, he had to cancel the trip when someone named Lee (got this off Tablot's book) informed the secret service of an assassination plot similar to Dallas (sniper from building behind motorcade - again from Talbot's book). So Chicago trip was cancelled.

Now in Tampa, same situation. Someone tipped off the FBI and the Secret Service was informed and packed the motorcade with many agents. Agents on the car, Agents all around the President, and some accounts (Tablot's book), the Secret Service went crazy when JFK brazenly met the crowd.

So we have that background from the evidence/reports the Secret Service has released thru the last 10-15 years.

Now Dallas. I need someone to confirm this, but I had thought I read information maybe 5-10 years back that the secret service got a notification of a bomb at Love field when the President landed. I know I've heard this before, but i'm not sure if it was from a official source or some independent research. So let's paint the picture if this is true. JFK land at Love Field, the Secret Service is on guard for this threat, and after the president is safely in the car, the threat passes, or they assume. Maybe even JFK swiping his hair when you see him get inside the car almost has a 'whew....' feel to it. Now the secret service, thinking that the threat has passed without incident at Love field, go ahead and naturally have their guard down for the rest of the motorcade. And why not? They've been on so many motorcades with JFK, it's just routine. Then you get to Daley Plaza. The Secret Service, again, just another routine motorcade, easy as pie, maybe not as ready and on guard as they should be, stroll into the kill zone. Then a shot rings out, and the sense of complacency, the 1 or 2 seconds lost of reacting , cost the President his life.

Now do I think the Secret Service was in on it? I don't know. But you don't need many people to participate in your conspiracy. One conspirator is enough to act as the weakest link in the chain that breaks the cohesiveness of a efficient working unit.

Was the bomb story, if true, planted by the conspirators to actually achieve what occurred? Some of you brilliant researches maybe will find that out in the years to come.

This is all interesting information, I know that Abraham Bolden touches on this subject quite a bit and blames the Secret Service for not doing their job, and for their late nite drunken stupors and dollar poppin strippers at the clubs they decided to visit the nite before giving Kennedy their full attention and protection allowing the unspeakable to happen. Mr Bolden makes it sound as though they were a bunch of thoughtless, reckless, irresponsible, negligent cast of characters. However, I'm sure that Gerald Blaine would say different.

1. I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

2. That doesn't mean there is a problem with [Marita's] story, just because Hemming said something else, the question is which one do you beleive, or should I say, which one is telling the truth?

3. Do you have proof of Oswald in Mexico?

4. So that's where the money came from [HL Hunt], I should have known.

Scott, here are my replies to your questions and remarks:

(1) My measurements were relative: (i) Howard Hunt was very tall compared to Sturgis; and (ii) the tramp who looked like Sturgis was very tall compared to the tramp who looked like Howard Hunt. Therefore there was no match.

(2) I agree with you that either Marita Lorentz or Gerry Hemming were lying about who was on the caravan. I don't know who was lying. When the late Gerry Hemming was on this Forum, he blatantly called Marita a xxxx. Yet in another context he softened his voice and admitted that he was invited to join the caravan. My point was that if (and only if) Marita was lying about Hemming, then she could have also been lying about Oswald. It is also possible that Marita was lying about Hemming and telling the truth about Oswald. (It is also possible that Marita was telling the truth about Hemming but lying about Oswald.) But if (and only if) Marita was telling the truth, then Hemming was lying.

But please remember that Marita was not an eye-witness to the JFK assassination - she was only an eye-witness to an illegal weapons deal, which she claims was consummated by Howard Hunt (and Howard Hunt did not have a believable alibi for that day, according to a duly appointed jury). So, even if Marita was telling the truth, we are left to guess whether these weapons were the weapons used to assassinate JFK, and whether these sharpshooters were the sharpshooters that assassinated JFK. She had no eye-witness information about that.

(3) While I am not an expert on the controversy over Oswald in Mexico, we have a Forum member (Harry Dean) who has also joined this thread, whose memoirs say that the famous war hero, Guy Gabaldon, was in Mexico at that time, working for the JBS, and that Gabaldon gave some money to Oswald in Mexico at that time. Oswald had no idea, according to Harry Dean, that the money came from the JBS, or that this money was buying Oswald's services as the patsy for a famous crime.

(4) The money for the dozens of hit squads who promised to kill JFK for a price came from many different sources, according to my reading. Some money came from Carlos Marcello. Some came from Santos Trafficante. Some came from Sam Giancana. Some possibly came from Howard Hughes (since his accountant coordinated all the Mafia money). Some money came from Howard Milteer, some money came from Jimmy Hoffa, some money came from H.L. Hunt, and some money came from the JBS, according to sources. There were probably hundreds of rich individuals and groups that contributed whatever they could, because they truly, sincerely believed that JFK was a communist traitor to the USA. H.L. Hunt was particularly generous, according to reports.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Scott, here are my replies to your questions and remarks:

You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

When the late Gerry Hemming was on this Forum, he blatantly called Marita a xxxx.

I certainly wouldn't believe everything that came out of Hemmings mouth, several people I know who knew Hemming personally would agree, most of his time was spent behind a computer talking a lot of crap, you don't have to beleive me, but I beleive those who knew Hemming well. Hell he got paid $65,000 for an interview by Noel Twyman who gave Twyman nothing but a whole lot of crap.

(4) The money for the dozens of hit squads who promised to kill JFK for a price came from many different sources, according to my reading. Some money came from Carlos Marcello. Some came from Santos Trafficante. Some came from Sam Giancana. Some possibly came from Howard Hughes (since his accountant coordinated all the Mafia money). Some money came from Howard Milteer, some money came from Jimmy Hoffa, some money came from H.L. Hunt, and some money came from the JBS, according to sources. There were probably hundreds of rich individuals and groups that contributed whatever they could, because they truly, sincerely believed that JFK was a communist traitor to the USA. H.L. Hunt was particularly generous, according to reports.

The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

...Howard Hunt only says he was a benchwarmer on the big event, I'm sure H.L. Hunt must have played a bigger roll.

Scott

That's another good question, Scott; how big a role did E. Howard Hunt play? On his deathbed he claimed to play a minor role, so that's fairly good evidence that he was at least involved. But how big was his role?

A lot of our suspicions about E. Howard Hunt are centered in the landmark legal decision won by Mark Lane as described in his book, Plausible Denial (1992). Lane convinced a jury that E. Howard Hunt was involved in the JFK assassination to some degree, based mainly on the evidence of Marita Lorentz.

Marita's story is to some degree documented in the videos you uploaded earlier today on this thread. She said that she joined Frank Sturgis and a number of rogue CIA operatives and stooges in a weapons smuggling operation in late November 1963, starting from Florida and ending in Dallas, Texas.

Mark Lane made her sound believable. She further claimed that the purchaser of these weapons was none other than E. Howard Hunt, who went by the code-name, "Eduardo."

Yet there are problems with her story. She also named Lee Harvey Oswald and Gerry Patrick Hemming as two of the men involved in that smuggling caravan. Yet Hemming (when he was a member of this Forum) denied that he was in that caravan!

It is true that Hemming admitted that he was invited to join the caravan, and that he knew the caravan existed -- but he firmly denied riding in the car, as Marita claimed he did.

So - if Marita lied about Hemming's participation, then she could have lied about Oswald's participation, too. (And for the record, that person standing behind Frank Sturgis in those videos you kindly shared -- that doesn't look like Oswald to me.)

I'm not saying that Oswald wasn't in that caravan -- I have no proof for my theory yet -- but this is after all the week that Oswald should have been in Mexico with Nagell, trying to get into Cuba, wasn't it?

Now, E. Howard Hunt claims to be a benchwarmer. I believe that is correct -- he was not one of the three tramps as some writers have claimed. (The two tramps that look a little like Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis have a major difference -- the tramp who looked like Hunt was short, but Hunt was tall; and the tramp who looked like Sturgis was tall, but Sturgis was short. No match.)

Because E. Howard Hunt knew so many of the conspirators, he was an accessory after the fact -- his main crime was his silence. (The same applies, also, to David Atlee Phillips, whose main role was to obtain lots of cash for Alpha 66 and similar counter-revolutionary groups. He knew what was going on, but he only offered minor help here and there, in response to rare requests from the major players, IMHO.)

Yes - H.L. Hunt was far more involved. For one thing, when E.H. Hunt and D. Atlee Phillips wanted cash for their operations, they often got it from H.L. Hunt, anyway.

Unlike the rogue CIA guys who were in the game for the money and the machismo, and who had no firm ideological beliefs of any kind, and whose loyalties could often go to the highest bidder, H.L. Hunt was totally committed to his ideology. For Hunt, and for all JBS extremists, JFK was a communist, a traitor, and worked for the aid and comfort of the USSR. The conspiracy was only the patriotic thing to do.

What H.L. Hunt needed was somebody at the ground-level -- somebody with real military connections -- somebody with a real zeal to get the job done. Somebody who had nothing more to lose. (Remember, when Edwin Walker resigned from his post as Major General, he gave up his military pension! He was angry! He was penniless!)

My current theory: It was General Edwin Walker -- financed by H.L. Hunt and supported by probably 100 field operatives, including violently anti-communist foreigners from Cuba, Germany and Russia, but mostly from the extreme right-wing in Dallas, USA.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

the tramp who looked like Hunt was short, but Hunt was tall; and the tramp who looked like Sturgis was tall, but Sturgis was short. No match.

I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

Yet there are problems with her story. She also named Lee Harvey Oswald and Gerry Patrick Hemming as two of the men involved in that smuggling caravan. Yet Hemming (when he was a member of this Forum) denied that he was in that caravan!

That doesn't mean there is a problem with her story, just because Hemming said something else, the question is which one do you beleive, or should I say, which one is telling the truth?

but this is after all the week that Oswald should have been in Mexico with Nagell, trying to get into Cuba, wasn't it?

Do you have proof of Oswald in Mexico?

Yes - H.L. Hunt was far more involved. For one thing, when E.H. Hunt and D. Atlee Phillips wanted cash for their operations, they often got it from H.L. Hunt, anyway

So that's where the money came from, I should have known.

My current theory: It was General Edwin Walker -- financed by H.L. Hunt and supported by probably 100 field operatives, including violently anti-communist foreigners from Cuba, Germany and Russia, but mostly from the extreme right-wing in Dallas, USA.

Could be!

Felix Rodriguez would know all about Bush/Clinton/CIA/Oliver North drug smuggling of the 1980's.

He would know about Barry Seal.

He would know about Che Guevara and a bunch of things that have not been made public.

He would probably know about the Phoenix program in Vietnam.

He would probably have a very good idea about who murdered John Kennedy. Who knows, HE may have been involved in the JFK assassination.

I don't know about any of that stuff, or what you're talking about, interesting nevertheless.

Just as an Fyi:

Felix Rodriguez (aka "Max Gomez") was the one trying to get Bill Clinton's favorite state trooper to assassinate Terry Reed down in Mexico. Bill Clinton had gotten L.D. Brown into the CIA. They, meaning Rodriguez, North and the Bush family, wanted to "dirty up" Bill Clinton, by having his favorite state trooper commit crimes.

Clinton had talked Terry Reed into going to Mexico; I think he may have been knowingly or unknowingly setting up Reed to be assassinated (ironically by his own favorite state trooper L.D. Brown).

They (meaning Rodriguez and the CIA) wanted to murder Terry Reed (I guess they thought he knew too much about Iran-contra and the drug smuggling) down in Mexico because it is easier to get away with murder out of the USA.

L.D. Brown's book: "Crossfire: Witness in the Clinton Investigation" (1999)

http://www.amazon.com/Crossfire-Investigation-L-D-Brown/dp/1582750033/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329184641&sr=1-1

Terry Reed went on to write the epic underground blockbuster book:

"Compromised: Bush, Clinton and the CIA" (1994) which sold 200,000 books purely by word of mouth. http://www.amazon.com/Compromised-Clinton-Bush-Terry-Reed/dp/1561712493/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329184971&sr=1-1

There is no telling what Felix Rodriguez has done: assassinations, drug smuggling, a whole range of criminal activity for the CIA. I am sure if you ask Rodiguez why he hates Castro he would tell you because he is a crook who has killed people ...

Here is Felix Rodriguez' book "Shadow Warrior: the CIA Hero of a Hundred Unknown Battles" (1989) He wrote that book just a few years after trying to murder Terry Reed.

I want to know all the stories Rodriguez did NOT put in his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Warrior-Hero-Hundred-Battles/dp/0671667211/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329185133&sr=1-1

I bet Rodriguez knew Gen. Ed Lansdale and David Morales personally. They may have all been working on murdering John Kennedy in Dallas. Ditto his relationship with George Herbert Walker Bush - ditto Dallas.

Felix said that? I don't think Felix wrote that, I think someone else did, that seems to be to much information that Felix would say, I don't know about any of that sorry.

...E.H Hunt was "Eduardo" to the anti-Castro groups and during the Bay of Pigs, in fact many knew him by his real name, even during the Bay of Pigs. In fact Sturgis knew E.H. Hunt since 1954 during the Guatemalan coup. He only adopted that name "Eduardo" while he was involved with the Cubans in South Florida.

Mark Lane describes this letter as a possible forgery while being very skeptical, and in 1999, the note was revealed to be a "Soviet forgery" in a book by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin. perhaps written by the Russians. Why would any Russian write this? But should it be taken at face value? The House Select Committee on assassinations had three handwriting experts examine the note to determine its authenticity. I do beleive that someone in the KGB is seeking notoriety by adding one more book to the all ready long list.

The writing and signature of that letter and the entire of Lee in my father's phone book are nearly identical, am I to beleive that because some Soviet KGB says its a "Soviet forgery" am I suppose to beleive him? If in fact this letter is authenticate and sense Lee was a Marxist who as an individual would develop his own capacities and talents. I say Oswald may have been swinging both ways, on one hand he was anti-Castro, but on the other he was pro-Cuba. So what does that say about a confused young man? I don't beleive that letter had anything to do with H.L. Hunt. There is ample information/evidence that Oswald visited South Miami where he may have encountered Howard Hunt, which makes sense, but I seriously doubt that Oswald and H.L. Hunt who calls himself the richest man in the world would be rubbing elbows...

Scott

Scott, thanks for bringing up the doubts by Mark Lane, one of the great writers on this topic since the days of the Warren Commission. I tend to think that letter was a forgery, too, since it is a little too blatant.

Why would the KGB want to forge evidence linking Oswald to HL Hunt? For one thing, as LBJ himself said to Senator Russell when twisting his arm to join the Warren Commission, some people were claiming that the USSR killed JFK, and wanted to lead the USA into an immediate showdown with the USSR. But LBJ said, "we know that Khrushchev didn't have a damn thing to do with it."

Well, the USSR were terrified that the extreme right-wing in the USA would use the assassination of JFK as an excuse to drop the bomb on the USSR (Dr. Strangelove style). Also, the Soviet press already announced their guess - that the extreme right-wing in Dallas, led by HL Hunt, was behind the JFK assassination.

Therefore, the motive for the KGB to forge this letter by Oswald, asking "Mr. Hunt" for some money or for a meeting, is not difficult to put together. If Mark Lane thinks it was a forgery, and it sounds like a forgery (and it didn't show up until months later), then I tend to think it was a forgery.

However, handwriting analysts say the handwriting is too close to be a forgery. So, it might be authentic. Oswald was a money-grabber, I believe. (This is why he liked hanging out with George DeMohrenschildt, and also with Clay Shaw. He was hoping that being a mercenary would one day pay off big time.)

So, if (and only if) the letter is authentic, then I still believe Oswald would have addressed E.H. Hunt by his CIA alias instead. It's an intriguing question.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

You may very well be right, what am I thinking? Perhaps, Oswald did or did not write that letter, and there would be no reason for Oswald to write that to Howard Hunt.

Howard Hunt only says he was a benchwarmer on the big event, I'm sure H.L. Hunt must have played a bigger roll.

Scott

Felix Rodriguez would know all about Bush/Clinton/CIA/Oliver North drug smuggling of the 1980's.

He would know about Barry Seal.

He would know about Che Guevara and a bunch of things that have not been made public.

He would probably know about the Phoenix program in Vietnam.

He would probably have a very good idea about who murdered John Kennedy. Who knows, HE may have been involved in the JFK assassination.

I don't know about any of that stuff, or what you're talking about, interesting nevertheless.

Excellent work, Rob. What is very bizarre how less than two days after the assassination he has found so many holes in the story, which at that time had barely even been created. He was probably very familiar with assassination attempts and the stories behind them.

He was probably very familiar with assassination attempts and the stories behind them.

I have not completely ruled out Castro knowing something before hand of Kennedy's assassination, as my friend Jose Pujol puts it so passionately, he thinks Castro was involved, others who have fought Castro and plotted to assassinate him said, "I don't think Castro was involved directly, but he help by incorporating something".

Scott, you can learn a lot from these people. Keep interviewing them. They will give you lots of information. They will reveal stuff that they don't know the significance of what they are revealing.

People live in their fantasy worlds of propaganda - whether it is the anti-Castro Cubans hate Castro so much they can't think straight, the JFK groupies who can't come to terms with his sexual promiscuity, or Democrats who don't think Bill Clinton ever raped anybody, or Republicans who think the Bushes and Oliver North never ran huge amounts of cocaine in the 1980's, or people subject to only Cuban propaganda or people who think the New York Times would never lie to them, or people who think 9/11 was an "inside job" and all they consume is Alex Jones, or those poor, pitiful "lone nutters." Or white people from Alabama that think slavery was not that bad and segregation was okay.

People's beliefs are a product of their environment.

There is absolutely no way in hell - can I say that? - that Fidel Casto was behind the JFK assassination based on what we have known for decades. I give it a 1 in 100,000,000 chance. Conversely LBJ, CIA, elements of US military the American shadow government would be a 1 to 100 favorite. Meaning get $100 on them, you get a $1 pay off. Bet a $1 on Castro, get $100,000,000 if he killed JFK.

Gen. Ed Lansdale was one of the major perps of the JFK assasssination. That photo of him at TSBD is extremely important.

So, please, keep interviewing these anti-Castro Cubans and former intelligence operatives if they will talk to you. #1 on my list would be Felix Rodriguez - these guys are all goldmines of information and Rodriguez is the motherlode. He probably knows exactly who killed JFK.

I don't know, I have only shared in what information I know and that's all I know, as for interviewing anyone, I'm not doing that, they don't know, and I doubt Felix would know anything, there is a fine line I walk and I don't cross that line.

This year Oswald requested another passport. He told the State

Department that he wanted to visit England, France, ,Germany, the

Netherlands, Finland, Italy, and the Soviet Union; he said he

planned to make a trip in October or December 1963,or in January

of 1964. The passport was issued in New Orleans on June 25th;

however, it is not known whether Oswald returned the money that

was loaned to him for the first return trip to the United States.

Lee Oswald was planning to make another trip in October or December 1963, or in January of 1964. Dosen't sound like someone who is planning to assassinate the president.

Everyday something new comes out on the JFK assassination. As far as I know, this posting (on 2/13/12) is the first time that Fidel Casto's speech on 11/23/63 (deconstructing the JFK assassination in real time) has been posted on the internet. Castro was obviously very concerned that the JFK assassination is a provation deception by US national security state to promote and justify a military invasion of Cuba.

The only book that I know Castro's speech is in is the superb "History Will Not Absolve Us" (1996) by Martin Schotz. "History Will Not Absolve Us" also has a lot of Vincent Salandria, who is one of the highest quality JFK assassination analysts of all time. Castro's speech is printed in Schotz's book from pages 53-86.

I suggest folks post this web link and speech by Fidel Castro all over the internet. It deserves a much larger audience. In fact, someone could package it and sell it as a book on Amazon Kindle as well.

The sad fact is the Fidel Castro along with Russian newspapers have given FAR more accurate accounts of the JFK assassination than has our CIA/CFR controlled American media for 48 years. The New York Times coverage of the JFK assassination has been the equivalent of 1950's Stalinist propaganda as the CIA controlled "paper of record" refuses to accept and report the facts of the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Ditto the rest of the MSM.

I suggest reading Castro's speech with what we now know about the secret overtures that John Kennedy was making at that time with the Cubans about normalizing relations with Cuba. I am referring to JFK's use of William Attwood to approach the Cubans about this. I am also referring to JFK's use of American ABC News journalist Lisa Howard, who was in fact having an affair with Fidel Castro. My personal opinion - unconfirmed, but just using "critical thinking skills" - is that JFK was also having an affair of a sexual nature with Lisa Howard.

In any event John Kennedy was using Lisa Howard and William Attwood to do an end run around that State Department (and CIA and Pentagon) who no doubt would have been enraged to find out that JFK was contemplating a deal with Cuba that would leave Castro in power. Those guys wanted to kill Castro, not make a "peace deal" that would keep Castro in power. This, along with JFK's war with Lyndon Johnson, could be the 2 big reasons for the JFK assassination.

1) "History Will Not Absolve Us" (1996) by Martin Schotz: http://www.amazon.com/History-Will-Not-Absolve-Orwellian/dp/0965381404/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329164748&sr=1-1

2) "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" (2008) - David Talbot

http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Hidden-History-Kennedy-Years/dp/0743269195/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329165968&sr=1-1

Martin Schotz:

"The following is the text of a speech/commentary delivered by Fidel

Castro on Cuban radio and Tv, Saturday evening, November 23,

1963, one day after the assassination of President Kennedy. The

speech gives the reader insight into the immediate analysis of the

assassination which a political expert such as Castro was able to

make.

This English translation of the speech was released by the Cuban

delegation to the United Nations in 1963. It is here reproduced with

minor editing of grammar and punctuation."

CONCERNING THE FACTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRAGIC DEATH OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

November 23rd, 1963

by Fidel Castro

Always, when something very important has happened,

national or international, we have thought it desirable to speak

to the people, to express our opinions. And in every such case to

express the orientation of the Government, the orientation of our

Party, so that each one of us all know the attitude we should

adopt in each one of these situations.

It is true that we are somewhat accustomed to various types

of unexpected events, important, serious events, because since the

victory of the Revolution our country has had to face a series of

problems, a series of situations that have prepared the people to

carry forward their victorious revolution.

Therefore, because of the events of yesterday in the United

States in which the President was murdered, because of the

repercussion these events can have, because of the role that the

United States plays in the problems of international policy,

because of this, we believe that we should make a specially

objective and calm analysis of these events and of their possible

consequences.

The government of the United States, the former

administration of Eisenhower and the Kennedy administration,

did not practice precisely a policy of friendship toward us. The

policy of both administrations was characterized by its aggressive,

hostile, and implacable spirit toward our country.

Our country was the victim of economic aggressions intended

to cause the ruin of our economy and the starvation of our

people; it was the victim of all kinds of attacks that caused

bloodshed; hundreds of our compatriots have lost their lives,

defending themselves from attacks of U.S. imperialism, and not

only this. The hostility and the aggressiveness of U.S. imperialism

toward our country took us to the brink of war which was

fortunately avoided, took the world to the brink of thermonuclear

war.

And even when we were not facing a situation like the crisis

of October, and the time of the invasion of Giron [bay of Pigs],

we were all perfectly aware that if the plots they were planning

against our country had been carried through, that is to say, if

imperialism had been able to establish a beachhead on our shores,

that struggle would have cost our people tens of thousands, and

perhaps even hundreds of thousands of lives.

We have been victims of the constant hostility of the United

States. And among the rulers and the leading men of the United

States, there falls on Kennedy an important responsibility in these

events.

Nevertheless, the news of the murder of the President of the

United States is serious news and bad news. We should analyze

it thoroughly in order to understand it; above all, analyze it

serenely and dispassionately, as revolutionaries should analyze

these things.

I say it is bad news, leaving aside the human question, in that

the sensitivity of man, any man, is affected by an act of this

nature, by a crime, by a murder. I say that leaving these

questions aside, I always react and I am sure that this is the

reaction of the immense majority of human beings - we always

react with repulsion toward murder and toward crime.

We cannot consider this to be a correct weapon of struggle -

no, we cannot consider that. Above all under the conditions in

which it happened, because - like all these things - it is always

necessary to consider the atmosphere, the things, the

circumstances.

In other settings, under other circumstances, whatever they

may be in a normal situation, in a peaceful situation, a deed of

this nature is never justifiable. Especially in the middle of a

crowd, in the presence of women, all these things, which above

all - I say - are the circumstances that lead us to take a

condemnatory attitude toward something, even though some

deeds of a political nature, some crimes of a political nature, may

or may not be justified.

In the circumstances that surrounded the assassination of

President Kennedy, we believe it has no justification.

But analyzing the question from the political, objective point

of view, I also said it was serious news, bad news.

And some will ask why? Why precisely the Cubans, who

have received so many aggressions on the part of the United

States, from the Kennedy Administration itself, why can they say

that it is bad news, why can they take an attitude of this kind in

the face of this news? But in the first place we Cubans must react

as revolutionaries. In the second place, we Cubans, as conscious

revolutionaries, should not confuse men with systems. And we

have to begin by considering that we do not hate men, we hate

systems.

We hate the imperialist system, we hate the capitalist system,

but this does not mean that we hate men as such, as individuals,

part of a machine, a more or less important part of a system.

So we should not confuse hatred of a system with the

sentiment we should harbor toward men, which is a different

sentiment; it is not a sentiment of hatred, and much less a

sentiment of hatred which in a case like this would be despicable.

As Marxist-Leninists, we know that the role of man is a

relative role in each historical epoch, in each society, at each

given moment, and we should know the role that man plays in

each society. And above all it is a question of elemental principle:

we do not hate men, we hate systems.

We would be happy at the death of a system; the

disappearance of a system would always make us happy. The

victory of a revolution always makes us happy.

The death of a man, even though this man may be our

enemy, does not make us happy. In the first place, this should be

our attitude as a matter of principle.

And further it is very characteristic of us Cubans, of Latins,

of Spanish-Americans- who are a mixture of races with certain

characteristics - that death always ends our animosity. We

always bow with respect in the face of death, even though it may

be the death of an enemy.

But then, I said that the deed itself could have very negative

repercussions on the interests of our country. But it is not the

interests of our country in this case but the interests of the whole

world that are involved. We must know how to place the

interests of mankind above the interests of our country. I

consider it a negative event for the interests of mankind. And I

am going to explain why.

Because in certain international political situations, at a given

moment, there can be bad situations or worse situations. The

death of President Kennedy has all the perspectives involved in

going from a bad situation to a worse situation: the possibility

exists that from a determined situation, another situation could

unfold and develop that could be highly damaging to the interests

of peace, to the interests of mankind.

Why? Do we perhaps think that the United States holds a

defensible political position in the international field? No, the

international policy of the United States cannot be defended. Its

policy of aggression, policy of violating the rights of other

nations, of interference in the internal affairs of other countries,

of domination, of repression, of bloodshed, of alliance with the

most reactionary sectors of the world, of participation in bloody

wars against the people who struggle for their liberation - as in

the case of South Vietnam - its attitude towards the people of

Latin America, its attitude towards us, and finally its

international position, is in no way defensible from the moral

point of view.

However, within American society and within the policy of

the United States, there are supporters of a much more

reactionary policy, of a policy much more aggressive, much more

warlike.

And the whole condition of the internal policy of the United

States, the internal struggle for power in the United States, the

currents that struggle within the United States, the assassination

of President Kennedy, tend to convert the present policy of the

United States into a worse policy and to aggravate the evils of

U.S. policy.

That is to say that there are elements in the United States

who defend a more reactionary policy in every field, in

international and internal policy, and these are the sole elements

who can benefit from the events that occurred yesterday in the

United States.

Why? Because in the United States a number of forces, a

number of very powerful bodies within U.S. society, very much

influenced by big interests in the United States, have been

developing, and there is no doubt that a U.S. President possessing

the highest authority implies a situation less serious than a

President without the highest authority, in such a situation.

A President is a political man, who should take into account

many factors, advice, opinions, and influences, who is eminently

political, who without doubt, behaves differently in general than

those who we might say are not professional politicians, who

have other professions, other interests, and those political

reactions are always the worst reactions.

In the United States there are a number of powerful forces:

economic, political, military. Many of these forces have a fixed

policy and more than once we have spoken of this problem.

Take the clash, for instance, between the political currents of the

State Department and the military currents of the Pentagon. We

have often seen the manifestations of this struggle in Latin

America, how there are currents in the United States, above all

military currents that support the policy of military coups, and

there are political currents that defend another type of policy -

not that it is a good policy, but clothed in a civilian government,

even pseudo-liberal.

Unquestionably when [there] is a recognized, accepted, strong

authority in the United States, the dangers that arise from the

struggle of a whole series of reactionary currents within the

powerful organizations of the United States are much less than

when this authority does not exist. And without any shadow of

doubt, Kennedy had this authority in the United States.

Now, suddenly a new situation is created, where a President

who, because of circumstances in which he holds power, that in

being Vice President, and then because of an unexpected

circumstance becoming President of the Republic, independent of

what his character may be, because here it is not a question of

the character of the person or his personality, but [because] of the

circumstances, does not come to power with the same personal

authority as President Kennedy had. And therefore a question

begins to arise in respect to the influence within all those forces,

of the new authority who assumes power, of the new President

who takes over the reins of Government.

In the United States there are very reactionary currents, racist

currents, that is to say opposed to the demand for the civil and

social rights of the Negro population, Klu Klux Klan people,

who lynch, who kill and use dogs, who bitterly hate all Negro

citizens in the United States, who nurture a brutal hatred. Those

naturally are the ultra-reactionary.

In the United States there are economic forces, powerful

economic interests, just as ultra-reactionary, who have a

completely reactionary position on all international problems. In

the United States there are forces that support an increased

intervention by the United States [in] international questions, a

greater use of the U.S. military in international questions. There

are, for example, currents in the United States that are

intransigent supporters of the direct invasion of our country.

In the United States there are partisans of the application of

drastic measures against any government that adopts the smallest

measure of a nationalist character, of an economic character that

benefits its country.

And finally, there are a number of groups that can all be

included in one concept: the ultra-right in the United States, the

ultra-reaction in the United States, and this ultra-reaction in each

and every one of the internal and external problems of the

United States is an advocate of the worst procedure, of the most

aggressive and most dangerous and most reckless policy against

peace.

In the United States there are also liberal currents, some more

liberal, some more advanced, other less advanced. There are some

men on the right who are more radical, and other more

moderate. There are certain intellectual sectors that are not

constantly thinking in terms of force, but are thinking along lines

of diplomacy, instead of force, who have a less aggressive policy

- a more moderate policy.

That is to say, in the United States there is a whole range of

political thinking that runs from men of the extreme right to

men of the extreme left, men who are more to the left in their

political thinking.

And in this situation there is a variety of opinion, of more or

less moderate attitudes. There are liberals, intellectual sectors of

the United States who understand the errors in the policy of the

United States, who are not in agreement with many of the things

that the United States has done in international policy.

And what happened yesterday can only benefit those ultrarightist

and ultra-reactionary sectors, among which President

Kennedy or some of the men who worked with him cannot be

included. They could not be placed in the extreme reaction- in

the extreme right.

And even within the situation in the United States, within

the policy of the United States, which as a whole is indefensible,

Kennedy was strongly attacked by the most reactionary, most

aggressive, and most war-like circles.

You will recall that on the eve of the October crisis of last

year, there was a whole campaign, with great pressure, including

laws and resolutions in Congress, pushing Kennedy [and] the

Administration towards war, trying to create a situation of

imperative action.

Everybody will recall that on other occasions, we have stated

that one of the political errors of Kennedy in respect to Cuba

was to have played the game of his enemies. For example, to

have continued the invasion plans against Cuba that the

Republican administration had organized.

And out of all this arose the possibility in the United States

for a policy of blackmail on the part of the Republicans. That is,

Kennedy presented the Republicans with the weapon of Cuba.

How? He continued the aggressive policy of the Republicans, and

they used it as a political weapon against him.

But at times very strong campaigns, powerful movements

within the United States Congress pressed the Administration for

a more aggressive policy against us. All those factors and all these

forces on the extreme right in the United States fought Kennedy

very hard precisely on those points in which he did not agree

with the extreme aggressive policy called for by these sectors.

There are a number of issues that gave rise to constant

criticism by these ultra-right sectors. For instance, the Cuban

problem, the agreement reached at the time of the October Crisis

not to invade Cuba, one of the points in Kennedy's policy most

consistently attacked by the ultra-reactionary sectors. The

agreement on the ending of nuclear tests was another point very

much debated within the United States, and it had the most

resolute and fierce opposition of the most ultra-reactionary.

Elements in the United States were against agreements of this

type.

Everyone knows what our position was on this problem.

Everyone also knows the reason for our position, regardless of

the fact that we consider that this was a step forward that could

mark the beginning of a policy of lasting peace, in favor of true

disarmament, but a policy that was never applied in our case.

Because while the nuclear test ban treaty was being signed, the

policy of aggression against Cuba was accentuated.

But we are not now analyzing the problem in relation to

what happened in our case, but in relation to what was

happening in the world, and above all in relation to what some

were doing and others thinking in the United States.

That is to say, there were many sectors in the United States,

many ultra-reactionary elements that carried out a fierce

campaign against the nuclear test ban treaty.

There are other elements in the United States that violently

opposed the legislation of civil rights proposed by Kennedy

regarding the Negro problem in the United States.

We are not dealing with the case of a revolutionary law or of

a great effort, because this great effort in favor of equality and

civil rights, especially in favor of the rights of the U.S. Negroes,

has not been made in the United States. But be that as it may it

was legislation that contained a series of measures that, from a

legal point of view, tended to protect the rights of the Negro

population. This legislation was blocked and held back by the

strong opposition of the most reactionary sectors in the United

States, of those sectors in favor of racial discrimination.

And thus, on a whole series of issues of international policy,

there are in the United States elements that support a preventive

nuclear war, who are in favor of launching a surprise nuclear

war, because they stubbornly think that this should be the policy

of the United States. Reactionary and neo-fascist elements

without any consideration whatsoever for the most elementary

rights of nations or the interests of mankind.

And it is a strictly objective fact that there are such types of

capitalists, such types of reactionaries. And there is no doubt that

the worst type of capitalism is nazism; the worst type of

imperialism was nazism. And the most criminal mentality was

the mentality of imperialism in its nazi form. And so there is a

whole series of degrees in these questions.

So analyzing the question objectively, whenever a strong

accepted personal authority is lacking in the situation, ways and

conditions in which U.S. policy is carried out, all these

reactionary forces find a magnificent opportunity, and in fact are

finding a magnificent opportunity, to unleash their unbridled and

ultra-reactionary policy.

And these are the sectors, the currents, the only ones that

could benefit by an event such as the one that occurred yesterday

in the United States.

This is analyzing the automatic result of this event. Independent

of another aspect of the question: What is behind the

assassination of Kennedy? What were the real motives for the

assassination of Kennedy? What forces, factors, circumstances

were at work behind this sudden and unexpected event that

occurred yesterday?

News that took everyone by surprise, something that possibly

no one had even imagined.

Even up to this moment, the events that led to the murder of

the President of the United States continue to be confused,

obscure, and unclear.

And there are some things which are clear symptoms of what

I have been saying: that the most reactionary forces in the United

States are at large.

For instance, the worst symptom is the advantage they are

taking of the event to unleash within the United States a state of

anti-Soviet hysteria and of anti-Cuban hysteria; this, in the first

place. It means that the new administration that is taking over

may find itself facing a situation of hysteria, unleashed in the

United States, precisely by the most reactionary sector of the

country, by the most reactionary press, with the great resources

that powerful political currents have within the United States.

That is to say that already they are combining to create a

frame of mind in the U.S. public opinion, and its worst

characteristic is that they are waging a campaign in the worst

McCarthyite spirit, in the worst anti-communist spirit.

At the time of President Kennedy's murder, it ran through

the minds of most people . . . and surely it ran through the

minds of the large majority of U.S. citizens, and this was only

logical- that President Kennedy's assassination was the work of

some elements who disagreed with his international policy; that

is to say, with his nuclear treaty, with his policy with respect to

Cuba - which they did not consider aggressive enough, and

which they considered weak - with his policy with respect to

internal civil problems of the United States. Not many days ago,

the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Adlai Stevenson was attacked

in the same city of Dallas by ultra-conservative elements of the

John Birch Society and counter-revolutionary elements in league

with them. This event drew the attention of us all.

I even thought, what degree of reaction will those people

reach, when they consider that Stevenson deserves attack for his

international policy?

In spite of how reactionary U.S. international policy has

been, there are elements who physically assault Stevenson,

because they consider that U.S. policy is a weak policy, a bad

policy, that it is not a sufficiently reactionary policy.

This ran through everybody's mind. Did it run through the

mind of anyone that it might be a leftist? No, that did not occur

to anyone. Why? Because the controversy within the United

States today, the fierce controversy was taking place between the

most ultra-reactionary elements, the ultra-right elements, and the

more moderate elements of U.S. politics.

The internal controversy was not characterized by a struggle

of the communists of the United States with the Government of

the United States; it was not characterized by a struggle of leftist

elements or liberal elements. This does not mean that the leftist

elements supported Kennedy's policy; but the struggle, the battle

waged without quarter was taking place within the United States

between the extreme right, the extreme reaction, and the more

moderate elements, in Congress, in the press, on the streets,

everywhere.

International tension had even diminished considerably in recent

months. These months were not months like the October crisis, not

like the months following the October crisis .... The United States

was not living through one of those stages of McCarthyism

characterized by unbridled persecution of the most progressive

elements of the United States. No, there have been other stages in

which the struggle is between reaction and the progressives. The

main task of reaction was to persecute the progressive elements, and

in such circumstances one might think that a progressive, persecuted

by blood and fierce, a fanatic haunted by his ideas, might be capable

of reacting in such a way. No, the United States was not living

through such a period. It was not living through a period of

unbridled McCarthyism. It was living through a period of fierce

controversy between the more moderate sectors - among which

can be found many of Kennedy's collaborators - and the ultrareactionary

sector of American society.

Therefore, it was neither logical, nor reasonable, that anyone

could think that it could be a leftist fanatic; in any case it would

be a rightist fanatic, if it was a fanatic at all.

But naturally it was very difficult in the face of an event of

this nature for such unscrupulous people - like many U.S.

politicians- such immoral people, such dishonest and shameless

people as are many of those elements who represent the

reactionary cynical sectors of the United States, warmongers,

irreconcilable enemies of Cuba, supporters of an invasion of

Cuba - although this might be at the cost of thermonuclear war

- it was very difficult for them not to try to take advantage of

this circumstance to turn all their hatred, all their propaganda

and all their campaign against Cuba.

This did not surprise us. I have already said that we were

somewhat used to these things. The struggle, life, have made our

people into a people with iron nerves, a serene people. We have

just lived through the hurricane, and we faced the test with

dignity and honor, we have faced many tests with dignity and

honor. We foresaw that from these incidents there could be a

new trap, an ambush, a Machiavellian plot against our country;

that on the very blood of their assassinated President there might

be unscrupulous people who would begin to work out

immediately an aggressive policy against Cuba, if the aggressive

policy had not been linked beforehand to the assassination, if it

was not linked, because it might or might not have been. But

there is no doubt that this policy is being built on the still warm

blood and the unburied body of their own tragically assassinated

President.

They are people who do not have an iota of morality; they

are people who do not have an iota of scruples; they are people

who do not have an iota of shame; who perhaps may believe that

in the shadow of the tragedy they can take us off guard,

demoralized, weak, the kind of beliefs into which the imperialists

always so mistakenly fall. And sure enough, yesterday at 2 P.M.

the first cable: November 22, UPI ... because we should note

this; that of the news agencies, one has been more moderate,

more objective - the AP - and there is another that has been

excessively and unrestrainedly untruthful, a shameless promoter

of a policy and a campaign of slander against Cuba, that is UPI.

But that is not all, because there is a previous series of very

interesting UPI reports, and even a series of UPI campaigns

against President Kennedy himself, which links the news agency

with the ultra-right groups, which are interested in taking

advantage of the situation for their adventurous and warlike

policy, or because these circles are connected with the

assassination of President Kennedy.

And we can see this clearly through the cables: "Dallas,

November 22, UPI- today the police arrested Lee H. Oswald,

identified as the chairman of the Fair Play for Cuba Committees,

as the main suspect in the assassination of President John F.

Kennedy." Right away Cuba and right away the Soviet Union.

And so they dedicated themselves to carrying out a fierce antiSoviet

and anti-Cuban campaign.

Cable: "The U.S. Embassy today confirmed that Lee H.

Oswald was in the Soviet Union. An Embassy official stated that

Oswald visited the Embassy in November of 1959 and according

to available information he left the Soviet Union in 1962. He

added that it was not known when the man suspected of killing

President John F. Kennedy had traveled to the Soviet Union,

what the purpose of his trip had been and how long he had

stayed in the Soviet Union. There were unconfirmed reports that

Oswald asked for Soviet citizenship and that he could not get it."

Thus, from the very first cables there is an attempt to suggest

the responsibility of the Soviet Union and the responsibility of

Cuba, as if anyone could believe - anyone who is not a half-wit

- and has a little common sense - that any Government, the

Soviet government or the Cuban Government .. . and if they

don't want to believe us, they don't have to believe us; that is

unimportant. Perhaps they will think that we are hot-headed;

perhaps they feel that they have carried out too many aggressions

against us, but to suggest that the Soviet Union could have any

responsibility in this incident . . . can anyone believe that to

suggest that we could have had any responsibility ... can anyone

believe that? Anyone who is not a half-wit, who has a little

common sense, who knows when men are working for a cause

and who know which roads lead a cause to victory?

Yet, nevertheless, this was the first thing they tried to suggest.

Listen to this cable "that they did not know the purpose of his

trip and how long he stayed in the Soviet Union." That was the

first insinuation. And that was what made all this seem

suspicious, because it so happened that the most unexpected thing

- as unexpected as the assassination itself - was that

immediately a suspect appeared who - by a coincidence - had

been in Russia, and-what a coincidence -he is related to a

Fair Play for Cuba Committee. That is what they began to say.

And so, immediately a guilty person appeared: a suspect who had

been in the Soviet Union and who sympathized with Cuba.

Of course, although it is extraordinarily difficult to

manufacture a frame-up of this nature, it is possible that at this

moment they are not pursuing such an objective. They are

pursuing another objective, because they cannot invent just any

kind of responsibility.

They are trying to organize a campaign of hysteria, to excite

the minds of the people and unleash hysteria within the United

States; an anti-communist, anti-progressive, anti-liberal, anti-Soviet,

anti-Cuban warmongering hysteria within the United

States. If they had the slightest sense of responsibility, of

seriousness, or of good faith, they would not unleash a campaign

of this nature, as they have done, as can be seen in all the cables.

Let us read this one: "November 22, UPI- The assassin of

President Kennedy is an admitted Marxist who spent three years

in Russia trying to renounce his U.S. citizenship, but later

changed his mind and got a return trip to the United States paid

for by the United States Government." That is already a

suggestion of blame to the Soviet Union. He was identified as Lee

H. Oswald, 24 years old, ex-U.S. marine and chairman of the

Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

So, right after that, the insinuation against Cuba. And this is

how they have begun all cables, all UPI cables, all reports,

Through the reports they have twenty times repeated the same

idea and the same thing, using a well-known technique at which

they are masters- to insinuate what they want to insinuate, to

sow the suspicion that they want to sow over this affair, to

slander the Cuban Revolution, to slander the Soviet Union, to

create hysteria against our countries.

It says: "Oswald was captured after a shooting fray when he

hid in a movie house " ... Thousands of reports came in on this,

many of them contradictory.

" . . . The police say that Oswald worked in a school

textbook warehouse in Texas ... after the crime the police found

a Mauser rifle in the building," etc . . .. It says where he was

born, it says that on October the 30th he turned up at the U.S.

Embassy in Moscow, on October 30th of 1959, and told the

officials that he wanted to give up his American citizenship.

"According to reports, he told the Embassy officials: 'I am a

Marxist.' The Federal Bureau of Investigations confirmed that

Oswald went to Russia and requested Soviet citizenship.

"Oswald told the Embassy officials that he intended to

disclose to the Soviet authorities everything he knew from the

three years he had been in the Marine Corps."

Listen to that: "Oswald told the Embassy officials that he

intended to disclose to the Soviet authorities everything he knew

from three years he had been in the U.S. Marine Corps. The

Embassy officials said that Russia never granted Oswald the

citizenship he requested."

Already they have in their hands a guilty person- true or

false? They have already produced someone who is guilty. They

have him. And now look: you will see the whole course followed

by this campaign.

" ... He told the officials that he intended to disclose all the

secrets he knew." Well, later I will refer to that again.

In February, 1962 Oswald apparently changed his mind and

returned to the United States. He had in the meantime married

a Russian, Marina, had a child. This man, who is charged with

something more than desertion, with being a spy, with confessing

that he is going to disclose military secrets, simply returned

peacefully to the United States- according to them.

It says: "The Embassy officials went over the case and since

he had not been granted Soviet citizenship, they decided to give

him a passport for the United States ... "

Can anyone who has said that he will disclose military secrets

return to the United Sates without being arrested, tried, without

being sent to jail?

It says: "Government records show that he left Moscow with

485 dollars for expenses, which the United States Government

gave to him.

"This year Oswald requested another passport. He told the State

Department that he wanted to visit England, France, ,Germany, the

Netherlands, Finland, Italy, and the Soviet Union; he said he

planned to make a trip in October or December 1963,o r in January

of 1964. The passport was issued in New Orleans on June 25th;

however, it is not known whether Oswald returned the money that

was loaned to him for the first return trip to the United States.

"If he did not pay, the new passport should not have been

issued," they say. We will use their own reports:

"Dallas, November 22 -another cable -the President of

the United States, John F. Kennedy, was shot to death today.

The police arrested, as the main suspect of the murder, a proCastro

American" . . .

Now we find that the man who murdered Kennedy is proCastro.

We know there are very few pro-Castros-what they

call "pro-Castros" in the United States.

They call them "pro-Castro." They label as "pro-Castro"

anyone it suits them to according to their propaganda and the

business at issue.

Now we find that the man who was yesterday in the Fair

Play Committee-in the first cable-was then a "pro-Castro"

American who had once tried to become a Soviet citizen. That

is how all the cables go, you will see.

Another cable, "Dallas, November 22, UPI-Police arrested

Lee H. Oswald today, a Marxist supporter of the Cuban Prime

Minister Fidel Castro."

There is not a single cable in which they do not connect the

action, the name of the individual whom they assure is guilty,

with the Cuban Revolution, with the Soviet Union, with Fidel

Castro, pro-Castro, supporter of the Prime Minister, admirer of

the Cuban Prime Minister.

It says: "A supporter of the Cuban Prime Minister, Fidel

Castro, who tried to obtain citizenship in the Soviet Union,

where he lived for several years, denied any knowledge of the

criminal action. Oswald killed a policeman. . .." etc.

And later on, in the same cable: " ... although Oswald, who

heads the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a pro-Castro entity in

this city, admitted ownership of the gun with which the

policeman ..." They keep repeating this all the time.

This one comes later. The most noticeable item here is the lie

that this gentleman headed a Fair Play Committee. A lie. We

started putting together all the information and statements that

have appeared, to see whether there was a Fair Play for Cuba

Committee in that area of Texas or in New Orleans. They said

that this man ... where did they get that? ... They said that he

presented himself as secretary of a sectional unit of the Fair Play

for Cuba Committee in New Orleans or in Dallas. Some cables

say that it was in the month of August, other cables say it was

last week. That is what they say.

That is the reason for calling this man "pro-Castro." And

that he had defended the Cuban Revolution in a broadcast there.

All this is very queer. We had no news of any such statement.

But we looked for reports: Cities where there were Fair Play for

Cuba Committees of which we had knowledge - New York,

Los Angeles, Cleveland, Baltimore, Chicago, Tamp a,

Youngstown, Washington, San Francisco, Minneapolis,

Philadelphia, Detroit - but nowhere is there a Fair Play for

Cuba Committee in Dallas or in New Orleans.

Strange because within their Organization they are superinfiltrated

by U.S. citizens, and F.B.I. and CIA agents. Isn't that

so? Because everything that the CIA and the FBI do there has

been proved. Later they said other things.

Here it says also: "The Chairman of the National Committee

declared that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee has never

authorized the establishment of a chapter in any city of Texas or

Louisiana. 'I can say that Lee Harvey Oswald was never Secretary

or Chairman of any Fair Play for Cuba Committee in any city

of the United States.' "

But you see, throughout the world, they began to spread the

poison from the first moments, that a Fair Play for Cuba

Committee was involved. Other things appear later on. Later we

will try to analyze who this true or false culprit could be. And

we must stick to what they say, we must base ourselves on what

they themselves say. All right. That was the 22nd ...

"November 23, Dallas UPI - Pro-communist Lee Harvey

Oswald was charged today with the assassination of President

Kennedy. Police said that the paraffin test on Oswald's hands gave

positive results that traces of gun-powder were found " etc. . . .

Dallas, November 23rd, UPI- The result of the tests made

on Oswald's face is still unknown. Such traces could only exist

if the suspect had fired a gun."

So, in the first paragraph they start by saying, "procommunist,"

in the second paragraph they speak of something

else. Third paragraph - Oswald, a Marxist and sympathizer of

the communist regime in Cuba had oatmeal for breakfast ... In

other words, in order to say what he had for breakfast, they

repeat that he was a Marxist and sympathizer of the communist

regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Get it? It is clear enough. We

know these people quite well; we have become almost experts in

knowing these shameless characters.

They say: "He had oatmeal, apricots, bread, and coffee for

breakfast, and sat down comfortably to wait for the authorities

to continue questioning him."

"Dallas, November 23rd, UPI- The local police have proof

that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by CastroCommunist

Lee Harvey Oswald, according to an official

announcement today." So he was murdered by a Castrocommunist?

Now this man is no longer an American, he is no

longer a Marine, this man whom they taught to shoot and kill in

the Marine Corps, now this man whom they made an expert

shot and sent to all U.S. imperialist bases throughout the world

is no longer a Marine. No, he was no longer an American, he

was a Castro-Communist, even though we never in our life heard

of the existence of this person.

You see how all this propaganda works. An American, a real

American, born there, educated by American society and

American schools, seeing American films, in the American armed

forces, American in every way. All of a sudden he is no longer

this; there is nothing of this in the cables. Now we read: 'By the

Castro-communist.''

All right, Captain Will Fritz said they were certain of this,

etc. This was yesterday; now this was today in the afternoon:

"Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police, said today that Lee Harvey

Oswald admitted being a communist. And now he admitted it

today; yesterday he admitted nothing. Today it appears that he

admitted being a communist. "Curry added that Oswald

admitted to police officers questioning him last night that he was

a member of the Communist Party." Now the man has turned

out to be a member of the Communist Party. As time passes

they discover more titles for this man. The true man or supposed

man, this they do not know. Who can ... ?

All right. One thing is clear: among all the things connected

with the assassination is the unleashing of a campaign of slander

against the Soviet Union and against Cuba, and a series of

perfidious insinuations that have no other object than to repeat

a thousands times their intrigue and sheer infamy to create an

anti-Soviet and anti-Cuban hysteria among the U.S. people and

in public opinion.

So these gentlemen are playing a very strange role in a very

strange play, and no one knows what sinister plans may be

behind all this.

All right. On the other hand, there is an official statement by

the State Department, issued today, which declares: "State

Department authorities said today that they had no evidence to

indicate that the Soviet Union or any other power is involved in

the assassination of President Kennedy.

"Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine who lived three years

in Russia, has been charged with the crime. When 24 years old

Oswald went to Russia; he announced his intention of giving up

his U.S. citizenship. After changing his mind and returning to the

United States last year, Oswald became a sympathizer of the

Cuban prime Minister, Fidel Castro." So they repeat themselves

even in the cables where they say they deny they lie. . . . The

cable goes on: "State Department officials say that they have no

evidence that Cuba is involved in what Oswald did."

Naturally, there is no need for anyone to make excuses for

Cuba. There is no need for anyone to apologize for Cuba. Cuba

is not asking anyone to excuse her, or pardon her, because even

the very idea that we should have to defend ourselves from such

an infamy is repugnant in itself. Repugnant in itself.

So we have no need for anyone to defend us or apologize on

our behalf. Why does the State Department have to come out

today with such a statement? What does this show? It shows that

the U.S. authorities themselves, some people in the United States,

have become aware of the danger of the anti-Soviet and antiCuban

campaign unleashed by the most reactionary and warlike

circles in the United States.

In other words, the State Department itself understands the

danger of such a policy, the very dangerous dead end into which

such a campaign of slander and hysteria can lead the United

States.

So this shows that there are people in the United States who

have understood the need to get out of this situation. This does

not mean that the danger is over, because we do not know what

is behind the assassination of Kennedy. What is behind the

assassination of Kennedy is not known at the moment.

The statement does not eliminate the danger of some frame-up

that could be concocted there, but indicates that there are

already people in the United States who have understood the

danger and risk in such a campaign and indicates that, possibly,

there are people in the United States who do not agree with such

an adventure, with such madness, with such nonsense that is

being carried out in such a criminal and irresponsible way.

All right. The State Department has felt the need to

counteract this policy, because who knows where this policy, this

campaign, may lead.

Later other things have appeared, because all this is very

mysterious. Another cable, this time by Associated Press, says:

"A 1961 letter ..." Of course the United Press International has

said nothing on this because its campaign has been one-sided, in one

direction only, but not just the UPI. We were listening yesterday to

broadcasts of U.S. stations and the very same campaign was being

carried on the radio. The name of Castro was mentioned almost

more often than the name of the man whom they charge with the

murder, incessantly repeated over the radio in the United States.

See how these people act and how much they hate the

Revolution. Why should we not suspect that these people could

be capable of anything, from the murder of Kennedy up to what

they are doing now? People moved by such hatred, people who

act with such absolute lack of scruples ...

The AP cable reads: "A letter dated 1961 found in Pentagon

files raises doubts whether Texas governor, John Connally, and

not President Kennedy, was the main target of the assassin who

shot both yesterday in Dallas.

"The letter, dated January 31st, 1961, was written by hand in

Minsk, Soviet Union, by Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine,

charged with murdering Kennedy and wounding Connally.

"Oswald returned a year ago after spending three years in the

Soviet Union.

"The letter was addressed to Connally, then Secretary of the

Navy, asking that the dishonorable discharge of Oswald be

canceled. The request was denied, and if it is shown that he is the

man who fired at Kennedy and Connally, the question might be

raised of whom he had more motive to want to kill.

"A copy of Oswald's letter was sent to Connally, who had

left his post as Secretary of the Navy on December 20th 1961.

Connally briefly replied to Oswald on February 23, 1962, that he

was no longer in the Navy and that he had referred his letter to

the new Secretary of the Navy.

"A copy of Connally's letter was sent to the new official,

Fred Korth, who referred it to the Marine Corps. The Marine

Corps referred it to a court of appeals which confirmed Oswald's

dishonorable discharge. Oswald's letter maintained that his

discharge was a gross error or an injustice."

There are some other cables here in which they speak about

a threat, cables that say that in the letter Oswald threatened the

then-Secretary of the Navy, that he would take any means to

avenge himself for that injustice. And that very same Secretary of

the Navy was accompanying Kennedy.

So they themselves have now brought up another possible

version.

We have here a report which reads: "District Attorney Henry

Wade declared today that he expects to be able to secure a death

sentence for Lee Harvey Oswald, former Marine, who has been

formally accused of the murder of President John F. Kennedy,

according to reports issued by U.S. new agencies.

The report adds that Wade has been District Attorney in

twenty-four murder cases and secured twenty-three death

penalties. It seems that this District Attorney is a hangman - a

life sentence in the other case.

"Wade added that he is in possession of material evidence

against Oswald, but refused to say what this evidence was. He

said that it has not yet been established whether the Mauser that

was found is the murder weapon.

"In all the questioning Oswald has denied that he took any

part in the murder.

"Captain Will Fritz, Chief of the Homicide Squad of the

Dallas Police, said that in his opinion, Oswald killed President

Kennedy and that for him the case is closed."

Later we have to try to look at some of the facts on who this

accused man can be, but we want to speak of the campaign

carried on by United Press International.

It just so happens that these events occurred precisely at a

moment when Kennedy was being severely attacked by those

who considered his Cuban policy too weak.

It could not be us, but only the enemies of the Revolution

and the enemies, in general, of a more moderate policy, a less

warlike policy, the enemies of a policy like this who might be

interested in the death of President Kennedy, the only ones who

perhaps could have received the news of the death of Kennedy

with satisfaction.

A few days ago an incident drew my attention. This was

while the Inter-American Press Association Conference was

taking place. It was a scandal, because several governments were

strongly attacked, crudely attacked like the government of Brazil,

by a certain Mexquita, who said horrible things about the

President of Brazil, who even talked about and called for a coup

in Brazil; where statements were also made against other

presidents, against other Latin American countries, there in the

United States, and they made long tirades publishing a whole

series of opinions against the speech delivered by Kennedy in

Florida, because the speech delivered by Kennedy in Florida was

disappointing for a number of persons who favor a more

aggressive policy against Cuba. It was a disappointment for the

counter-revolutionary elements and it was a disappointment for

the warmongering elements in the United States.

And so, a series of cables. Here "Miami, Florida - The

Cuban exiles waited tonight in vain for a firm promise from

President Kennedy to take energetic measures against the

communist regime of Fidel Castro."

It says: "They waited tonight in vain for a firm promise" .. .

Many met in the offices of the revolutionary organizations and

in their homes, to listen to President Kennedy over the radio.

The Spanish translation broadcast over the radio station of the

exiles. They listened when the President said: "We in the

hemisphere should use all the means at our disposal to prevent

the establishment of another Cuba in the hemisphere." That is,

they did not accept the fact he said "to prevent the establishment

of another Cuba in the hemisphere," because they thought that

it carried with it the idea of accepting one Cuba. Many exiles had

hopes of more vigorous statements to liberate Cuba from

communism, but nevertheless, some felt that the U.S.

government was waging a secret war of infiltration against Castro

that could not be disclosed. It says that thousands of exiles

attended an open air rally in view of Kennedy's arrival, and they

heard criticism because of what they described as a weak U.S.

policy toward Cuba.

Jose Ignacio Rivero,Editor-in-exile of the Diario de La Marina,

the oldest Havana newspaper (he will stay there all his life), and

Emilio Nunez Portuondo, former President of the United

Nations Security council, called for more positive action by the

United States.

Rivero, a member of the Inter-American Press Association,

where Kennedy spoke, expressed his doubts over a sinister

intrigue among international politicians. That is an "intrigue "

because they want to co-exist with us.

It says: He also said in the meeting that "the weak U.S.

policy towards Cuba and other American nations is an

international shame." This was said by Ignacio Rivero, this one

from Diario de La Marina, who you know is an ultra-ultra and

who has to be linked to the ultra-ultra elements in the United

States.

So these elements openly state there that "the weak U.S.

policy toward Cuban and other American Nations is an

international shame...

"Miami Beach: Latin American newspaper publishers and

editors in response to the speech delivered by President Kennedy

tonight ... said that he had not taken a strong enough position

against the communist regime of Fidel Castro." That is, that

there, where the most reactionary representatives of the press

within and without the United States met, according to UPI and

AP cables, many of them said that he had not taken a strong

enough position against the communist regime of Fidel Castro ...

Augustin Navarre of El Espejo of Mexico, felt that the speech

was extremely weak and that his observations on Cuba were not

sufficient .... He added that "it was necessary to rescue Cuba

under Fidel Castro from Communism and not to maintain the

status quo." They are speaking against any coexistence. Other

Cuban newspaper owners in exile made similar statements.

A series of cables began to arrive. Here: "The president of the

Cuban Medical Association in exile, Enrique Huerta, stated that

the speech did not clarify any of the fundamental questions

related to the Cuba problem ... He wanted a unanimous attack,

a unanimous attack of Kennedy.

The newspaper added that the weak policy followed by the

Kennedy Government in respect to Castro, as a result of the

policy followed by his predecessor Eisenhower, made it possible

for Castro and Khrushchev to cement Cuba into a police state,

where the people have practically no hope of successfully

rebelling without large-scale outside help.

The newspaper continued: "Kennedy now refuses to allow

Cuban exiles to launch attacks against Cuba from U.S.t erritory.''

What is the difference between that way of thinking and

taking advantage of the assassination of their President to carry

out that policy? See what some of those reactionary circles

thought about Kennedy. It says: "Kennedy now refuses to allow

Cuban exiles to launch attacks against Cuba from U.S. territory,

and in fact uses U.S. air and naval power to maintain Castro in

power." That is to say,t hey accuse Kennedy of using naval and

air power to maintain Castro in power.

"There is a considerable difference," says the newspaper,

"between this attitude and the daring words about Cuba said by

Kennedy during the 1960 Presidential campaign. We doubt that

many voters have been disoriented by the President's remarks in

relation to Cuba the day before yesterday." It says "And many

voters will not have been disoriented."

So there was observed a current of unanimous criticism

against what the ultra-reactionary sectors considered a weak

policy toward Cuba. And that is how these people think.

And there are cables and more cables and more cables,

because they never wrote so many cables. It is obvious, how the

news agencies made a tremendous propaganda of all the criticisms

made of Kennedy because of his Cuban policy. The UPI

overflowed with information as it had never done before, picking

up all the criticisms of Kennedy because of his Cuban policy ....

Julio Mexquita Ciro, an utterly shameless reactionary who

went there to speak against the President of Brazil to carry on a

campaign against Brazil and to promote a reactionary, fascist

coup against Brazil - see what he says: "Julio Mexquita Ciro,

... who yesterday moved the editors of the IAPA meeting with

his analysis of the economic and political situation in his country,

said it was an error on the part of the United states not to have

realized the danger that the presence of Cuba meant for the

whole continent. Mexquita was in favor of collective action,

armed collective action by the hemisphere against Cuba, because

'I am a defender of free determination of nations,' he said."

Mexquita, Mosquito, Mezquino, all means the same thing; just

see how reactionary he is. The cable adds; ". . . the Brazilian

editor described as primitive President Kennedy's way of looking

at the agrarian problem of the hemisphere, and he said that the

agrarian problem cannot be measured with the same yardstick for

all the nations of the hemisphere." Why did he say this? Because

he represents the oligarchy, the big landholders in Brazil, and as

I was talking precisely about different shades of policy. Kennedy's

policy prompted a type of agrarian reform which is not

revolutionary, of course, which is not revolutionary but which

clashed with the interest of the oligarchs. And it is very strange

that in these days, on the eve of the assassination of Kennedy, a

coincidence as never before had been noted. In the opinion of the

ultra-reactionary sectors within and without the United

States ....

And this individual talks here about Kennedy's primitive way

of looking at the agrarian problem. And then finally there is

something very interesting - really very interesting ...

It says the third editor to express his opinion, Carbo, who is

director of the Executive Council of the Inter-American Press

Association - which is a very important job in the intellectual

sectors of reaction and the oligarchy - emphasized that there

were not strong statements in favor of the liberation of Cuba like

the statements that had been made in previous speeches by

President Kennedy, especially in the one he made after the heroic

battle of Playa Giron -that "heroic battle" where every one of

them ended defeated and imprisoned- forecasting the crisis of

the communist regime of Cuba. He claims in "Cuba the situation

of the government verges on the insoluble, economically,

politically and internationally since Castro is no longer reliable,

not even to Russia.' '

But most important of all is how the statement made by this

gentleman who holds an important post in reactionary intellectual

circles in the United States and abroad as Director of the

Executive Council of the Inter-American Press Association, how

his statement ends -and this is what drew my attention. The

editor of the confiscated Havana newspaper ended by saying: "I

believe a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change

its policy of peaceful co-existence." What does this mean? What

did this gentleman mean when he said this three days before the

assassination of Kennedy? What did this gentleman who holds an

utmost post in the ultra-reactionary intellectual circles in and

outside of the United States, the Director of the Executive

Council of the Inter-American Press Association, mean in a cable

that is not from Prensa Latina, but from Associated Press, dated

November 19th -AP Num, 254, AP November 19th, Miami

Beach - when he said: "I believe that a coming serious event will

oblige Washington to change its policy of peaceful co-existence?"

What does this mean, three days before the murder of

President Kennedy? Because when I read this cable it caught my

attention, it intrigued me, it seemed strange to me. Was there

perhaps some sort of understanding? Was there perhaps some sort

of thought about this? Was there perhaps some kind of plot? Was

there perhaps in those reactionary circles where the so-called

weak policy of Kennedy toward Cuba was under attack, where

the policy of ending nuclear threat was under attack, where the

policy of civil rights was under attack .... Was there perhaps in

certain civilian and military ultra-reactionary circles in the United

States, a plot against President Kennedy 's life?

How strange it is really that the assassination of President

Kennedy should take place at a time when there was unanimous

agreement of opinion against certain aspects of his policy, a

furious criticism of his policy. How strange all this is.

And this man who appears as the guilty person, who was he?

Who is he? Is he really guilty? Or is he only an instrument? Is he

a psychopath, sick? He could be one or the other. Or is he by

any means an instrument of the most reactionary circles in the

United States. Who is this man?

Here we have a report of the New York Times on Oswald

that says, "Last July he tried to enter the Cuban Student

Directory, to take part in the plans to overthrow the

revolutionary regime of Fidel Castro." It was no longer a Castroplot.

According to the New York Times he was trying to enter a

counterrevolutionary organization to overthrow the Cuban

Revolution. The paper names Cuban refugee sources as the basis

for this information.

Oswald was able to return to the United States thanks to a

loan of 435 dollars and 71 cents granted to him by the U.S.

Government. He succeeded in getting money after an appeal to

Senator John G. Tower, Republican, Texas, and he returns from

the Soviet Union on U.S. Government money through the

intervention of a Republican Senator from Texas.

Oswald has at present a U.S. passport which he obtained as

a photographer who wanted to travel abroad during the months

of October, November, and December of this year and visit the

Soviet Union, Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, and Italy.

How strange it is. Since he was arrested yesterday in Dallas, as a

suspect, the U.S. radio and television have been stressing that

Oswald is the chairman of the Dallas chapter of the Fair Play for

Cuba Committee.

"Questioned in New York on this point the Executive

Secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee denied that

Oswald held such a post, and added that there is no chapter of

this organization in Texas."

The New York Times, in explaining the contact established

between Oswald and the Cuban counter-revolutionaries, says that

Jose Antonio Denuza, spokesman of the so-called Cuban Student

Directory, had declared in Miami that Oswald met with the

delegates of that anti-Castro group in New Orleans last July.

Denuza - The New York Times added - said that Oswald

said he wanted to aid the Cubans in the fight against

communism, and offered 10 dollars contribution and his help in

military training of an invasion.

Carlos Bringuier, delegate of the counterrevolutionary

organization referred to, said to the New York Times that "at first

I suspected Oswald. I frankly thought that he might be an FBI or

CIA agent trying to find out what we were doing." So Cuban

counter-revolutionaries are saying that when Oswald tried to

enter their organization he was not accepted because they

believed he was from the CIA or FBI, and that he was trying to

find out what they were up to.

How curious! And this is not what they publish but they say

that he is a Castroite, a communist, an admirer of Fidel Castro.

And now it appears that he tried to enter the organization and

was not admitted because they thought he belonged to the FBI

or CIA. They must know pretty well the kind of agents the FBI

and CIA have since they deal with them a lot.

But for the time being, without affirming anything, because

we cannot affirm anything, since Oswald could be guilty or

innocent, we can't tell; or he could be a CIA or FBI agent, as

those people suspected, or an instrument of the most reactionary

sectors that may have been planning a sinister plot, who may

have planned the assassination of Kennedy because of

disagreement with his international policy; or he could be a sick

man now being used by U.S. reactionary sectors.

However, there is a series of strange things about this man

who is presented to be guilty, who tried to enter

counterrevolutionary organizations and yet later they say turned

up distributing pro-Castro propaganda - that is what they say

- who later appeared on TV. That is strange ... because he was

not a personality, and American television and radio stations do

not call just anyone off the street and present him; much less do

they go around calling the people of Fair Play for Cuba to carry

out campaigns for Cuba. No! They close the newspaper doors to

them, they close the radio and television doors to them. How

strange that this Oswald - who was first trying to join a

counterrevolutionary organization - should turn up now,

resorting to television to defend us. How strange! How strange

that this former marine should go to the Soviet Union and try

to become a Soviet citizen, and that the Soviets should not accept

him, that he should say at the American Embassy that he

intended to disclose to the Soviet Union the secrets of everything

he learned while he was in the U.S. service and that in spite of

this statement, his passage is paid by the U.S. Government on the

backing of a Texas Republican Senator who is considered to be,

as it says here: Texas is considered by them to be . . . Well, I

cannot find the paper, but there is a cable around here where

they themselves say that Texas is the bulwark of reactionary

spirit. And then we find that this man, who says in the Embassy

... who makes a statement in the Embassy that he is going to

disclose the secrets he knows to the Soviet Union, later returns

with money given on recommendation of a Republican Senator

from Texas. He goes back to Texas and finds a job. This is all so

strange!

He is not tried, he is not sentenced, he is given money to

return, supported by a Senator from Texas and then, again they

give him a passport to travel. This is all so strange! What is there

behind all this? What sinister maneuver are they scheming behind

all this? Who are those guilty for the murder of Kennedy? Who

will benefit from this murder, who could be the only ones to

benefit from this murder? The supporters of the invasion of

Cuba, the supporters of brink of war policy, and the supporters

of war; enemies of peace, the enemies of disarmament, the worst

enemies of Negro rights in the United States, the worst enemies

of progressive elements and of liberal thought in the United

States.

Who can benefit from this, from this action, from this

murder, if not the worst reaction, the worst elements of U.S.

society? Who could be the only ones interested in this murder?

Could it be a real leftist, a leftist fanatic, at a moment when

tensions had lessened, at a moment when McCarthyism was

being left behind, or was at least more moderate, at a moment

when a nuclear test ban treaty is signed, at a moment when

speeches are described as weak with respect to Cuba were being

made?

It says here - now more things are beginning to come out:

"Dallas, Texas, November 23rd, AP- All his life Lee Harvey

Oswald has been a solitary, an introverted type with communist

ideas, but he was not regarded as a troublemaker. Deep down, his

introverted personality was imbued at an early age by an alien

ideology enunciated a century ago by Karl Marx."

Dallas police chief Jesse Curry has said that Oswald readily

admitted being a communist. How strange, what contradictions.

He does not confess to committing the crime. It is supposed that

if a fanatic commits a crime of this kind he says so or as someone

said: fanatics fire their revolvers in front of everybody, they run

out with a revolver as the car passes. The strange case of a fanatic

who denies committing a murder, but on the other hand, readily

confesses to being a communist- according to the cables.

" 'Apparently he feels proud of being a communist,' Curry

added. 'He does not try to conceal it.' "

All these are new stories which did not appear yesterday.

They are of today. "Although accused of the assassination of the

President, Lee Harvey Oswald has resisted all efforts by the

authorities to make him confess; Oswald has told newsmen: 'I

did not kill President Kennedy. I did not kill anyone.' "

What sort of person was Oswald before his arrest? He was

born in New Orleans on the 18th of October, 1939. "My father

died before I was born," Oswald said. "His widowed mother

brought the family to Fort Worth. A Fort Worth police officer,

who asked that his name not be revealed said he has known

Oswald since both were in fifth grade, until he entered high

school at Fort Worth. This police officer, Oswald's former

classmate, recalled the following: he always opposed any sort of

discipline. He seemed to hold something against people there,

against any authority; he was never like the rest of the kids. He

rarely associated with them, but he never was a troublemaker.

"At high school he talked a lot about how things should be.

Oswald - he added - began to be interested in communism

when he was 15 years old, when a Marxist pamphlet came to his

hands. Later, he read Karl Marx's Capital, the bible of

communism. At 17, Oswald left school only 23 days after the

high school term started, and soon joined the Marine Corps.

"His military career was a failure. On two occasions he was

court martialed for violating regulations. His specialty was as an

operator of electronics equipment. He served in Japan but never

got farther than private first class.

"Oswald's career in the Marines concluded on September

11th, 1959, when he was given leave to support his mother. He

was transferred to inactive reserve but later on was dishonorably

discharged.

"One month later, Oswald arrived in Moscow. On October

26th, 1959, he visited the American Embassy and announced his

intention of giving up his citizenship. He told Embassy officials:

'I am a Marxist.'

"In February 1962, after a study of his case, the conclusion

was reached that Oswald had not acquired Soviet citizenship and

therefore at his request they gave him a U.S. passport and granted

him a loan in order to return to the country.

"Back in the United States, Oswald went to his native New

Orleans. Last June, he requested a new passport to return to the

Soviet Union. In the meantime he was involved in a dispute with

an anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, who said: 'I suspected

him from the beginning. Frankly I thought he could be an agent

of the FBI or CIA who tried to infiltrate us and see what we

were doing.' "

The rest is similar to what we already have read here. But

there are new ingredients. In fact a whole series, a whole

propaganda chain, distributed in doses.

First that he is a member of the Fair Play for Cuba

Committee which was false. Later a man who lived in the Soviet

Union. Afterwards, a whole series of insinuations in several

cables. Today, he is not only all that, he is also a communist and

a very willing communist at that, he admits it. In fact all this is

really very strange.

Their description is not that of a fanatic. But that of an

individual with a number of characteristics that really fit what

U.S. reaction wants like a ring on a finger, that fit the worst

policy of the United States; a person who seems to have been

expressly made for this purpose, expressly made for specific ends:

to create hysteria, to unleash an anti-Soviet, anti-Cuban, anti

communist, anti-progressive, anti-liberal campaign in the United

States; to eliminate a President whose policy collided head on

with the policy promoted by the most reactionary circles in the

country after the nuclear test ban treaty, after several speeches

which were unanimously attacked for being weak toward Cuba.

What can have been the motives for the assassination of

President Kennedy? What can there be behind all this? We

cannot affirm anything because we do not have other elements

for judgment: both the personality of the individual and the

propaganda being carried out are suspicious, everything is

suspicious.

We cannot categorically affirm what is behind all this, but we

do affirm that it is suspicious; that we must be careful, that we

must be vigilant, that we must be alert. Because this man may be

innocent, a eat's paw, in a plan very well prepared by people

who knew how to prepare these plans; or he may be a sick man

and if so, the only honest thing is to hand him over for a medical

examination and not to be starting a campaign extremely

dangerous to world peace; or he may be an instrument very well

chosen and very well trained by the ultra-right, by ultraconservative

reaction of the United States with the deliberate aim

of eliminating a President who, according to them, did not carry

out the policy he should have - more warlike, more aggressive,

more adventuresome policy. And it is necessary for all people of

the United States themselves to demand that what is behind the

Kennedy assassination be clarified.

It is in the interest of the U.S. people and of the people of the

world, that this be made known, that they demand to know

what is really behind the assassination of Kennedy, that the facts

be made clear: whether the man involved is innocent, sick or an

instrument of the reactionaries, an agent of a macabre plan to

carry forward a policy of war and aggression, to place the

Government of the United States at the mercy of the most

aggressive circles of monopoly, of militarism and of the worst

agencies of the United States. It is in our interest, in the interest

of all people and of the U.S. people that we demand this.

We believe that intellectuals, lovers of peace, should

understand the seriousness of a policy of this nature, a campaign

of this type. They should understand the trend of the events and

the danger that maneuvers of this kind could mean to world

peace, and what a conspiracy of this type, what a Machiavellian

policy of this nature could lead to.

This is the analysis we wanted to make and the things we

wanted to take into consideration; to express our opinion, the

opinion of our Party and of our Government; to make known

the strong antagonisms between the governments of the United

States and ourselves, to make known the more moderate side of

their policy, that least warlike; the policy that is less aggressive

than the policy advocated by the others, or by the other U.S.

sectors. So that we, as revolutionaries, as conscious men and

women, may know how to analyze problems of this nature,

difficult problems, delicate problems, complex problems; because

policy in a country like the United States is very complex. A

countless number of factors are taken into consideration in the

policy making of this country. Very often they are contradictory

factors. But undoubtedly, these things that we have been pointing

out about the campaign are some of the means - certainly the

most immoral - by which policy is worked out.

What are these right-wing circles trying to do? To impose on

the new administration? What is the plan of these circles? To

place the new administration in a de facto situation facing an

inflamed public opinion, exacerbated by propaganda, by the

campaign; a public opinion moved by profound hatred toward

the Soviet Union, toward Cuba, toward progressive ideas, even

towards liberal ideas. That is, this campaign tends to place the

United States in the worst international position, in the most

reactionary international position. And that surely is a serious

threat to peace.

We are not worried about ourselves. We are worried about

the interests of mankind.

We know that the fate of our country depends also on the

fate of mankind; we do not fear for ourselves; we are and always

will be calm. We are concerned about peace and about calling

attention to all these events.

We are concerned to give warning of the dangers of these

events. We want the people to be informed and calm, as they

have always been, as staunch and as willing as always, to defend

the Revolution. That they be ready always to defend the

fatherland, with a morale as high as ever, as high as the Turquino

mountain - as Camilo used to say: that they be ready, alert, and

vigilant as always, facing intrigues and dangers, whatever they

may be!

However contemptible, however infamous, however criminal

these campaigns may be, let the enemies of our country know

that they will always find us unwavering, that they will always

find us alert, with our head held high, ready to fulfill our slogan,

Homeland or Death! We will win!

Great post by the way Robert, good work!

In any event John Kennedy was using Lisa Howard and William Attwood to do an end run around that State Department (and CIA and Pentagon) who no doubt would have been enraged to find out that JFK was contemplating a deal with Cuba that would leave Castro in power. Those guys wanted to kill Castro, not make a "peace deal" that would keep Castro in power. This, along with JFK's war with Lyndon Johnson, could be the 2 big reasons for the JFK assassination.

This of coarse was after the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, of coarse "they" felt (betrayed by Kennedy), not once, with the Bay of Pigs by not sending in U.S. Military. Not twice with the Cuban Missile Crisis by not sending in U.S. Military but three times by creating a "peace deal" with Castro and not sending in U.S. Military.

"They" also felt betrayed by Kennedy when (he) Kennedy paid Castro 53 million dollars for the brigade members that were captured by Castro, "they" wanted to go in and forcefully remove those prisoners and kill Castro, but that too didn't happen.

Excellent work, Rob. What is very bizarre how less than two days after the assassination he has found so many holes in the story, which at that time had barely even been created. He was probably very familiar with assassination attempts and the stories behind them.

He was probably very familiar with assassination attempts and the stories behind them.

I have not completely ruled out Castro knowing something before hand of Kennedy's assassination, as my friend Jose Pujol puts it so passionately, he thinks Castro was involved, others who have fought Castro and plotted to assassinate him said, "I don't think Castro was involved directly, but he help by incorporating something".

He was a dictator 40 years ago, as he is a dictator today 40 years later, its time for him, his brother, his cabinet to fall.

Since at least the publication of Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, it has been taken as a "given" by most conspiracy theorists that Charles Givens told two lies regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. 1. He initially claimed he saw Oswald in the domino room at 11:50 AM on the day of the shooting, but then pretended this never occurred. 2 He initially claimed he saw Oswald on the fifth floor as he (Givens) headed down for lunch between 11:30 and 11:45, but then testified he saw Oswald on the sixth floor, during his lunch, after going back up to get his cigarettes.

I have found reason to believe the first of these lies was not a lie, but a colossal misunderstanding.

The source of the confusion is an FBI report on its 11-22-63 interview of Givens. It has long been quoted as claiming: "Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M." Some researchers, based upon this statement, have even taken to stating that Givens said he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the domino room.

But this is clearly incorrect. And here's why. This FBI report is not a verbatim account of Givens' statements. It is a typed-up report taken from the notes created by the FBI agent interviewing Givens. While the FBI has never released the original notes of any of its agents, I have recently realized there is another report written based upon these notes that sheds fresh light on what Givens actually said. This report is a teletype written early on the 23rd in which Dallas Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin summarized the interviews conducted in Dallas for FBI headquarters.

Here is Shanklin's discussion of Givens:

"Charles Douglas Givens, Employee, TSBD, worked on sixth floor until about eleven thirty A.M. Left at this time going down on elevator. Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass. Oswald was reading paper in the first floor domino room seven-fifty A.M. November twenty two last when Givens came to work."

This passage can be found in FBI file 62-109060, sec 9, p54 here: Shanklin on Givens

As you can see he specifies that Givens saw Oswald at 7:50, not 11:50 as appeared in the typed-up report. But that's not quite accurate, either. After reading Shanklin's account, I went back and re-read the FBI's typed-up report on its interview with Givens, and realized that the report had actually never claimed Givens saw Oswald at 11:50. This is what people thought it claimed. But it's not what it actually claimed. It actually claimed exactly what Shanklin said it claimed, with the unfortunate subtraction of the time Givens saw Oswald. Here is the confusingly written passage, from which people, including myself, have long extracted that Givens saw Oswald at 11:50.

"Givens said that during the past few days Lee had commented that he rode to work with a boy named Wesley. Givens said all employees enter the back door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens the door about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.” (CD5 p329)

So, you see, by leaving out the time Givens saw Oswald--7:50--the writer of the report allowed people to think the words "On the morning" referred to 11:50.

It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some boxes or something?

There's also this. Shanklin's teletype asserts that Givens: "Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass."

While the FBI's typed-up report said Givens traveled to the first floor and then walked around until 12 o'clock, it did not specify that he did not go back up. Shanklin's message is much more specific on this matter. There is NO WAY this is compatible with Givens' subsequent testimony he went back up to the sixth floor and talked to Oswald. Shanklin's teletype thereby clears Givens of one lie, but helps convict him of another.

It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some boxes or something?

Not that I'm in anyway saying Oswald is guilty of killing the president, I'm the first to disagree and suggest he was in fact set up, but to assume of someones innocents because he was reading the paper and not getting down to business rarely means anything if you're conspiring to assassinate someone, it doesn't entirely mean you're off the hook. I mean if I were to whack someone. I'd want to make it look as inconspicuous as possible, and if it meant reading the paper, then completing my job at a latter time, then that's what I'm gonna do.

I agree, Scott, that Oswald's reading the paper doesn't really tell us all that much. But there are a number of Oswald-did-it types who insist Oswald didn't really work that day, but only pretended to work while preparing for his moment. If Oswald spent the first part of the day calmly reading the paper, that cuts into their nonsense.

I understand, isn't there anything indicating any time cards on those who worked that day, weren't they interviewed? I read somewhere about another employee named Frankie Kaiser was he there when Oswald was apparently at work?

I was wondering about the letter Oswald wrote to a Mr Hunt. Which Hunt do you think was writing to?

E.Howard or H.L?

Mark, IMHO, if (and only if) that letter is authentic, then Oswald would have addressed E.H. Hunt by his CIA Alias, "Eduardo," and not by his last name. So, since the writer used the name, "Hunt," he was almost certainly writing to H.L. Hunt.

--Paul Trejo

^^ Not necessarily true, E.H Hunt was "Eduardo" to the anti-Castro groups and during the Bay of Pigs, in fact many knew him by his real name, even during the Bay of Pigs. In fact Sturgis knew E.H. Hunt since 1954 during the Guatemalan coup. He only adopted that name "Eduardo" while he was involved with the Cubans in South Florida.

Scott, I agree that Oswald might not have used the name "Eduardo" when addressing E.H. Hunt in writing -- but Hunt had other aliases, too. Insofar as Oswald was accepted in the fringes of the rogue CIA underground, he would have known the appropriate alias, and he would have used the proper alias when writing to E.H. Hunt. He wouldn't have used his real name, IMHO. That's why I say it's better than 50/50 that Oswald was writing to H.L. Hunt (if the letter is authentic).

Think of Oswald's situation in life; he did not like holding down regular jobs. He changed menial jobs so often that one gets the idea he took those jobs only to provide a cover for his lifestyle. He obtained cash from his many post office boxes, and also from the local Western Union (according to a clerk in the Dallas Western Union). He owned a Minolta spy camera; he was always looking for money. Clay Shaw was mainly a money source for Oswald (and Banister and Ferrie). Oswald saw the older spies go to very rich people to ask for money for right-wing adventures -- and get it. He was practicing for the day when he would call the shots, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Sorry, I have edited my last post and added more information sense then, I meant to say, ^^ Not necessarily true, E.H Hunt was "Eduardo" to the anti-Castro groups and during the Bay of Pigs, in fact many knew him by his real name, even during the Bay of Pigs. In fact Sturgis knew E.H. Hunt since 1954 during the Guatemalan coup. He only adopted that name "Eduardo" while he was involved with the Cubans in South Florida.

Mark Lane describes this letter as a possible forgery while being very skeptical, and in 1999, the note was revealed to be a "Soviet forgery" in a book by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin. perhaps written by the Russians. Why would any Russian write this? But should it be taken at face value? The House Select Committee on assassinations had three handwriting experts examine the note to determine its authenticity. I do beleive that someone in the KGB is seeking notoriety by adding one more book to the all ready long list.

The writing and signature of that letter and the entire of Lee in my father's phone book are nearly identical, am I to beleive that because some Soviet KGB says its a "Soviet forgery" am I suppose to beleive him? If in fact this letter is authenticate and sense Lee was a Marxist who as an individual would develop his own capacities and talents. I say Oswald may have been swinging both ways, on one hand he was anti-Castro, but on the other he was pro-Cuba. So what does that say about a confused young man? I don't beleive that letter had anything to do with H.L. Hunt. There is ample information/evidence that Oswald visited South Miami where he may have encountered Howard Hunt, which makes sense, but I seriously doubt that Oswald and H.L. Hunt who calls himself the richest man in the world would be rubbing elbows.

I do apologize for the several error, typo's and misspelled words, that's what happens when I'm usually in a hurry.

Scott

I was wondering about the letter Oswald wrote to a Mr Hunt. Which Hunt do you think was writing to?

E.Howard or H.L?

Mark, IMHO, if (and only if) that letter is authentic, then Oswald would have addressed E.H. Hunt by his CIA Alias, "Eduardo," and not by his last name. So, since the writer used the name, "Hunt," he was almost certainly writing to H.L. Hunt.

--Paul Trejo

^^ Not necessarily true, E.H Hunt was "Eduardo" to the anti-Castro groups and during the Bay of Pigs, in fact many knew him by his real name, even during the Bay of Pigs. In fact Sturgis knew E.H. Hunt since 1954 during the Guatemalan coup. He only adopted that name "Eduardo" while he was involved with the Cubans in South Florida.

Mark Lane describes this letter as a possible forgery while being very skeptical, and in 1999, the note was revealed to be a "Soviet forgery" in a book by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin. perhaps written by the Russians. Why would any Russian write this? But should it be taken at face value? The House Select Committee on assassinations had three handwriting experts examine the note to determine its authenticity. I do beleive that someone in the KGB is seeking notoriety by adding one more book to the all ready long list.

The writing and signature of that letter and the entire of Lee is my father's phone book are nearly identical, am I to beleive that because some Soviet KGB says its a "Soviet forgery" am I suppose to beleive him? If in fact this letter is authenticate and sense Lee was a Marxist who as an individual would develop his own capacities and talents. I say Oswald may have been swinging both ways, on one hand he was anti-Castro, but on the other he was pro-Cuba. So what does that say about a confused young man? I don't beleive that letter had anything to do with H.L. Hunt. There is ample information/evidence that Oswald visited South Miami where he may have encountered Howard Hunt, which makes sense, but I seriously doubt that Oswald and H.L. Hunt who calls himself the richest man in the world would be rubbing elbows.

Since at least the publication of Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, it has been taken as a "given" by most conspiracy theorists that Charles Givens told two lies regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. 1. He initially claimed he saw Oswald in the domino room at 11:50 AM on the day of the shooting, but then pretended this never occurred. 2 He initially claimed he saw Oswald on the fifth floor as he (Givens) headed down for lunch between 11:30 and 11:45, but then testified he saw Oswald on the sixth floor, during his lunch, after going back up to get his cigarettes.

I have found reason to believe the first of these lies was not a lie, but a colossal misunderstanding.

The source of the confusion is an FBI report on its 11-22-63 interview of Givens. It has long been quoted as claiming: "Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M." Some researchers, based upon this statement, have even taken to stating that Givens said he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the domino room.

But this is clearly incorrect. And here's why. This FBI report is not a verbatim account of Givens' statements. It is a typed-up report taken from the notes created by the FBI agent interviewing Givens. While the FBI has never released the original notes of any of its agents, I have recently realized there is another report written based upon these notes that sheds fresh light on what Givens actually said. This report is a teletype written early on the 23rd in which Dallas Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin summarized the interviews conducted in Dallas for FBI headquarters.

Here is Shanklin's discussion of Givens:

"Charles Douglas Givens, Employee, TSBD, worked on sixth floor until about eleven thirty A.M. Left at this time going down on elevator. Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass. Oswald was reading paper in the first floor domino room seven-fifty A.M. November twenty two last when Givens came to work."

This passage can be found in FBI file 62-109060, sec 9, p54 here: Shanklin on Givens

As you can see he specifies that Givens saw Oswald at 7:50, not 11:50 as appeared in the typed-up report. But that's not quite accurate, either. After reading Shanklin's account, I went back and re-read the FBI's typed-up report on its interview with Givens, and realized that the report had actually never claimed Givens saw Oswald at 11:50. This is what people thought it claimed. But it's not what it actually claimed. It actually claimed exactly what Shanklin said it claimed, with the unfortunate subtraction of the time Givens saw Oswald. Here is the confusingly written passage, from which people, including myself, have long extracted that Givens saw Oswald at 11:50.

"Givens said that during the past few days Lee had commented that he rode to work with a boy named Wesley. Givens said all employees enter the back door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens the door about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.” (CD5 p329)

So, you see, by leaving out the time Givens saw Oswald--7:50--the writer of the report allowed people to think the words "On the morning" referred to 11:50.

It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some boxes or something?

There's also this. Shanklin's teletype asserts that Givens: "Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass."

While the FBI's typed-up report said Givens traveled to the first floor and then walked around until 12 o'clock, it did not specify that he did not go back up. Shanklin's message is much more specific on this matter. There is NO WAY this is compatible with Givens' subsequent testimony he went back up to the sixth floor and talked to Oswald. Shanklin's teletype thereby clears Givens of one lie, but helps convict him of another.

It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some boxes or something?

Not that I'm in anyway saying Oswald is guilty of killing the president, I'm the first to disagree and suggest he was in fact set up, but to assume of someones innocents because he was reading the paper and not getting down to business rarely means anything if you're conspiring to assassinate someone, it doesn't entirely mean you're off the hook. I mean if I were to whack someone. I'd want to make it look as inconspicuous as possible, and if it meant reading the paper, then completing my job at a latter time, then that's what I'm gonna do.

I was wondering about the letter Oswald wrote to a Mr Hunt. Which Hunt do you think was writing to?

E.Howard or H.L?

H.L. Hunt was an oil tycoon, by 1957 his estimated fortune was approximately $400 to $700 million dollars. Hunts support of Barry Goldwater for the Republican party in 1964 led to smarting under that rebuff and disgusted with Johnson's liberal policies after assuming the presidency in 1963.

Hunt supported Eisenhower in 1956, however, in 1960 pushed hard for the nomination of LBJ and because LBJ agreed to become JFK running mate Hunt contributed some $100,000 to Kennedy's administration.

Hunt who is a successful business man out of Dallas TX lived in a relatively modest home in Dallas. Hunt was also often overheard while introducing himself to strangers by saying. "Hello, I am H.L. Hunt, the worlds richest man"... I do beleive that had Oswald contact H.L.Hunt rather then E.H. Hunt the writings of that letter would have reflected so. Although,

LHO was living in Dallas after moving from New Orleans, LHO also visited Miami, and because there is no hard facts of LHO visiting Miami there has been reported sightings of Oswald who may or may not have had an encounter with Frank Sturgis.

There also seems to be a tape of LHO hiding his face when the filming took place sometime in late 1962 or early part of 1963 in the South Florida Everglades, those who were present in that film were Marita Lorenz, Frank Sturgis and Frank Bender aka Gerry Doller.

Howard Hunts early ties to the 1954 Guatemalan coup dubbed "Operation PBSUCCESS", which was also approved by president Eisenhower, many of the same players participated in their very own domestic coup called "Dealey Plaza".

Because of Howard Hunts ties to Nixon's anti-Castro underworld and his assassins towards unfriendly foreign leaders, only leads me to beleive that Hunts roll as a "bench warmer" was in fact true. Hunts stayed in South Florida which allowed him to under go a much larger operation and covertly work with those in the organization while keeping it totally secret. The birth of setting up Oswald was well on its way. Hunt would latter bribe Nixon for two million dollars for hush money? In the meantime Nixon tries to blackmail CIA chief Richard Helms over the secrets that Hunt might blab regarding CIA's links to "the Bay of Pigs After all, Nixon said, "Of course, this Hunt, You open that scab, that will uncover a lot of things."

"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.' After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."

Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination." In short to answer your question as to whether Oswald was referring to H.L. Hunt or E.H. Hunt. I do beleive he was referring to the latter.

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy_nixon.htm

http://ajweberman.com/tape.htm

Do you access to the tape of LHO hiding his face when the filming took place sometime in late 1962 or early part of 1963 in the South Florida Everglades, those who were present in that film were Marita Lorenz, Frank Sturgis and Frank Bender aka Gerry Doller.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The person standing behind Frank Sturgis just ten second into this film then quickly turns away when he notices he is being filmed has been identified as Lee Oswald.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this second film, it is NOT Oswald, but someone else, Oswald was standing behind Sturgis, you can't see him in this film, who you can see are Frank Sturgis, the man holding the gun and Frank Bender aka Gerry Doller waring an army hat, fatigues and glasses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the FULL clip of everyone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was wondering about the letter Oswald wrote to a Mr Hunt. Which Hunt do you think was writing to?

E.Howard or H.L?

H.L. Hunt was an oil tycoon, by 1957 his estimated fortune was approximately $400 to $700 million dollars. Hunts support of Barry Goldwater for the Republican party in 1964 led to smarting under that rebuff and disgusted with Johnson's liberal policies after assuming the presidency in 1963.

Hunt supported Eisenhower in 1956, however, in 1960 pushed hard for the nomination of LBJ and because LBJ agreed to become JFK running mate Hunt contributed some $100,000 to Kennedy's administration.

Hunt who is a successful business man out of Dallas TX lived in a relatively modest home in Dallas. Hunt was also often overheard while introducing himself to strangers by saying. "Hello, I am H.L. Hunt, the worlds richest man"... I do beleive that had Oswald contact H.L.Hunt rather then E.H. Hunt the writings of that letter would have reflected so. Although,

LHO was living in Dallas after moving from New Orleans, LHO also visited Miami, and because there is no hard facts of LHO visiting Miami there has been reported sightings of Oswald who may or may not have had an encounter with Frank Sturgis.

There also seems to be a tape of LHO hiding his face when the filming took place sometime in late 1962 or early part of 1963 in the South Florida Everglades, those who were present in that film were Marita Lorenz, Frank Sturgis and Frank Bender aka Gerry Doller.

Howard Hunts early ties to the 1954 Guatemalan coup dubbed "Operation PBSUCCESS", which was also approved by president Eisenhower, many of the same players participated in their very own domestic coup called "Dealey Plaza".

Because of Howard Hunts ties to Nixon's anti-Castro underworld and his assassins towards unfriendly foreign leaders, only leads me to beleive that Hunts roll as a "bench warmer" was in fact true. Hunts stayed in South Florida which allowed him to under go a much larger operation and covertly work with those in the organization while keeping it totally secret. The birth of setting up Oswald was well on its way. Hunt would latter bribe Nixon for two million dollars for hush money? In the meantime Nixon tries to blackmail CIA chief Richard Helms over the secrets that Hunt might blab regarding CIA's links to "the Bay of Pigs After all, Nixon said, "Of course, this Hunt, You open that scab, that will uncover a lot of things."

"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.' After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."

Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination." In short to answer your question as to whether Oswald was referring to H.L. Hunt or E.H. Hunt. I do beleive he was referring to the latter.

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy_nixon.htm

http://ajweberman.com/tape.htm