Larry Hancock
-
Posts
4,087 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Larry Hancock
-
-
Pat, you are certainly right on with those items; a couple of additional points are that the French military belived that the OAS had received either intelligence or some other tacit support in their actions for Algerian independence as part of a hard line reaction of anything resembling compromise with revolutionary movements. Also, there is concrete evidence that the OAS and Soutre in particular were pitching the story that DeGaule's government was widely infiltrated with Soviet supporters and communists. As usual Angleton bought into this and personally became very involved in trying to determine how wide much of a risk this posed - Angleton could never pass up suspicions of Soviet moles. Because of this French intelligence absolutely knew that at last some in in a high level at CIA was talking with the OAS.
-- Larry
If anyone is wondering what the CIA would have against DeGaulle (I know I used to), let me just throw in that by 1963 the great anti-fascist DeGaulle was seen by the American and French right wing as a bit soft on communism, to put it mildly. He'd called for negotiations in Vietnam and was in the process, I believe, of recognizing "red" China.Let me know if my memory has failed me again.
-
I'm afraid this is an amazingly convoluted subject - a reading of the FBI and CIA files in which the names Mertz and Soutre are constantly intermingled illustrates that certainly the FBI was equally confused.
I wish I could contribute something solid but at this point I can only offer the observation that a number of pre-assassination leaks suggest that Cuban exiles perhipherally associated with elements of the the crime scene (in particular drug and arms smuggling networks) in the southern U.S. were aware of a plan to strike at the President. These leaks seem to have been picked up by certain French individuals who were involved with feeding drugs from Marseille into these networks....Mertz is probably a leading candidate for knowing about the plot. And Mertz was also someone totally dedicated to penetrating anything that might present a threat against DeGaulle.
It is highly speculative but not impossible that Mertz may have been in Dallas to further investigate the rumored threat and any individuals whom he suspected might be associated with it. It is clear that in 1964 there was a "bidding" war going on between the OAS and French government for the attentions and support of the CIA - there was widespread suspicion in France that the CIA or other elements of the U.S. including its military had supported various OAS efforts against De Gaulle. Concrete knowledge of the plot could have been a significant negotiating tool as it would have proved the value of either party. It is also clear that CIA and FBI might both have been eager to get either Mertz or Soutre out of the country based on their general undesirability (drugs in Mertz case and being a violent revolutionary in Soutre's) - given that they could ever track them down. Catching up with either one of them in Texas could have resulted in a quick and very low key expulsion unrelated to the assassination.
....Larry
I do not recall that there has been a separate thread on this man, a reported French assassin, who was deported from Dallas a few days after the assassination. He may be of sufficient significance to deserve a thread of his own.Larry Hancock provided some very interesting details on this case during his seminar in Canterbury on Sunday. Hopefully he will post this information when he gets back to his computer.
-
And without some details on the actual failure its hard to say more. It would
be relatively easy to isolate commercial traffic at least for a time by taking out
or seizing long distance relay (long lines) facilities. Of course that becomes
a bit of a trick to cover up afterwards. But if you want to actually take
control of local calls within an exchange or local calls among DC exchanges it
calls for a lot more visibility.
I'm afraid this one is like some of the other frequently discussed incidents (the LBJ leaflets in Miami for example) that gets widely repeated without much source info or background on the incident itself. But if anybody can dig up some detail I'd sure love to see it.
-- Larry
Well OK, having worked with electromechanical and computerized phoneswitches and taught switching systems and traffic / load engineering for a few years, a couple of thoughts occur to me.
First, you tie up individual building switches (PABX's), or individual office switches (key systems) or local telco exchanges or local or long distance trunks. You can shut them down of course but that's not all that easy and there is no on/off switch -you would have to do a lot of manual work or more likely just shut down the power to the system(s) in question. And that would be at lots of local exchanges and trunk/transmission facilities. Everyone who has read Seven Days in May will require that the bad guys were training a whole strike force just to take over communications in D.C.....and much of that was going to happen by taking over long distance relay facilities.
The problem is that as far as a given number of users are concerned, you would have the same appearance (the phone system is down) if their individual PABX, Key System, Local Exchange, or destination trunk facilities were busy. The net result of all of it is either no dial tone or most likely a fast busy
There are a couple of fairly easy "saturation" things that can happen, for example everyone around the country could start placing calls to destinations in D.C. that are served by a couple of exchanges - at the same time a fair number of folks in those exchanges try to call each other or call out (gets worse with lots of folks calling and nobody answering because they are tied up with the news). At that point in time most of the switching equipment was mechanical and some of it actually used the same relays to place and hold the call. Not that hard to tie it up with a spike in calls being placed or received for that matter. Even today with computerized switching that has much better loading capability, its still possible to run into fast busys during a major event - and it only gets better when enough people tire out and stop trying to place calls.
Bottom line, an observation like the saying DC System telephone system went down requires a lot more detail - a person in one of the Bell switching control centers could say that because they would be monitoring switches, trunks and traffic. Or individuals might say it if they they simply encountered busy signals. The key would be knowing who, when and where felt the system was down.
And by the way, if it truly were down due to some planned action, there should be a number of telephone traffic people not only in D.C. but in other regional control centers who would have observed how and when it went down - and came back for that matter.
Larry,
The failure of the DC phone system seems like another one of those coincidences. From my reading of your post and the earlier post of Robert Charles-Dunne, I gather that there are two possibilities: 1. It was accidental, coincidental or 2. It was contrived. (I'm a genius) If it was the latter, the military is most likely the party responsible.
-
Well OK, having worked with electromechanical and computerized phone
switches and taught switching systems and traffic / load engineering for a few years, a couple of thoughts occur to me.
First, you tie up individual building switches (PABX's), or individual office switches (key systems) or local telco exchanges or local or long distance trunks. You can shut them down of course but that's not all that easy and there is no on/off switch -you would have to do a lot of manual work or more likely just shut down the power to the system(s) in question. And that would be at lots of local exchanges and trunk/transmission facilities. Everyone who has read Seven Days in May will require that the bad guys were training a whole strike force just to take over communications in D.C.....and much of that was going to happen by taking over long distance relay facilities.
The problem is that as far as a given number of users are concerned, you would have the same appearance (the phone system is down) if their individual PABX, Key System, Local Exchange, or destination trunk facilities were busy. The net result of all of it is either no dial tone or most likely a fast busy.
There are a couple of fairly easy "saturation" things that can happen, for example everyone around the country could start placing calls to destinations in D.C. that are served by a couple of exchanges - at the same time a fair number of folks in those exchanges try to call each other or call out (gets worse with lots of folks calling and nobody answering because they are tied up with the news). At that point in time most of the switching equipment was mechanical and some of it actually used the same relays to place and hold the call. Not that hard to tie it up with a spike in calls being placed or received for that matter. Even today with computerized switching that has much better loading capability, its still possible to run into fast busys during a major event - and it only gets better when enough people tire out and stop trying to place calls.
Bottom line, an observation like the saying DC System telephone system went down requires a lot more detail - a person in one of the Bell switching control centers could say that because they would be monitoring switches, trunks and traffic. Or individuals might say it if they they simply encountered busy signals. The key would be knowing who, when and where felt the system was down.
And by the way, if it truly were down due to some planned action, there should be a number of telephone traffic people not only in D.C. but in other regional control centers who would have observed how and when it went down - and came back for that matter.
-
Greg mentioned Gordon McLendon and since McLendon is not that often discussed I thought I'm mention a couple of things, keeping in mind that although Ruby was apparently trying to contact him he was doing it in a very transparent manner indicating that if McLendon was truly some sort of backchennel it wasn't one that was set up very effectively before hand.
One of the more interesting things about McLendon is that he seems to have been very well acquainted with David Phillips and (like Mrs. Pawley) supported the retired intelligence officer group largely organized by Phillips after his early retirement (and according to Phillips himself, with the goal of countering charges of illegal actions by former CIA employees), especially media charges.
I don't know that anyone has really brought out when the two men became acquainted but at one point after Phillip's retirement the two worked together on a project of McLendon's that would have fielded a TV series about the CIA very similar to the highly successful FBI series.
It would be very interesting to know more about the personal relationship and contacts (not to mention any shared political views) of Phillips and McLendon. McLendon himself appears to have been a fascinating and highly successful individual, some quick google searches on him will demonstrate that. Not the sort of fellow you would imagine hanging out at Jack's club though.
-
Tim, circa 1964 a great number of people were spending a lot of time
not facing up to many things about Jack Ruby. The DPD was busy
avoiding his extensive associations with its officers and personnel. The WC went so far as to abandon its only two field investigators, who were assigned to Dallas and had become immensely suspicious of Ruby. They were forced out and upon departing extracted a promise to be called and present once Ruby was formally interviewed by the WC, that didn't happen.
It's been demonstrated at great length that Ruby's crime connections and probable connections to gun dealing were avoided. You will find lots of that in my book and in prior works like Kantors. I also go though the box of evidence that was turned over to DPD, seen by multiple officers and acknowledged by the DA prosecuting the Ruby case....who simply said that all the material contained in it connecting Ruby to Oswald and a conspiracy would not have helped him with his case so he wasn't interested.
Given that sort of context, does it really surprise you that the WC expressed no interest in Ruby's defense?
And will we come up with corroboration of all this much less definitive proof....after 40 plus years, not very likely.
-
Tim, I am acquainted with one lawyer who has been researching Belli for
several years and who hopes to publish a book which would include his
long term relationships with organized crime figures. It's my understanding that he has been seeking access to the sort of records which would trace a paper trail for the money - with no success given that the folks who hold what remains of Belli's papers and records are not exactly happy with this train of inquiry. And as you can imagine, you would not expect any response other than denials from the Ruby family.
I haven't gotten an update on his progress lately, he gave us an initial presentation a couple of years ago at a Lancer conference - it involved many examples of Belli associate with organized crime elements and essentially being a syndicate "groupie." Of couse if you are going to make a living off defending those types of clients I suppose you would be accused of being a "mob lawyer" at some point in time in any event.
As to why the HSCA did not investigate this - simple - the information only surfaced in a book that was published in 1981. It wasn't something that was brought to the attention of any official investigation; just as Roselli's remarks to his own lawyer were known only to that individual's law partner until an interview conducted only a few years ago. That lawyer, although a former Justice Department organized crime prosecutor, also apparently failed to bring the remarks before any official body.
-
Stan, I'm going to define "immediately before" as all the way back to the afternoon of November 22. First, we know that immediately following the assassination, certainly following the arrest of Oswald, a worker in Jack's club reported that Jack received a number of calls from the same individual who refused to identify himself. Upon being informed of the calls Jack became very nervous and gave the indication that he who had been calling and didn't want to discuss it.
Although we do not know who the caller was, we do know that the only long distance call on record that Ruby himself made to anyone other than relatives was to Al Gruber in L.A. This would be the same Al Gruber that went to Dallas to visit Ruby in mid November after having no contact with him for ten years prior. When asked the reason Gruber stated he dropped in to visit Ruby because he was in the neighborhood - on a trip to Arkansas. Ruby had called Gruber on Nov. 17 and folowing that call was reportedly sighted in Las Vegas - there are a number of reports to that effect but none solid enough for the WC to put him there.
Beyond that we don't know who he may have been in touch with on Saturday because Ruby was far to smart to use his personal or club phones for calls which would have created a record. We also don't know who Ruby may have been in contact with inside the DPD prior to the assassination although Kantor gives us a detailed record of his appearances in and around the DPD building where Oswald was being held. We can deduce he had at least one good source though because we know that he knew that a transfer of Oswald was planned and then called off on Saturday afternoon.
Beyond the Gruber contact its all speculation but combining the Gruber (L.A.) contacts before the assassination and immediately following the assassination with the reported call from Vegas which recruited Belli to defend Ruby - using his brother as the cover for the payment - it certainly looks like Ruby's chain was being pulled by someone with contacts on the L.A./Vegas nexus. For myself, as those who have read my book know, I speculate that would be Roselli.
-
A few observations.
First, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but were not those 64 FBI interviews very tightly structured with specific questions. Basically they were looking for anybody who might have seen Oswald, specifically at the time of the shooting. I think this is the interview series that missed Oswald being seen in the lunchroom around 12:15. It was not an open ended investigation by this point in time.
Second, it certainly is not a Friday afternoon DPD interview where she would have opened up with what her son describes.... by the time of the FBI interview caution may have set in?
Beyond that I keep thinking about the fact that Bowers didn't even mention his notification of the police about the tramps in the RR car no anything about their capture.... in any of his interviews.
Having said that though, I hope her son is willing to engage in an in depth dialog so all the issues about what she did or didn't say when can be fully explored.
-
Greg, a great post and I couldn't agree more - I'd like to know why Kantor really didn't pursue this item too far although then again I'm not sure how to do so. It's interesting that this incident was apparently of interest to the FBI and that it occured prior to Ruby becoming an official FBI informant. It makes a person wonder if something related to it was used to leverage Ruby into serving as an informant?
Several very funny things about it, first the location of Aztech just makes no sense at all in regard to drug running, especially minor drug running. A few decades later private planes were used to bring large stashes into isolated places in New Mexico and Arizona but if that was the case in this one then Ruby was really out there on the edge of major drug running. Most of the traffic at the date in question was simply across the border in south Texas. Second, why is Ruby renting a car and where did he rent it, if he rented a car rather than used his own and drove all the way from Dallas to Aztech in it (and possibly other places) its a real break from his normal behavor. Just like his getting a safe deposit box when he became an informant....or his buying a safe for his office in 63 when he was having major money problems.
All in all, it's probably a really important clue to Ruby and my guess is Kantor couldn't figure out what to do with it other than mention it. If anybody has a clue on how to pursue it I'd sure love to hear their ideas.
-
Mark, Seth Kantor's The Ruby Cover-Up is the place to start; its really required reading to get into Ruby during the assassination period. Ruby's bank manager saw him with a large amount of cash, a fairly substantial amount (especially in 1963 dollars) was found in his car as well. Ruby had also had a safe installed in his office not long before - pretty unusual for a guy who normally kept what he had in his trunk and who could not scrape up enough to even pay off a negotiatiated amount on his back taxes.
-- Larry
-
I truly hesitate to jump back into this - I also would hate even more to jump back into the 8 CD's with all the CIA segragated files to locate the Kostikov document in question. I will say that based on my recollection of the document the contact between Kostikov and Cubela it was several years before 1963 during an official Cuban state visit by Cubela to Mexico. Its important to remember that Ksitikov was a senior political officer in the Soviet delegation in Mexico City. A meeting between he and Cubela over political and embassy affairs would be much less suspicious than Oswald running into Kostikov while trying to get a visa. It's also important to remember that Cubela was not attached to Cuban G2, was not a dedicated fan of either Fidel, Raul nor Che (and indeed had been a competitor to Castro at the time of the revolution). Cubela was simply one of the few Cubans relegated to a position where he was allowed to travel internationally as a political representative of the Cuban government. He was a basically playboy who happened to have been a violent student revlolutionary earlier; he was not a skilled or experienced covert operative, as the CIA itself sadly learned over the years.
Indeed it was on the trip in question to Mexico City that Cubela was first contacted by CIA and the recruitment process for him began. That took a considerable period of time of course.
If you take the time to slog though the massive Cubela files and on the Hernandez testimony on Cubela in particular you will quickly come to realize that Cubela would not by any imagination have been a controller for any Castro inspired plot, that he was very likely under surveillance by Castro and beyond that (as many of the AMTRUNK agents turned out to be) very likely cautioned in advance by Castro about American contacts and possibly reporting back some or all of them.
My advice to anyone who really wants to tackle this subject - buy the CIA segreagated collection from the ARRC, for sale via Rex Bradford. Slog though
the thousands of relevant documents on it and then you'll have the background for
some real dialog on the subject.
-- Larry
Robert wrote:What a craven, cowardly position to adopt. If somebody disagrees with you, then others are somehow implied "liars." Is this really the best that you can do? Since Larry Hancock, for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect, posts here, why don't you ask him if he thinks documents must be true, just because he has seen them? Much hilarity should ensue.
Robert, I am sure most members understand that when a debater adopts an ad hominem attack it means he KNOWS he has lost on the substance. The record will indicate I have never stooped to name-calling.
First you tried to imply there might not even BE a document linking Cubela with Kostikov. Now, since I reported that it is in Larry's book, and you can hardly call Larry a xxxx, you give up that position, but you assume Larry thinks the document is a fraud (or if the document was not a fraud the report underlying it was a lie) even though, as you know, there is no such implication in Larry's book.
I repeat what good would it do to produce the actual document? Regardless of who it states could document a Kostikov/Cubela meeting, all you would do is claim the reporter of such meeting was a xxxx. If the document states the CIA secret surveillance camera had photos of Kostikov and Cubela entering the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City hand-in-hand you would simply claim no such photo ever existed.
Since both Thomas and Hancock report it, we do know this: Fitzgerald was aware (but Angleton was not) of a report of Cubela meeting with Kostikov. (You can assume it is false if you want but you have no basis to assume that.)
Now since I am more interested in resolving the assassination than those of your ilk whose only agenda seems to be to blame the CIA, I will raise a point not made in either book, but worthy of consideration: as you know, Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris on October 29, 1963 (I assume you will concede THAT). Query when did Fitzgerald first learn of Cubela's meeting with Kostikov, and did that not cause Fitzgerald any concern re Cubela's bona fides? I think that is an interesting question worth some research.
If my scenario is right, and Cubela was a dangle, then, by accepting Cubela over the objections of Shackley and Langosch, Fitzgerald propably sealed JFK's fate. Ironically, had the Kennedys not sacked Harvey, JFK may have lived.
In a previous post, Larry mentions that Morales correctly suspected that there were Castro infiltrators in the AMTRUNK operation. It is interesting that the CIA people perceived as JFK's enemies were probably the smartest in suspecting Cuban traps. The bunglers in the CIA, and I now refer specifically to Bissell (who not only bungled the BOP but also arranged the CIA's "marriage of convenience" with the MOB, and Fitzgerald, were Kennedy supporters.
In closing, I must add that if Cubela was indeed associating with the head of the KGB's assassination squad, that fact certainly suggests Cuban complicity in the assassination. Since you know concede the report exists, will you concede that UNLESS the report was false, the assassination was, more likely than not, Cuban-inspired?
-
James, ironically the only asset the plotters may have had in place with access inside the DPD may have been Jack Ruby. If you take a look at the micro detail of his activities from Nov. 22 it looks very much like his first "new" assignment was to get as close to his DPD contacts as possible to find out to what extent Oswald might be talking. There is even one report of him trying to slide into the interrogation room. And we know he got close enough to know the first transfer was postponed. Then you have him at the brief Oswald "showing". Kantor did a fantastic job on researching his activities and I tried to excerpt and analyse that in the book.
I think the ruse of Ruby was very proactive and although somewhat risky it was only when they decided they had to have him kill Oswald that we see it move to extreme risk for the plotters. Ruby was very likely selected because of his DPD access in the first place...I don't think you have to look all that far for your spie.
And the timing of his inbound mystery calls and his call to L.A. pretty clearly show the direction of the orders.
In regard to Tim's comment, the call in regard to Ruby's defense came after he was in custody and was from Vegas to Belli's law partner. Belli was in court at the time defending one of his many mob associated clients. Hinckle and Turner are the primary source for the call although much work has also been done outlining Belli's fondness for mob figures and long term association with them.
-- Larry
To James:I think it may assume a conspiracy too vast to presume the conspirators had someone present during Oswald's interrogation. Granted, anything is possible.
Or do you have a specific candidate for the police or FBI spy?
Tim,
I don't have any specific candidate but submit that once LHO was arrested, the plotters would have been desperately working on knowing what was being said in that interview room.
Like you mentioned, they would have been sweating bullets and men capable of successfully plotting the assassination of the President don't strike me as being reactive but completely proactive.
I would imagine the scramble was on while LHO was being driven back to police headquarters. They may have even bugged the room. Who knows?
James
-
There are sources that report Roselli and Martino shared and apartment and even partied together. Hinkle and Turner repeat that story but there is no reference given and the timeframe doesn't fit well e.g. Roselli was frequenting Miami while Martino was in prison in Cuba. I've also had secondary sources tell me that the two were together briefly during the summer of 1963 - but we have no Roselli surveillance documents to verify that. Suffice it to say that as far as the official record goes there was no connection between the two and nothing to reveal it to the HSCA (nor the FBI) if it were true.
.....for what its worth, unless something very special drew them together the two men had no business history that would associate them other than possibly at least having met briefly in Havana in earlier years.
On your plan comment....I agree. The plan did not produce all of what many of the participants wanted. Its also very possible that those at the top really only expected to get rid of JFK (and eliminate RFK as a force). Martino was quite clear about how and when the plan blew apart - with the murder of Tippett and Oswald's capture. That prevented full implementation of a Castro frame which was designed to be extremely solid - we have no detail on exactly how that would have been accomplished, anything I have or would post on that would be pure speculation. What followed was a pale effort to continue the frame with what was in hand among various parties. On a side note per this thread, the plot never envisioned a key role for Ruby - certainly using him to eliminate Oswald was an indication of a major weakness, that of ending up with Oswald in custody. Which of course suggests Oswald was never part of a plan to sacrifice himself in an effort to frame Castro.
As to Morales and AMTRUNK, the records show that he was involved in SGA planning on that subject but they also reveal that he and Shackley both opposed much of that planning because they were personally opposed to some of the individuals (and their politics) who were to be used in AMTRUNK. Which of course demonstrates Morales's good professional judgement since we now know much of the AMTRUNK network to have been completely compromised by Castro. It took CIA about three years to fully realize that even though there were security objections throughout. Those documents are in the CIA segregated collection. However, whether he liked it or not, in Morales position he would have had to perform some tasks in support of AMTRUNK. But that would be tactical and operational planning; I think it would be wrong to consider him as being a proponent (or even a beliver) in AMTRUNK based on the documents we have available.
-- Larry
Thanks Larry for the interesting reply.So the HSCA did not know how well-connected Martino was? Wasn't he living with Rosselli for a time?
Re Morales, the plot described by Morales that would have "resulted in the assured ouster of Castro" certainly did not. In fact, it resulted in the exact OPPOSITE.
Do you agree Morales was part of the planning team for AMTRUNK, by the way?
-
Harry, that is a very interesting piece of news. I would have thought
CIA had the technical resources to forge passports without resorting
to theft (which of course warns your target country that somebody has
the real thing). However it does raise the point that someone was in the
position to plant legitimate documents with people traveling openly to
Cuba rather than infiltrating.
I can imagine Oswald found with a Cuban passport on November 22 and
the Cuban government trying to deny they had issued it....I'm sure it would
have had appropriate entry and exit history on it.
-- Larry
quote=Harry J.Dean,May 29 2005, 07:57 AM]
At the risk of bringing up old news (except this point doesn't get nearly enough attention) I'll also point out again that a box full of documents - including motel and telephone records as well as other hard evidence - was turned into the DPD a few weeks after the assassination. Several officers swore to having seen the material and said that it definitely implicated Oswald as being part of a conspiracy and associated him with Ruby. The materal was even acknowledged by the DA who was prosecuting Ruby, however he said it had no bearing on his case so it was of no use to him. That material has never been seen again.My speculation is that material included items which would have been planted with Oswald as part of the Cuba/Castro frame but that the plotters didn't get a chance to use it as planned - just one more futile effort to pitch the planned frame after the fact. The Alvarado incident (with Phillips endorsement) was another attempt to recover the frame.
Interestingly Jim Hosty swears to this day he was told that Oswald was actually issued a Cuban visa.....its unlikely that Cuba did that but a fake visa may have been put into circulation to generate the story Hosty heard. You can bet if the plot had worked and this sort of material had been found with a dead Oswald - apparently trying to escape in the direction of Cuba - that there would have been a declaration of war in about the same time it took to vote it through after Pearl Harbor.
-- Larry
Hi, Larry
Hosty's statement re; Cuban document{s} etc; reminds me that upon my return
from Cuba while visiting my good friend Joaquin Frerie Cuban Consul,Chicago, he
was 'extremely upset' telling me he was in trouble with Havana/Castro,as several
Blank Cuban Passports were missing/stolen from his office.
Until he was replaced the mystery was never solved. Frerie resigned the diplomatic position and moved to Miami area. Juan Orta and Frerie were long time
friends and diplomats,Orta being Castro's chief of staff. Both resigned as the
Invasion neared. Thought you should know, and I was always concerned.
H. Dean
Miami
-
Greg, I'll be happy to do that and have made a note - but if you could jog
my memory about it with a message in Nov. a reminder would be a good thing.
-- Larry
These journalists have been invited to be on a panel at the November JFK Lancer conference in Dallas and based on my initial contact with them I have high hopes that they will present on their experiences and be available for individual questions as well.It also looks as if we will have the archivist for the Penn Jones papers there and hopefully the archivist for the Weisberg papers as well - as part of a panel on research resources.
Larry,
If Mr Huffaker accepts the invitation, and does make himself available for questions, I wonder if you might ask him firstly what information he had regarding a Ruby/Oswald Connection, and secondly, if he had ever done any intelligence work for the Army?
I thought that Tim had provided the answer to the first question, but I was mistaken.
-
Tim, the plot as expressed to the participants (and to the extent that it was even communicated) was to killl JFK and frame Castro, resulting in his overthrow by the U.S.. in retaliation. The people involved in the tactical side of the plot belived this and were disappointed when Oswald's capture and the Lone Nut cover-up preempted a response against Cuba. Now whether the folks at the top of the food chain were totally upset about that or whether they had put a fix in with LBJ before hand is open to speculation. You can bet that the exiles involved were very unhappy. And I have outlined ongoing attempts over the next 60 days to try to pin the blame on Castro even in the face of the cover-up.
The cover-up was completely separate from the conspiracy and was conducted in order to avoid a conflict with the Russians.....and justified based on some of the immediate evidence that suggest contact by Oswald with the Russians and Cubans as well as by many of the indications that Oswald himself had contacts with lots of suspicious people and was in no way a "lone nut". The cover-up was single handedly driven by LBJ even though certain individuals did not agree with it. Johnson's motives can be questioned but the results are pretty clear - and it was not a pretty cover-up, it was iterative and reactive and left loose ends all over the place. And in the years afterwards, many of those involved (like Admiral Burkley)
even tested the waters to see if they could tell the real truth....only to quickly discern (as with Bowers earlier and Odio later) that nobody in authority really wanted to deal with it.
The tactical ambush on the President was masterful, the plot to frame Oswald was pretty darn good but fell apart with Tippett's killing and Oswald's capture. The use of Ruby to eliminate Oswald was pure desparation and disclosed links the WC had to work very hard to avoid (so hard they refused to support or listen to their two field men in Dallas investigating Ruby).
The cover-up...well I already described that.
You can choose to belive this scenario or not of course, but hopefully this at least spells it out clearly.
-- Larry
Many people on this Forum apparently believe in the alteration of JFK's wounds, the control of the autopsy, false autopsy photos, planting of false leads prior to the assassination, the use of an Oswald impersonator, the use of sophisticated silencer-equipped weapons, etc. etc. all suggesting a rather sophisticated conspiracy--and yet the plot to link Oswald to Cuba just inexplicably fell apart, and the entire object of killing Kennedy (at the risk of capital punishment) failed at the very get-go.A masterful conspiracy that failed in its most important objective: framing Castro and and stimulating an invasion of Cuba.
A plot that caused the invasion that the Kennedys were planning (more on this later) to be canceled. So the whole assassination backfired. Most have been pretty unhappy conspirators. Morales must have kicked himself clear round the block.
Am I dense, or is there something about this that just does not make any sense whatsoever?
It makes more sense to me that the conspirators had a different objective in mind; that they intended Oswald to be shot and killed during the capture (perhaps by Tippitt); that they knew Oswald was working for US intelligence (as Larry suggests in his book) and so they knew that Washington would not want the assassination fully investigated. One possibility is that Castro (or pro-Castro Cubans) were involved. If so, their motive succeeded.
A second would be that it was a mob hit the motive was to stop RFK's prosecution of the mob. If so, the mob's motive also succeeded.
I just do not understand a masterful conspiracy and cover-up which did not even get to first base in accomplishing its objective. If that is what happened the conspirators were not evil geniuses-- they were evil idiots.
I would appreciate your comments.
-
Comments for Tim:
1) In regard to Morales, you have to remember that the plot described by Martino would have resulted not only in an assured elimination of Castro but also the death of JFK ....both things personally desirable to Morales. Any ouster of Castro (Track 1) by JFK or ouster of the Russians in a negotiation with Castro (Track 2) would have left JFK as a hero and in office for a second term (not a happy prospect for Morales given that he felt JFK to be a coward and traitor). It would be a mistake to factor out the power of hate in the murder of JFK.
2) As to Phillips remark, well you could check with the source for verification and you could also attempt to contact Phillips family - who belived him to be involved.
You can verify that on Shawn Phillips web site. As to why he would make such a comment only shortly before his death....that sort of behavior isn't all that uncommon is it?
I do not offer either individuals remarks as any sort of stand alone proof - but rather as only two elements of corroboration for the scenario outlined by Martino. And of course, there is the point that these two individuals can be actually demonstrated to have been in the position to have known what they were talking about (or in Phillips case, to hold a credible "opinion").
As to Martino and the HSCA. Well first off the HSCA only had one informant on Martino and when the investigators showed up at his wife's door it threw the family into a panic. His wife offered no support for the informant and other than collecting a few assorted documents the HSCA did no real background investigation formation on Martino. Of course in doing so they simply repeated the miserable job done by the FBI on his initial statements in 1964. The FBI stated that Martino had no credible associations within the Cuban exile community. Now given that both the FBI and HSCA missed Operation Tilt and Martino's association with Morales (oops, well the CIA certainly didn't disclose who Morales was or the key position he occupied any more than it helped Fonzi with his investigation of Phillips) its not hard to see how the HSCA simply dropped the lead. It was not until Summers revisited the lead and interviewed Martino's wife and family shortly before the wife's death that other details and corroboration began to emerge. Its a shame that the HSCA didn't have some of the TILT photos James has posted.
-- Larry
Larry wrote:P.S. I think I suggested this before but you really should obtain the actual CIA reports that refer to Castro agents and dig out the detail of what the source was for each report and who the information was filtered through within CIA. Without doing that you have no way of evaluating whether or not the information may have been planted by someone in Cuban ops (say someone like Phillips or Morales for example). The documents are available among the CIA segregated files so its a very doable project.
Larry I agree this is a very reasonable suggestion.
In my opinion, if the presence of even one of the three Cuban intelligence agents said to be in Dealey Plaza can be reasonably established, that fact is highly suggestive of Cuban complicity.
One reason why I tend to discredit Morales' statement as mere braggadocia is because I have seen CIA documentation that he was a party to the early planning of the AMTRUNK operation. If he wanted Communism eradicated from Cuba, it would have been foolhardy of him to "rock the boat" by getting rid of the Administration that was supporting that operation. And Morales does not seem like a stupid man. And we know that the anti-Castro activities petered out under LBJ. So if Morales did it he shot himself in the foot and lost what was REALLY important to him. If it was more important to him to avenge what he saw as JFK's trachery at the BOP than it was to remove Castro, then his idiocy cannot be exaggerated.
I reiterate that Phillips' statements do not sound like he was saying he KNEW it was an American intelligence operation, only that he SUSPECTED it was. So it does not sound like he was making the statement out of any personal knowledge. It baffles me why he would make such a statement in the first place. Since he was by all accounts a patriotic, pro-establishment fellow why would he offer an opinion like that? And if he had facts, why would he not come forward with the facts? It makes very little sense to me. Almost enough to make me doubt he even made the statement.
The question is how to reconcile the reports of the Cubans in Dealey Plaza with the statements of Martino and Morales. One explanation, of course, is if there were no Cubans there: all the reports were deliberately false or mistakenly erroneous. A second explanation would be if pro-Castro forces secretly caused anti-Castro forces to do it (for instance by telling the anti-Castro forces of the peace initiatiuves).
Larry, do you know why the House Select Committee did not place any greater weight on Martino's statements?
-
At the risk of bringing up old news (except this point doesn't get nearly enough attention) I'll also point out again that a box full of documents - including motel and telephone records as well as other hard evidence - was turned into the DPD a few weeks after the assassination. Several officers swore to having seen the material and said that it definitely implicated Oswald as being part of a conspiracy and associated him with Ruby. The materal was even acknowledged by the DA who was prosecuting Ruby, however he said it had no bearing on his case so it was of no use to him. That material has never been seen again.
My speculation is that material included items which would have been planted with Oswald as part of the Cuba/Castro frame but that the plotters didn't get a chance to use it as planned - just one more futile effort to pitch the planned frame after the fact. The Alvarado incident (with Phillips endorsement) was another attempt to recover the frame.
Interestingly Jim Hosty swears to this day he was told that Oswald was actually issued a Cuban visa.....its unlikely that Cuba did that but a fake visa may have been put into circulation to generate the story Hosty heard. You can bet if the plot had worked and this sort of material had been found with a dead Oswald - apparently trying to escape in the direction of Cuba - that there would have been a declaration of war in about the same time it took to vote it through after Pearl Harbor.
-- Larry
-
The people who were using Oswald had been feeding him a line about
helping him get into Cuba for some time. The most recent line was that
he would be leaving Dallas during the President's visit....with help. Given
the amount of money he had with him on Nov. 22 its seems obvious
that he was expecting help with the travel (it also seems pretty obvious
that he didn't have any real "escape" plan in mind after shooting the
President - even the Commission staff had to fall back on speculating
he planned to escape across the border by bus - amazingly lame but
it was the best they could do with the facts in hand).
It's likely that Oswald was told there would be some incident to divert
surveillance on him. Clearly his actions demonstrate he felt he was
under surveillance and Hosty disclosed that before he realized the way
the story was going to play out. To what extent Oswald might have
been involved in such an incident is certainly speculation. However its
also clear that he was not expecting the President to actually be shot
much less clear and that really through him off his stride. Being dropped
off away from his apartment so he could check what was going on there
reflects that, as does picking up the revolver.
Martino says he was instructed to meet his contact in the Theatre - and its
very possible that Oswald literally ended up with no other choice than to follow that plan as best he could play it. However without the Tippett incident it might still have worked given that DPD seems to have done virtually nothing to impede travel out of Dallas (by light plane or even bus for that matter). Not that Oswald would have lived through the trip in any event...
-- Larry
on the plan.
-
Tim, there is no independent confirmation by name of Vidal circulating
those remarks. However Gaeton Fonzi developed a source during his
investigation that described exactly the same remarks being passed
among the most radical and operationally active members of exile community at this same time as Escalante reports that Vidal described. This informant is covered in some detail in Fonzi's book (I name him and reference that in my book, just not sure where off the top of my head). The informant in question was the same one who led him to the remainging clique in Miami that was still engaged in active anti-Castro, anti-Communist operations. The group at that time
was apparently largely led in Miami by de Torres. Clearly Fonzi's informant did know what was going on in these circles.
Of course other persons connected to those same circles can be demonstrated to have had knowledge of the Kennedy dialogs and of the alternative approaches being considered at the time by RFK and the SGA....one of them would be David Morales.
Larry, in "Someone Would Have Talked" , page 243, you write that: Felipe Vidal Santiago spent a great deal of time and effort in 1963 informing Cuban exiles that the Kennedy administration was opening a dialogue with Cuba." (Page 243.) These talks were very confidential, as you know. Do you have any support for the fact that Vidal was aware of the plots and was talking to anti-Castro exiles about them, other than from Fabian Escalante? -
Tim, the context of Morales remark tends to support that he simply let the truth slip out...it followed an extended tirade against JFK which had already made his feelings quite clear, no need to add that remark (plus Morales was not known as a "kidder"). About the best I can say is that one of only a couple of his life long friends heard it and was of the opinion it was true - I can tell you that virtually everything that friend has said has continued to check out and much more of that will be illustrated in the second edition of my book.
Another key point is that Morales was not just some yocal who needed to brag about such things to impress people, his reputation was legendary within the true covert CIA circles (and he had already fully impressed his lawyer and Ruben with introductions in D.C - not to mention his job as advisor to the Joint Chiefs and his parking spot designated for a General). So far we have not found a single thing that Morales claimed or that Ruben related that has not proven to be true. And Morales slip may well not be independent of Phillips remark; Phillips never disclosed knowing Morales by name in his biography - although he slips in a clue ( Martino had actually used Morales true name in his book). However in his fiction work he clearly describes Morales and states that El Indo was the best black/back street covert actions pro he had known during his CIA career.
As to Phillips "opinion" - that's correct, however you must take into account that his opinion was given after many years of proactively fighting every assertion of conspiracy and denying anything like that in his book. His expression of a counter opinion shortly before his death carries more weight because of his history on the subject. And clearly his career including his long term personal working relationship with Marales give far more weight to his potential personal knowledge on the subject than Angleton or Marchetti (and if you trust Angleton's statements on anything...well enough said). Phillips is a key element in the Mexico City Oswald incidents, if Phillips finally broke down and admitted that intel folks were involved it would be foolish not to take his remarks seriously.
Martino's statements (made privately with no expectation of ever being disclosed) are also not independent of this total thread since it can be shown that he had direct knowledge of Morales circa 1963...and knowledge of a special sort given that he used Morales true name in his book rather than Morales operational cover name.
P.S. I think I suggested this before but you really should obtain the actual CIA reports that refer to Castro agents and dig out the detail of what the source was for each report and who the information was filtered through within CIA. Without doing that you have no way of evaluating whether or not the information may have been planted by someone in Cuban ops (say someone like Phillips or Morales for example). The documents are available among the CIA segregated files so its a very doable project.
Larry wrote:Second, we do have remarks from Morales, Phillips and Martino which indicate the conspiracy involved US intelligence officers - and its a matter of record that all three of those individuals were associated. Having Morales say "we took care of that SOB" is far more significant than a random remark or even a public confession. The same thing goes for Phillips making a statement about US intel officers being involved - only a short while before his death and after years of fighting any such assertion. Of course that does not imply the CIA as an organization had anything to do with it, it does suggest individuals CIA officers were involved in some fashion.
Larry, as you know, while I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests Cuban complicity, I do not rule out the possibility of "rogue CIA agents", the old "rogue elephant scenario". But re the statements by Morales and Phillips:
Morales' statement could be considered drunken "braggadocia". He might have been claiming participation in the assassination to merely to rile his friend who was a JFK supporter. Nonetheless it does of course need to be considered.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Phillips (whose statement you corrected in your 2004 supplement) expressed an OPINION there was US intelligence involvement but he did not claim any personal knowledge thereof. I guess everyone is entitled to his opinion and Phillips' opinion can be countered with the opinions of Angleton and Marchetti.
The most salient statement seems to be that of Martino because he was not drunk at the time, made some statements prior to the assassination, and offered certain SPECIFICS re the plot (as discussed in your book).
-
Thought you might take that route Tim...grin.
A few problems though:
1) Any negotiations Castro and Trafficante did in 1959 are a far cry
from a relationship in which Trafficante would take a Castro contract
in 1963. It's interesting that you bring up the drug connection
though - actually at the time the Federal drug folks had a major
campaign going to blame the drug flow on Castro providing
a route for the Chicoms. But when you take a close look into
all the carriers that kept getting arrested, they had nothing
to do with Castro and didn't reveal any trail to Cuba, just the fact
that Cuban Americans were doing drug business. If you take a
good look at Strenth of the Wolf and The Herion Trail it becomes
pretty clear that the drug routes involved the French processing
material from Turkey and shifting supply to SE Asia and then
bringing it in through Canada, then NYC and later Miami, New
Oreleans and eventually via an expanded route in Texas. The
Bureau of Narcotics and others were pointing the finger at Castro
based on politics and an excuse to divert attention from the new
drug trails which were being supplied out of the Golden Triangle
by the CIA's allies and warlords in training.
The point being that Trafficante was a very conservative business
man, had been hurt badly by Castro once and surely did not
need him in 1963. Plus Castro's intel operations were quite good
enough to defeat all types of operations against him, most of
which were totally unknown to Trafficante. To cite a Trafficante
deal on assassination info ignores that plus it ignores that Trafficante
himself was ousted from the plots once Harvey took over.
2) Linking Roselli and even Ruby to the assassination certainly
does not corroborate a link to Trafficante any more than it would
finger Marcello or Giancana as the sponser. In fact Roselli did far
more business with both of the others than Trafficante. And of
course as evidence of that just take a look at all the communications
with Ruby in the weeks and months before the assassinationa as
well as immediately after. They don't track to Trafficante.
3) And given Roselli's rather fanatic patriotism (regardless of his
other activities), if he did belive Trafficante was working for Castro
it's hard to see him working on the assassination with him....and a lot
harder to see him move down to Florida into Trafficante's home
ground for retirement. And not even be worried when his best friend
called him to tell him that a contract was out on him - oh, let me
see, does you scenario suggest Castro was behind that one too...
or did Trafficante think Roselli had finally figured he had been had
and was going to turn him over to the Feds as a Castro agent?
.....I think many of us might hold open the option that Trafficante
or some of his associates were aware of the plot against Kennedy
however I think you would be underestimating the real plotters to think
they would have been waiting around until Castro showed up with an
offer....and probably insulting them by suggesting they would do business
with him.
Several people have asked how Ruby ties into the "Fidel" scenario.It is easy. The link is Trafficante. We know that Trafficante was high enough in the Mafia power structure to order, either directly or through his friend Marcello, Ruby to whack Oswald. And we know (most of us would agree) that Ruby visited Trafficante while Trafficante was imprisoned in Trescornia Detention Center outside Havana. Many believe Ruby helped negotiate Trafficante's release. So Ruby and Trafficante were personally related.
Two questions need to be answered then. First, what information ties Trafficante to the assassination? Second, what information ties Trafficante to Castro?
Re the first point, I would fall off my chair if any one of you were not aware of Trafficante's 1962 prediction of Kennedy's assassination to Jose Aleman, and his "confession" years later to Frank Ragano that he and Marcello were involved. We couple that with Marcello's own admissions of HIS involvement.
The second question then is: was Trafficante working for Castro? Well, many believe that Trafficante made a deal with Castro to supply intelligence for Castro in exchange for a protected drug route from Marseiiles into Cuba then to South Florida. Reportedly, Trafficante was even using rigged bolita games to pay Castro's agents in South Florida. On Gordon Winslow's web-site there is reprinted a 1961 report from the Bureau of Narcotics that discusses these reports.
If Trafficante was working for Castro, that explains, of course, why none of the Mafia-connected plots against Castro succeeded. The failure of those plots in and of itself suggests Castro had inside information.
I also believe Rosselli told Joe Shimon that Rosselli had concluded Trafficante was working for Fidel.
Finally, we link Trafficante to Castro through his association with Cubela. Escalante confirmed that Trafficante knew Cubela as far back as 1959.
Of course, if Trafficante was indeed acting on Castro's behalf, he probably did not share that information with his mafioso friends. As you know, Ragano says he asked Trafficante and Marcello to kill Kennedy on behalf of Jimmy Hoffa. So the possibility exists, perhaps not as incredible as it first sounds, that Trafficante was indeed serving two masters: Hoffa and Castro.
-
Tim, your Castro did it scenario seems to be going on across a number of threads and I think I have to enter a couple of things into the mix.
First, we have at least half a dozen consistent and reinforcing instances of gossip/leaks prior to the assassination in regard to something being planned against JFK. All these leaks can be directly tied back to a mix of anti-Castro individuals, all of whom were peripherally involved with individuals on the periphery of the old Havana gambling crowd. There are no apparent connections in any of this to Castro or Castro agents. Your only option for involving Castro or the Soviets would be one that Hemming has put forth over time and that is that the Cuban/Soviet intel orgainization was so good and had so infiltrated exile and CIA organizations that they could insert orders and pull strings to actually organize a conspirace from outside.
Second, we do have remarks from Morales, Phillips and Martino which indicate the conspiracy involved US intelligence officers - and its a matter of record that all three of those individuals were associated. Having Morales say "we took care of that SOB" is far more significant than a random remark or even a public confession. The same thing goes for Phillips making a statement about US intel officers being involved - only a short while before his death and after years of fighting any such assertion. Of course that does not imply the CIA as an organization had anything to do with it, it does suggest individuals CIA officers were involved in some fashion.
Third, and in line with the title of this thread, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest Ruby was involved in some minimal fashion with the conspiracy and then used to eliminate Oswald when things went bad. Only the WC and those fanatically attached to Oswald being a LN are able to avoid the Ruby associations and strange behaviors (not to mention his sudden cash infusion days before and his LA visitors). Not to mention his legal defense being organized out of Vegas. For your Castro scenario to work you will have to somehow tie the Ruby involvement in with a Castro plot - and that will be a real challenge.
Jean Souetre-Michael Mertz
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Tim, as far as I know Mertz was not a "mob guy" in the general sense but rather a drug smuggler for a couple of brothers who ran one of the larger herion distribution networks out of Marseille. I would refer you to a book called the Herion Trail for details on him and Soutre as well. In addition to that he had been a resistance fighter and served as an active agent for French counter counter intelligence for a number of years.
I don't think he fits the "hit man" paradigm although he certainly was capable of violence in his wartime and intelligence duties.
-- Larry