Greg Wagner

Hello All:

I ran across this news piece this morning and thought I'd share it.

Officer who arrested Oswald dies at 76

McDonald also saved fellow policeman from death The Associated Press

Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET Jan. 27, 2005HOT SPRINGS, Ark.

Nick McDonald, the police officer who arrested Lee Harvey Oswald at a Dallas movie theater after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, died Thursday. He was 76.

McDonald arrived at Dealey Plaza moments after Kennedy was shot on Nov. 22, 1963. He searched the Texas Theater and helped make the historic arrest, grappling with the man suspected of shooting Kennedy after Oswald pulled a gun.

“He made a fist and bam, hit me right between the eyes,” McDonald recalled years afterward. “Knocked my hat off. I came back and hit him.”

But it was not until later in the day that McDonald realized whom he had captured.

McDonald died at a local hospital of complications from diabetes.

‘Well, it’s all over now’

In a memoir, “The Arrest and Capture of Lee Harvey Oswald,” McDonald recalled going to the rear of the theater after police received a tip that a suspicious man had entered without paying.

“As I peeked through the heavy curtains out into the audience [fellow Officer Johnny Brewer], at my shoulder, pointed out the suspect,” McDonald wrote. As the two officers confronted Oswald, the suspect said, “Well, it’s all over now.”

As police tried to search and cuff him, Oswald pulled a pistol and tried to fire, but McDonald grabbed the weapon and moved to block the trigger with his hand.

“I could feel the hammer glide under my hand,” McDonald wrote. “The returning hammer made a dull, audible snapping sound as the firing pin struck the flesh of my left hand, between the thumb and forefinger.

“Bracing myself, I stood rigid, waiting for the bullet to penetrate my chest.”

But the bullet did not fire.

McDonald jerked the weapon from Oswald, fell on top of him and finally subdued him.

Born March 21, 1928, in Camden, he graduated from Camden High School, served in the Navy and was a Korean War veteran.

After leaving the military, McDonald served 25 years with the Dallas Police Department, retiring as a sergeant and moving to Hot Springs in 1980.

Both JFK and Clinton had more important things on their--er, minds, than affairs of state.

Their sexual affairs left them open to blackmail, either by the person sponsoring the woman or by anyone who was aware of the situation.

Take JFK and Judith Campbell.  IMO, Rosselli planted Campbell on JFK.  By bedding Campbell, JFK left himself open to blackmail from either the Mafia or from J. Edgar Hoover (when he found out about it). 

We don't know whether the mafia blackmailed JFK, but we are pretty sure Hoover did.

Unless we think JFK kept Hoover on because Hoover got along so well with Bobby.

Unlikely someone planted Lewinsky on Clinton, but then, how would we know?  So Clinton tries to conduct congressional business on the phone while Monica performs sex acts on him.  This is called "multitasking".

But now let me rise to JFK's defense.  He was a young, inspiring leader--and back then we didn't know about the "dark side of Camelot" ("wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then").  People all over the world loved him and he was winning new friends for our country.  His speech in Berlin was masterful.  His inaugural speech was one of the greatest ever delivered. 

So my attitude toward JFK remains deeply conflicted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand how the legend can often outshine his actual accomplishments, and JFK was a flawed individual as we all are. However, looking back over that first sentence, it depends on how you define "accomplishments." He kept his cool during what had to be one of the most stressful times and important conflicts we've ever endured- The Cuban Missile Crisis. The revelation that the Soviet "advisors" in Cuba possessed tactical nuclear weapons suggests that had we invaded Cuba during that time, it would have very likely and very rapidly spiraled into a nuclear exchange with the USSR. I understand how the legend often outshines the actual man, but let's not sell him short. He stood up to the CIA, he stood up to the Penatgon, he stood up to the other hawks in his own administration. That seems like a pretty difficult thing to do. And it almost certainly got him killed. Perhaps that explains why no president has done so since.

He exercised his own set of values, his own morality, and his own judgment in making these decisons to not risk the lives of 40 million people, to not invade a sovereign nation who has not attacked us, to not waste American lives and tax dollars in SE Asia. This is the same man who can (rightfully) be taken to task for his constant "indulgences" that exposed our president to extortion by the mob and Hoover, and anyone else who knew. John Kennedy was in many ways a great man and, in my opinion, would have been judged very favorably by history had he lived to serve two full terms. And he was also a tragically flawed man. Talk about "deeply conflicted."

Having said all that, John Kennedy and his greatness, or lack thereof, is not what drives me in pursuing this case. Harold Weisberg summed up my feelings best when he talked about how the assassination and cover-up subverted our democratic system of self-government. It defeated our system. All of the relevant institutions of our government and our society failed, and failed on all levels. The subversion of our democratic system is most disturbing. In fact, it p*sses me right off! And for those who are not too squeamish to open their eyes and admit the obvious truth and its (thanks Tim) implications, it has completely destroyed the faith in our nation's leadership, even today. Or should it be, especially today? It was a coup d' etat and those folks have been in control ever since. Incidentally, I believe that's where Shanet's theory comes in. Any president who is not on board with the agenda can be leveraged using the 25th Amendment.

So, for me personally, this has nothing to do with Kennedy mythology. I liked John Kennedy's vision. I think Bobby was even more of an idealist. I would like to have seen where they would have taken this nation (I guarantee it would not have been Iraq). But that does not drive my interest. What drives my interest is the fact that our democratic system had it's back broken on 11/22/1963. And it (and we) have not recovered since.

Sorry about the long post. Didn't intend to get on my soap box, but I think I've had too much coffee today.

One thing I'm not grasping here: If FitzGerald was RFK's emmisary and was assisting Cubela in an attempt to kill Castro, why was JFK sending Daniel to Castro with a message of potential peaceful co-existance? It's difficult to believe that the  Kennedy brothers didn't know what the other was doing?

Since these are two approaches are diametrically opposed to one another, what is the pupose of the Kennedy administration pursuing both? Either there is a reasonable answer to that question that escapes me, or one of those two meetings (FitzGerald/Cubela or Daniel/Castro), assuming that they both did in fact take place, was not what it seemed. Could one of the stories be a piece of disinformation?

Greg:

Good questions.  My reply to Tim Gratz in another threat might suggest an answer to this conundrum:

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Jan 20 2005, 07:02 AM)

I wish I could locate the memo from Richard Helms in which he concludes that despite the risk that Cubela was a double agent the CIA should proceed with him because there was yet no PROOF he was a double agent.  How foolish a decision!

Tim:

It may be that the decision was merely "foolish." 

However, there is reason to suspect that this foolishness was deliberate.

If Cubela had been a double agent, then it seems consorting with him in plans to murder Castro - with an apparent, but spurious White House imprimatur - should have made Castro reassess whether the Howard/Daniel/Attwood clandestine "peace" overtures by Kennedy were genuine.  Under this scenario, Castro quite reasonably could have decided there was no use in pursuing a normalization of relations with a President who simultaneously sought to kill the Cuban leader.

End result?  The destruction of any hope for a peaceful resolution of the two countries' differences, which is what Kennedy appeared anxious to achieve, and what CIA was anxious to thwart.

If so, it is yet another instance of CIA interference with a President's policies.

Please do recall that the Francis Gary Powers flight was green-lighted by CIA, against Eisenhower's specific orders.  End result?  No summit between Ike and Nikita.

Please do recall Frank Bender exhorting his Cuban exile charges to disregard any "abort" order from the White House, immediately prior to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Please do recall CIA's continuing efforts to kill Castro, despite having been ordered to cease and desist.

Please do recall that those efforts to kill Castro continued to use Mob surrogates and proxies, without White House knowledge, despite having been expressly forbidden from doing so.

CIA personnel are great at suggesting, after the fact, that they were only following orders, while in fact disobeying them.

How many times must we see evidence of CIA's direct insubordination and refusal to follow Presidential orders before we ackowledge it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent point Robert. Is it possible that FitzGerald was acting not on behalf of RFK, but on behalf of the CIA?

One thing I'm not grasping here: If FitzGerald was RFK's emmisary and was assisting Cubela in an attempt to kill Castro, why was JFK sending Daniel to Castro with a message of potential peaceful co-existance? It's difficult to believe that the Kennedy brothers didn't know what the other was doing?

Since these are two approaches are diametrically opposed to one another, what is the pupose of the Kennedy administration pursuing both? Either there is a reasonable answer to that question that escapes me, or one of those two meetings (FitzGerald/Cubela or Daniel/Castro), assuming that they both did in fact take place, was not what it seemed. Could one of the stories be a piece of disinformation?

I have been able to find out more about this incident. Kennedy’s advance man was Jerry Bruno. He actually wrote about this in a book called The Advance Man (1972). In October, 1963, Bruno went to Dallas to inspect the route. He met with Ralph Yarborough who warned that Johnson and Connally might be involved in some conspiracy against Kennedy. He told Bruno that they would be “after Kennedy in a minute if they thought they could get away with it.”

After inspecting the route Bruno became convinced that it posed several dangers. He met with Connally and demanded that motorcade route should be changed. Connally refused and the discussion became heated. With this, Connally got on the phone to the White House. From what he heard Connally say, it appeared that the White House gave its backing to the proposed route. Bruno accepted the decision but after the assassination the White House Staff denied the Connally telephone call never took place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is excellent information, John. It certainly sounds as if Connally was desperate to get JFK to Dallas. Do you think that is perhaps an indication that he was in on the plot? Or perhaps he was just insistent on the trip at the behest of LBJ? Of course, if you were going to assassinate the president and then cover it up, it would seem to be beneficial to have the governor of the state helping to keep the local authorities towing the company line, as it were.

If the WH advance man (Bruno) was adamantly opposed to this trip, then what person gave the final OK? If Bruno and JFK both had grave concerns about this visit, yet it was done anyway, why? Connally did the convincing, but who did he convince and who made the final decision? Could Shanet's theory, one implicating C. Douglass Dillon, come into play here?

Just as I think the possible presence of a Cuban intelligence officer in Dealey Plaza has sinister implications (see "Did Fidel Kill JFK" thread), so would the unexplained presence of an intelligence or military officer in Dealey Plaza raise suspicions.

We are all familiar with E. H. Hunt's inability to provide a consistent answer to where he was on November 22, 1963.

Query whether there is some way through official records to verify where people like Gen. Landsdale were on November 22, 1963.  It may be more difficult re CIA personnel to obtain such records.

It seems to me the presence of people at "the scene of the crime" who had no apparent reason for being there is a very significant line of inquiry and I wonder if there is a way to "weed out" some of the possible suspects even if it requires FOIA requests.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an excellent suggestion Tim. Forgive my inexperience here, but how does one know what document(s) to request? Or is that the trick? I'd be interested in learning more about how to request documents through the FOIA. Is there perhaps an online resource that could help me? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.

I read in Mark Lane's Plausible Denial that he had a conversation with Fletcher Prouty in which Prouty referred to a photograph taken in DP on 11/22/63 and stated that Ed Lansdale was in the photo. Does anyone know of (or have a copy of) that particular photo? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Greg,

Here is the Tramps photograph in question and a crop/blow-up of the supposed Lansdale figure.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could that be the guy thought to be Lansdale in this photo to the old tramp's left?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question. The clothing looks like a fit, but I'm not sure about the hair. The possible Lansdale figure in James' photo looks a little shaggy in the back. Figure with the frontal shot looks like he has shorter hair. But it's tough to tell. Good observation, though.

I'm no James, but I've attempted to paste these two side-by-side in this comparison shot. Please, no cracks about my graphics skills (or lack thereof)

Greg

(Tim Gratz @ Jan 18 2005, 04:54 AM)

Greg wrote:

Excellent debate folks. I've never been one who believed that Castro could have or would have pulled off the assassination. I was aware of the Daniel/Castro meeting and have always held that that meeting, with it's discussions of a peaceful co-existance, supported the idea that it would not be in Castro's best interest to remove Kennedy. Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but is there evidence that 1) Cubela met with an Agency man in Paris that day, 2) that the topic of discussion was Castro's murder, and 3) that Cubela was a double agent and informed Fidel?

Thanks for the great discussion.

Thanks for your comments, Greg.  It is a good debate thanks largely to Robert Charles-Dunne, my "sparring partner", if you will.  In a post I am working on in response to his, you will see that in fact there are a number of items upon which we do agree.  Let me try to quickly respond to your questions since Robert and I begin with knowledge of the basic facts in the Cubela affair.

1)  Oct 1956 Cubela a member of an anti-Baptista group (but not Castro's), walks into a fancy night club and guns down the head of Baptista's military intelligence;

2)  Cubela's group and Casto's join forces;

3) 1961 Cubela approaches the CIA.  Wants to defect. CIA encourages him to stay in Cuba.

4)  September 7, 19963, Cubela approaches the CIA in Brazi and says he will stay in Cuba if he can organize a coup to overthrow Castro.  As part of the coup, he personally agrees to "eliminate" Castro.

5)    On the very same day that Cubela recontacts the CIA, Castro goes to the Braziliam embassy (remember that Cubela was in Brazil) and warns America that if its leaders continue plots to"eliminate" Cuban leaders, American leaders themselves will not be safe.

6)    Some members of the CIA do not think the CIA should continue dealing with Cubela, fearing that he is a double agent for Castro (in part because of the coincidental timing of the Castro "threat" to retaliate.  But Richard Helms decides to proceed with the operation.

7)    Cubela tells the CIA if he is to continue with his plan to "eliminate" Castro he first wants assurance his plan is supported at the highest level of American government.  He even asks for a personal meeting with RFK.

8)  On Octoner 29. 1963, Desmond Fitzgerald, the head of the CIA dept dealing with Cuba, flies to Paris, meets with Cubela, and represents himself as the "personal emissary of Robert F. Kennedy" and assures Cubela that RFK supports his plan to "eliminate" Castro.

9)  Tuesday, November 19, 1963, President Kennedy meets with French journalist Jean Daniel, who has a meeting with Castro scheduled for the next day.  The meeting is changed, however, to the early afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963.

10)  On Friday, November 22, 1963, it wa the early evening when Nestor Sanchez, the CIA officer for Cubela, met with Cubela in Paris.  Sanchez has bought with him a "poison pen" designed by the CIA for Cubela to kill Castro.  It has a fine hypodermic needle that can xxxxx Castro's skin and inject him with a deadly poison with Castro hardly feeling it.

 

Sanchez is delivering this poison pen to Cubela at the same time the French journalist is meeting with Castro to discuss Kennedy's interest in pusuing an accomodation with Cuba.

Also, at the same hour that Sanchez is delivering the CIA poison pen to Cubela, President Kennedy is shot to death in Dallas.

Robert agrees that Cubela was an agent provocateur sent by Castro, apparently to determine if the Kennedys personally endorsed the CIA plots to kill him.  Because Cubela did not hear from RFK himself, Robert argues that Cubela was unable to confirm to Castro that the Kennedys endorsed the plan.  I argue, however, that there was no reason for Cubela to disbelieve Fitzgerald that he was "RFK's personal emissary".

The Cubela operation is reported in many books, including Russo's "Live By the Sword" (a book nominated for the Pulitzer Prize) and "The Very Best Men" by veteran Washington correspodent Evan Thomas.  I commend both books to you.

The basic facts of the Cubela affair are not disputed.  The question is what relationship exists between what was going on with Cubela in Paris in Oct and Nov of 1963 and the Kennedy assassination.  If there is no relationship between what was happening with the Cubela caper in the fall of 1963 and the Kennedy assassination (apparently Mr. Charles-Dunne's position), it must rank as one of the most bizarre co-incidences in the history of the world.

IMO, Castro was "backed in to a corner" by the repeated CIA efforts to kill him.  If JFK knew of the Cubea operation, the peace talks with Daniel were hypocritical.  But if did not know, Fitzgerald's representations to Cubela could reasonably lead Castro to believe that he did.

It has also been reported that Cubela while he was meeting with the CIA, Cubela was also in contact with Valery Kostikov, a member of the KGB's Dept specializing in terror and assassination.

 

I noted in a different thread that the magazine "George", published by President Kennedy's son for several years before his tragic death, only had one article re the assassination in its four years of publication.  It was a report on the Cubela operation written by Edward Jay Epstein.

Compelling, I'll say that. I will have to put those two books on my list. I am particularly interested in the ultimate source of the Cubela assertions and the credibility/reliability of that source. Just playing devil's advocate here for a minute guys, but could the Cubela double agent affair just be another attempt to lay the blame at Castro's feet like the Oswald/Mexico City fabrication by the CIA was attempting to do?

Greg

I do question the motives of people a lot more, which is what caused me to start this topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People can certainly surprise you. This reminds me of the guy whose wife ran away with his best friend. He didn't know it was his best friend till his wife ran away with him.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron-

Your humor was not lost on me. That's funny

Greg

Hi Greg,

The photographic evidence is far from being a clincher but given Prouty's relationship with Lansdale, I guess we should at least take notice.

That aside, I find the Tramps photo itself a very strange one. Given that these guys were under arrest and being escorted by armed guards, why would someone be allowed to get that close to them? And why would that person want to get that close to people who were obviously under police guard?

Then we have the cops themselves. Check out the guy bringing up the rear (see below). Ill-fitting uniform, casual manner of weapon handling - he would look more at home with the Keystone cops.

Baffling.

James

You know James, the more I think about it, the more I think Prouty could be right. I've recognized people (old friends, co-workers, etc.) out in public before from worse angles than that. I guess it depends on how familiar you are with that person. Prouty may well have recognized that person correctly as Lansdale. It's like so much in this case, not exactly incontrovertible proof, but so very suggestive.

Even more so is your point about the positioning. If you are just some guy walking along, it would be strange to see these guys approaching, accompanied by policemen with shotguns, and then position yourself to walk almost right up against them (especially since the president has just been murdered in that same area) in a position where you are pinned between them and the fence. Also, think about the fact that at this point, Joe Bystander would have no idea who these guys are or how dangerous they may or may not be. There is no question that you’d give these guys a wide berth. Unless of course you know exactly who they are.

This brings up another question: What’s the SOP here for the DPD? These guys are being escorted by two officers with shotguns through a semi-crowded, public area near where the assassination has just taken place, yet they are not handcuffed? And would an armed officer be leading? I don’t know what the SOP is for officers in that situation, but does it seem reasonable to have these three guys you’re taking into custody walk behind you? And as you mentioned James, the 2nd officer looks pretty casual about the whole situation. Look how far the officers are from the detainees. Clearly, these gentlemen do not appear to be under arrest. Yet they are being escorted from the crime scene by (while perhaps being under the protection of?) shotgun toting police officers. Curious.

Hi Ron. Thanks for the info. Do you know who ID’d them?

A couple of interesting links below. Thanks guys.

Greg

Lansdale? Who is Victor Krulak?

Prouty letter to Garrison

Hi Nic-

Does researching this topic make me paranoid? Not really. But there's always the chance that through your efforts you find that piece of evidence, or get someone with first-hand knowledge to tell you something, etc. I think if I ever stumbled onto hard evidence such as we've all hoped of doing, my first thought would be "Eureka!" ...and my second thought would be "Uh-oh." But I'll worry about that when it happens

Dawn made a great point addressing your issue about questioning the motives of ordinary people. This pursuit has certainly helped to advance my critical thinking skills. That's something it seems too many Americans lack. There is so much of a "TV/pop culture/herd" mentality these days. It seems like fewer people are engaged in real issues and thinking for themselves.

While at times I feel like a neophyte here, I really enjoy the debate and the substantial contributions made by so many. And while the pursuit of such a complex obsession such as the events surrounding 11/22/63 certainly have helped me develop and hone things like my research methodology and critical thinking skills, there is also a lot to learn here from the various contributors.

So even if one has to deal with a little paranoia, it seems to me that the benefits outweigh the cost.

That is until you discover the one piece of evidence that threatens to unravel the whole thing. Then, of course, you are screwed

Greg

Wow. I suppose if that were a person that you knew really well, you might be able to make the call from that photo. But that's pretty thin given the angle of the photo. Not saying it couldn't be EL, but not much evidentiary value there. Thanks very much James.

Greg

I read in Mark Lane's Plausible Denial that he had a conversation with Fletcher Prouty in which Prouty referred to a photograph taken in DP on 11/22/63 and stated that Ed Lansdale was in the photo. Does anyone know of (or have a copy of) that particular photo? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.

Excellent debate folks. I've never been one who believed that Castro could have or would have pulled off the assassination. I was aware of the Daniel/Castro meeting and have always held that that meeting, with it's discussions of a peaceful co-existance, supported the idea that it would not be in Castro's best interest to remove Kennedy. Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but is there evidence that 1) Cubela met with an Agency man in Paris that day, 2) that the topic of discussion was Castro's murder, and 3) that Cubela was a double agent and informed Fidel?

Thanks for the great discussion.

Thanks for your comments, Greg.  It is a good debate thanks largely to Robert Charles-Dunne, my "sparring partner", if you will.  In a post I am working on in response to his, you will see that in fact there are a number of items upon which we do agree.  Let me try to quickly respond to your questions since Robert and I begin with knowledge of the basic facts in the Cubela affair.

1)  Oct 1956 Cubela a member of an anti-Baptista group (but not Castro's), walks into a fancy night club and guns down the head of Baptista's military intelligence;

2)  Cubella's group and Casto's join forces;

3) 1961 Cubela approaches the CIA.  Wants to defect. CIA encourages him to stay in Cuba.  MORE TO COME

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for providing me with the background. I look forward to reading your next post.

Castro did not "Do It"

Sadly the death of John Kennedy is an internal domestic coup, on the order of Imperial Rome.

John's material lays the political background and a post war anti-communist fervor  the containment policy of the Cold War, and McCarthyism fed an aberrant, warlike, reactionary political opposition willing to use violence in its corporate and militant goals.

The domestic coup detat involved the joint paramilitary forces of  the pentagon and the agencies, with the support of the treasury secretary and the vice president.

If you find the Warren Commission unsatisfactory, read the contemporaneous document, the 25th amendment...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Shanet-

Your assertions closely parallel my own thoughts on the assassination. I am intrigued by your mention of the 25th ammendment. Were you thinking specifically of Section 4 and the process for stripping of a U.S. President's powers in the event that "a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide...(determine that the president) is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office..."?

Perhaps those "principal officers of the executive departments" deemed JFK "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" for various reasons such as his lack of support for the wars that the CIA and Pentagon wanted to fight, his reportedly substantial consumption of medication and stimulants, and his alleged(?) affairs with Romesch (linked to East German intelligence) and Exner (linked to Giancana). Is it possible that perhaps since this provision was not in place prior to 11/22/63, and a group of "principal officers of the executive departments" deemed JFK unfit for command, and since he seemed like a good bet to win re-election in '64, other methods were employed to remove him from office? Did you have anything like that in mind when you mentioned the 25th ammendment? Or am I way the heck out here in no man's land?

Any idea what the legal definition of "a majority of principal officers of the executive departments" might be? Joint chiefs, VP, & major cabinet positions? Or perhaps the definition is purposely vague. Just wondering how much leverage that ammendment provides other members of the exec branch when it comes to a president implementing his policies.

Of course, being removed in such a manner is certainly preferable to the public execution method that was it's predecesor.

Greg

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Jan 17 2005, 04:34 AM)

To Mr. Miller:

Bill, I assume you are familar with the Cubela story.  Kennedy met with French journalist Jean Daniel on Tuesday, November 19, 1963, and said some encouraging words about the prospects for normalizing relations with Cuba.  Daniel was scheduled to meet with Castro the next day but Castro changed the meeting to early Friday afternoon.  The change in the meeting was probably calculated by Castro, for two things were happening at the very time Castro was meeting with Daniel and Daniel was telling Castro about Kennedy's interest in negotiations.

At one 'o' clock Cuban time, it was early evening in Paris France and a member of Castro's Cabinet, Major Rolando Cubela was meeting with his CIA case officer, Nestor Sanchez.  Sanchez was delivering to Cubela a pen specially designed by the CIA with a hypodermic needle capable of injecting a deadly poison into Castro so he would be dead within days without ever knowing who had killed him.  Discussions were also under way for the CIA to deliver weapons into Cuba for Cubela to use in a coup against Castro.  Cubela had made clear to the CIA that the "elimination" of Castro was necessary for a successful coup.  Three weeks earlier, a high-ranking CIA official had met Cubela in Paris and told Cubela that he was the "personal emissary" of Robert F. Kennedy and that Robert F. Kennedy approved of Cubela's plan for Castro's murder and the subsequent coup.

There are sound reasons to believe that Cubela was an agent provocateur for Castro, and that he had reported the earlier meeting to the Maximum Leader. 

We know for a fact that Castro knew.  Why do you think he chose the specific time and place to publicly utter what you consider the September "threat?"  That should have been the end of the Cubela story, for even within CIA there was concern that the Cubela caper had been compromised.

Excellent debate folks. I've never been one who believed that Castro could have or would have pulled off the assassination. I was aware of the Daniel/Castro meeting and have always held that that meeting, with it's discussions of a peaceful co-existance, supported the idea that it would not be in Castro's best interest to remove Kennedy. Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but is there evidence that 1) Cubela met with an Agency man in Paris that day, 2) that the topic of discussion was Castro's murder, and 3) that Cubela was a double agent and informed Fidel?

Thanks for the great discussion.

The theory of a shooter in this location certainly makes sense. Wouldn't the bullet hole on the driver's side of the windshield also seem to support a shooter in this position? Are there any photos of relevance in existence with regard to this location at the time of the assassination (eg. Moorman/Badgeman)?

Greed, political opportunism, control, can all be motives or contributing factors as to why a political figure is removed from office. However, I submit we should be focusing on a primeval human compulsion; revenge motivated by pure hatred. For me, I believe this assassination was very personal.

I recognize the shades of grey involved, and how the tentacles of political power permeate throughout the cover-up while serving individual interests. The assassination plan itself however could have been very simple and executed with heinous animosity.

In the words of David Morales, "we took care of that son-of-a-bitch."

FWIW.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bingo! Hatred and animosity toward JFK personally and toward everything he stood for from an ideological standpoint.

George, IMO you are absolutely correct that JFK could have been removed from office if this behavior had been exposed. In the more liberal attitude of the 90s, marital infidelity on a much smaller scale almost removed our Pres Clinton.

So the question arises why did the people behind the assassination not use the simpler method? One answer that deserves consideration is that they were not aware of it--if this answer is correct it removes some of the subjects.

Tim-

You pose a great question. While I would agree that removal from office would have been possible using less risky tactics than the assassination, such as exposing JFK's extra-marital escapades, I propose that the removal from office took place in the manner that it did because:

1) Hatred - The level of anger/hatred/betrayal that Kennedy’s enemies felt at the time (A/C Cubans, CIA/Pentagon cold warriors, MICC, Texas oilmen, etc.) made assassination a more appealing option.

2) Bobby Kennedy - Perhaps they were concerned with RFK’s ability to use his power as AG to thwart, or at least prolong/dilute, their efforts to remove JFK via legal channels, such as impeachment.

3) Sending a Message - However idealistic and progressive JFK was perceived to be, Bobby (at least this is my impression) seemed to be so to a greater degree, and he was already AG and JFK’s right-hand man in the administration at such a young age. And of course Ted was already a Senator at the time. These next two potential successors, along with the Kennedy wealth and name, must have been a large concern for right-wing radicals (A/C Cubans, CIA/Pentagon cold warriors, MICC, Texas oilmen, etc.). Perhaps such a violent, public execution was intended to also deliver a message and dissuade future challenges to the agenda of this right-wing cabal. Of course, when Bobby ran for President in spite of this, it became clear to the conspirators that he did not fear them. And of course, they murdered him also.

This, of course, is just my opinion. One thing that has always bothered me though is Bobby’s silence on his brother’s murder and the cover-up. Surely, he knew some degree of the truth. Was he simply waiting until he gained the presidency to expose the killers and conspirators? And after RFK’s death, Ted’s silence. The silence of JKF Jr. and Carolyn, etc. Have they remained silent out of fear? That seems very unlikely to me. But frankly, I cannot think of another compelling reason why they would all sit idly by and be silent.

Excellent suggestion, John. I am making such an effort also.

If I can add my two cents worth here, I think it is important that researchers don't get too paranoid while maintaining a clear perspective on their goals. If you operate under any kind of fear then I would suggest doing something else; life is too short to be constantly stressed. If one swims with sharks then one should be prepared to be bitten every now and then.

What I'm saying is that one should choose a level of participation that one is comfortable with.

FWIW.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right on, James. I agree. I do think it would be important for any potential researcher to understand the possible risks before getting in over their head.

As for being paranoid, I haven't started booby-trapping my place just yet

Greg

I think John has an interesting thought here. If in fact we were able to catalog instances of intimdation, it may be useful to then ask what area of the assassination the victim was researching. Perhaps a pattern would emerge. If a high percentage of researchers pursuing leads relating to a certain individual or theory are attacked or threatened, that may tell us something. Conversely, if researchers have success pursuing individuals or evidence to further a certain theory and experience no such problems, that may be equally as telling.

Jack's position is somewhat unique, in that he was working on "JFK". Whether or not one believes the theories put forth in that production, it's easy to understand that those behind the assassination and cover-up didn't want that kind of exposure of the topic in general. In Jack's case, maybe it wasn't a result of any specific area he was researching so much as the exposure the whole notion of a conspiracy was about to receive.

It's amazing that over 40 years later, the situation is still being "managed" so well (from the conspirators' standpoint). In my humble opinion, that is evidence of the cover-up being managed at the highest levels of today's federal government. While the anti-Castro Cubans and Mafia may have been operational assets used in the execution of the plot, I don't believe those groups have the capabilitiy to operate such a successful cover-up for this length of time. I also find it difficult to believe that any of these groups groups could control the media to the extent that they have.

It's ironic that the sheer success of their cover-up is one of the things that so clearly implicates them. High officials in the Government (CIA, Pentagon, officials in the Executive Branch, etc.) are the only ones that could pull this off so successfully.

While it's conceivable that the assassination itself could have been executed without them, the lack of Secret Service protection in DP that day is very suggestive that elements of the Government also coordinated the assassination itself.

And for me that's the truely frightening part. If the Government is behind all this, there nowhere to hide once you become a threat (discover evidence, contact someone with knowledge and start asking questions, etc.).

No matter what you think of Oliver Stone's work, he struck a serious blow to the conspirators with "JFK", as that film initiated countless debates on the subject, brought the assassination and cover-up back into the mainstream of American society, and perhaps helped to interest a new generation of younger Americans in these events. I wonder if he was "discouraged" or intimidated in the months leading up to his movie being released.

BTW, did you continue your pursuit of Braden? Not sure that I would have been that brave (perhaps in my younger days I would have).

Wow Jack- that is scary. I too applaud your courage. Not that you were in any position to have a conversation, but did the guy say anything to give an idea of why he was attacking you?

It certainly would be interesting, as Denis mentioned above, to catalog instances of intimidation (or worse) against investigators, researchers, and authors who have pursued this subject. In light of all the dead witnesses and those seeming to have knowledge of the events surrounding 11/22, I guess it's not shocking that researchers who gain some level of exposure, those who possess real evidence, or those who are asking the right questions of the right people, are targeted. It makes you wonder about who might be watching/listening.

Being relatively new to all of this and not having done any primary reseach of my own, I guess I never really considered it, but I suppose that's a consideration one must take into accout before knocking on Gordon Novel's or Orlando Bosch's door and asking questions. If theories about those men have merit, such research could be very dangerous.

I have read that the Manlicher Carcano (the alleged Oswald weapon) was not the rifle originally found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22. If I recall, there are claims that a different rifle (a Mauser) was originally found and purported to be the murder weapon. Has that ever been explained further? Is this claim based on eyewitness statements? Are any photos known to exist that would support his claim?