Jump to content
The Education Forum

French Connection


Shanet Clark
 Share

Recommended Posts

What most fail to understand in dignitary protection is that the protection detail must adjust to the terrain of the motorcade route and the demands of the dignitary’s inner circle as to how the dignitary will be presented. Both can put considerable restrictions on an ideal protection detail in a motorcade.

In the case of Dallas on November 22, 1963, the Secret Service protection was compromised by both the route and the desire to expose the President and the first lady to the people of Dallas. The route was influenced to expose the Kennedy’s to as many of the citizens as possible, thus taking the Man Street Route that ended in DP to get to the Stemmons. This also called for the removal of the bubble top. This route required a slow speed narrow roadway that driver Greer had to utilize a left of center route down Main to keep the crowds away from the President’s side of the limo. This prevented a flying wedge formation of the five lead motorcycles that is normally utilized and a rear wedge of the four motorcycles off the rear quarter of the limo. The motorcycles on the driver’s side where the first lady was seated could not fit between the limo and the crowds, as the limo had to drive left of center to keep the crowds back from the president. Driver Greer compensated this by driving with his door open and angled at roughly 45 degrees to keep the crowds back on his side.

Agents in the follow-up car did exit and take positions on the rear standers on three occasions from the time the motorcade left Love Field until it entered Dealey Plaza. This is in contradiction to the issues that the Secret Service were told to stay off the limo, period. The fine line here is that they were told to stay off whenever possible without compromising their duties to protect the President and the First Lady. This is an issue of exposure to the public without overreacting to the crowds.

Once the motorcade entered DP, the roadway opened to allow for a flying wedge formation, but the immediacy of threat was no longer there as the proximity and volume of crowds had diminished from the earlier portion of the route. Why then would they drop back in the flying wedge formation?

In my article in the DP Echo of March of 2002 that I sent the submitted draft to John, I also address the issues of the reaction time of the agents once the shooting starts and explain it through proven testing.

Where Tim Gratz is fogging this issue, is when he accepts that the Secret Service was not involved to explain that it was not a conspiracy within the government to assassinate the president. One has nothing to do with the other and I will gladly spar with Tim here on these issues. A professional team of assassins would not need Secret Service compliance in order to succeed in DP.

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Al, you wrote:

"Consider how the assassination was carried out and covered up within a period of less than six hours. How does that fit into your theories?"

That Jack Ruby killed LHO demonstates, IMO, the role organized crime played in the assassination.  Someone in organized crime obviously ordered JR to eliminate LHO.  The likeliest candidates, IMO, are Marcello or Trafficante.  I am sure one of the inducements made to Ruby was the promise of the best legal representation.

The question is whether organized crime was assisting someone else in the assassination or was acting only on its own behalf.

Given Trafficante's ties to Cubela, and his reported links to Castro, and given the CIA's dealing with Cubela, coupled with the report of a DGI agent in Dealey Plaza, it is not unreasonable to suspect Castro had requested Trafficante's help in killing Kennedy.  To the extent other members of organized crime may have aassisted in the assassination, they may not have known of Castro's role.  Remember "mob lawyer" Ragano had conveyed to Marcello and Trafficante Hoffa's desire to see Kennedy killed.  And Marcello, of course, had reasons of his own to want Kennedy killed.

So Trafficante may very well have been serving two (or even three) masters when he helped plan the Kennedy hit.

Tim,

What still amazes me in the research community is that so many put so much weight into the effectiveness of the mob! This crime was being covered up withing the first hours. To believe the government had a heads up that the mob would assassinate a sitting president and allow it come off and then cover it up so quickly without retaliation is laughable. Don't you think that Santo, Carlos and MoMo would have been eliminated within hours to show that this is not acceptable if this is the case? Do you think these thugs had this much control of the government to allow them to get away with it and continue to operate?

And to believe that Castro made this happen and not have Cuba blown off the map the next day is also laughable. We knew that the Soviets did not have the nuclear resources to challenge us and would not attempt to do so in giving up Cuba.

Castro has survived everyone else because he is not important to the overall scheme of things.

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al wrote:

Where Tim Gratz is fogging this issue, is when he accepts that the Secret Service was not involved to explain that it was not a conspiracy within the government to assassinate the president. One has nothing to do with the other and I will gladly spar with Tim here on these issues. A professional team of assassins would not need Secret Service compliance in order to succeed in DP.

Al, to the contrary, I have made this point (probably on a different thread).

We agree, I think, that there was no "security stripping" in Dallas.

I agree with Greg that had there been "security stripping" (which there was not), that would have been evidence of an internal coup.

You are correct, however, that the absence of security stripping does not PRECLUDE an internal coup, and there was no need for security stripping to permit the assassination.

My point is simply that there is no evidence for an internal coup. I keep asking proponents of that theory to offer evidence for it. To date, none has been offered.

IMO, the strongest evidence points to the involvement of Santo Trafficante, Jr. The question is on whose behalf he was acting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al wrote:

Where Tim Gratz is fogging this issue, is when he accepts that the Secret Service was not involved to explain that it was not a conspiracy within the government to assassinate the president. One has nothing to do with the other and I will gladly spar with Tim here on these issues. A professional team of assassins would not need Secret Service compliance in order to succeed in DP.

Al, to the contrary, I have made this point (probably on a different thread).

We agree, I think, that there was no "security stripping" in Dallas.

I agree with Greg that had there been "security stripping" (which there was not), that would have been evidence of an internal coup.

You are correct, however, that the absence of security stripping does not PRECLUDE an internal coup, and there was no need for security stripping to permit the assassination.

My point is simply that there is no evidence for an internal coup.  I keep asking proponents of that theory to offer evidence for it.  To date, none has been offered.

IMO, the strongest evidence points to the involvement of Santo Trafficante, Jr. The question is on whose behalf he was acting.

Tim, my rebuttal to that is; was Santo involved in the planning of the assassination attempts in Chicago and Miami prior to Dallas? If they had the means to abort these attempts, then why would they allow the likes of Santo to survive beyond any of them? What evidence do you have that would show that the mob would have elements consistent with an assassination team that acted in DP? Why would the cover-up take place so quickly in Dallas to cover the likes of a mob hit and then not retaliate against such thugs?

The mob was used by the government for money laundering and narcotics trafficing for monitary funding of operations prior to and long after the Kennedy Assassination. Can you name any realistic hands-on operation that the mob worked out that was even close to the operation in DP?

This is laughable to say the least. I hate to be so demeaning, but it is hard not to. This was a professional hit and the problem was that the government saw a pattern and could not get to the source prior to it being achieved. But it was there to cover it up as the pattern was set.

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al wrote:

What still amazes me in the research community is that so many put so much weight into the effectiveness of the mob! This crime was being covered up withing the first hours. To believe the government had a heads up that the mob would assassinate a sitting president and allow it come off and then cover it up so quickly without retaliation is laughable. Don't you think that Santo, Carlos and MoMo would have been eliminated within hours to show that this is not acceptable if this is the case? Do you think these thugs had this much control of the government to allow them to get away with it and continue to operate?

And to believe that Castro made this happen and not have Cuba blown off the map the next day is also laughable. We knew that the Soviets did not have the nuclear resources to challenge us and would not attempt to do so in giving up Cuba.

Castro has survived everyone else because he is not important to the overall scheme of things.

"What still amazes me in the research community is that so any put so much weight on the effectiveness of the Mob." What amazes me, Al, is that anyone believes that the CIA could organize an assassination more effectively than the Mafia. And remember, in my analysis, the assassination was orchestrated not just by any mafioso but by Santo Trafficante, Jr., who never spent a single night in an American prison. I am not aware of any other mafioso who had such a record of escaping conviction. Trafficante's record demonstrates that he was indeed a criminal genius. I am sure that he got by with several murders, including those of John F. Kennedy and Johnny Rosselli, and probably Sam Giancana and Albert Anastasia.

How the heck could the CIA kill Kennedy when, after numerous attempts by the mafia and Cuban exiles, it could not even kill Castro? Remember, the CIA knew that Rosselli had involved Trafficante in the anti-Castro plots but it was not even smart enough to figure out that a sister agency, the BNI, had information that Trafficante was probably a double-agent for Castro.

The CIA? That could not even bug Dan Rowan's hotel suite without getting caught?

The CIA, that planned the BOP without giving any consideration to the coral reef that surrounds Cuba?

The CIA, whose plans for the BOP did not take into consideration the time zone difference between Guatemala and Cuba?

Come on, now, Al, if I had wanted to hire anyone to kill an enemy in the early 1960s, I would have gone to Santo Trafficante, Jr., not Richard Bissell or E. Howard Hunt! (If Bill Casey had been around in those days, my answer might be different. IMO, Casey deserves a lot of the credit for winning the Cold War.)

Finally, I should add that, as you know, I think Santo had help planning the assassination, from Valery Kostikov and Fabian Escalante.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al wrote:

And to believe that Castro made this happen and not have Cuba blown off the map the next day is also laughable. We knew that the Soviets did not have the nuclear resources to challenge us and would not attempt to do so in giving up Cuba.

Well, Al, you may believe that, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.

John Kennedy did not believe it or he would have followed the advise of his military advisers and removed the missiles by force. As you know, what deterred Kennedy was the fear of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. It is said that during the thirteen days of the Cuban missile crisis many members of the Kennedy team went to bed not knowing if they would live to see the next day.

Johnson feared a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union as much as John Kennedy did. That is why he ordered all agencies, including the FBI and the CIA, to cease any investigation that might demonstrate foreign complicity in the assassination.

The cover-up was regrettable and has led to generations of distrust of our government. However, it may be the reason why we are all still alive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty obvious that once a majority of Americans rejected the warren commission conclusions on Oswald acting alone, the authorities in Washington threw the suspicion onto the Mafia. Blakey and Anderson orchestrated this via the HSAC committee and the press. Ovid Demaris, the author, was a big part of this. From my point of view, this was a secondary, limited, hang-out and disinformation campaign to protect TACTICAL agents like Desmond Fitzgerald and David Attlee Phillips and STRATEGIC agents MAXWELL TAYLOR, CD DILLON, J EDGAR HOOVER and LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON from exposure...

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tim, Hi Al-

If I understand correctly, Tim's position is that the Secret Service COULD NOT have been complicit because they simply would not have went along with it due things like their sworn oath, ethics, morality, legality, etc.

I would suggest that CD Dillon was the initiator of the Secret Service's part in the plot. And as the Secretary of the Treasury, he most certainly would have been in a position to select a couple of key individuals within the command structure that would be loyal to him. I would further suggest that he had the same discussion with these individuals that were had with him, convincing him of the legitimacy of the coup: John Kennedy's incapacity based on his relations with Romesch and Campbell, his daily injections consisting of a mixture of several compounds, his alleged LSD usage, and his "softness" on communism. Admittedly, these conversations are speculation on my part (so fire away), but I find it to be a most plausible scenario. Much like your speculation regarding the content (and perhaps more importantly, intent) of the conversations between men like Cubela, Castro, Fitzgerald, Daniel, etc.). You can speculate based on suggestive materials and your own intuition, but you were no more present for those discussions than I was for any discussion between Dillon and his men. The men under them were simply following orders as they were trained to do (move, don't move, get off of the limo, cut the motorcycles down to 2 and move them back on the procession, etc.). A couple key men in the command structure to give the appropriate orders. Perhaps even saying that they were at the request of the president (stay away, we want to be visible and close to the people, etc). However, given Kennedy's reluctance to make the Dallas trip (Kennedy & Johnson by Evelyn Lincoln), that seems unlikely that such instructions would have actually originated with Kennedy. So, I agree with you that there simply could not have been this massive conspiracy within the SS, involving dozens of agents. Absolutely, that never could have happened. All it took were a precious one or two in key positions.

If I understand correctly, Al's position is that the Secret Service WOULD NOT have been involved because their cooperation was simply not necessary. That does make sense to me. If we are talking about serious people here (and I think we all agree that we are), highly trained professional assassins operating in a coordinated fashion within the framework of a well-laid plan, it seems to me that they could have executed Kennedy without stripping him of his protection. Plausible indeed. However, if I am right in suggesting that this was a coup initiated at the highest levels of the U.S. government, then it would stand to reason that Dillon would have been approached to assist. While his men’s (the Secret Service) assistance may not have been a REQUIREMENT, it certainly is common sense that any reduction in Kennedy’s protection would increase their chances of success. And if they were going to conspire to commit murder and treason (though I have no doubt that they viewed themselves as patriots), once the bullets started flying, the HAD to succeed. Why take the risk when Dillon’s cooperation would help ensure the success of the plot? And given Dillon’s background (Dillon, Read, & Co.) of helping finance Aryanized German industrialists, I would surmise that he probably viewed many of Kennedy’s policies with skepticism, making him all the more susceptible to the incapacity argument with which he was convinced.

Thank you both your thoughts. You both raise excellent points and I particularly appreciate the technical expertise Al brings to these discussions.

:cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, re your theory that Douglas Dillon was involved in the assassination, respectfully, you need to read more history books before you make these wild charges. If JFK could read your post above, he would be turning over in his grave. As you may know, Ted Sorenson was one of JFK's closest advisers for many years. (In fact, if I recal corectly, his comitment to JFK cost him his marriage.) In Sorenson's excellent, if slanted, biograpraphy of JFK, Sorenson states that Dillon was one of JFK's closest personal friends (a fellow sailor; they vacationed in Maine together) and one of his closest political advisers. Sorenson states that the Cabinet members that Kennedy must trusted and respected were Dillon and McNamara.

I suggest you read any of the Kennedy biographies, most of which discuss JFK's close relationship with Dillon, and then withdraw your totally unsupported charge that Dillon was involved in the assasssination. Douglas Dillon was no more involved than Bobby Dylan!

Ted Sorenson is, I believe, still alive. Perhaps I shall contact him for a response to the absurd charge that Dillon supported the murder of his close friend John F. Kennedy.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, re your theory that Douglas Dillon was involved in the assassination, respectfully, you need to read more history books before you make these wild charges.   If JFK could read your post above, he would be turning over in his grave. As you may know, Ted Sorenson was one of JFK's closest advisers for many years. (In fact, if I recal corectly, his comitment to JFK cost him his marriage.)  In Sorenson's excellent, if slanted, biograpraphy of JFK, Sorenson states that Dillon was one of JFK's closest personal friends (a fellow sailor; they vacationed in Maine together) and one of his closest political advisers. Sorenson states that the Cabinet members that Kennedy must trusted and respected were Dillon and McNamara.

I suggest you read any of the Kennedy biographies, most of which discuss JFK's close relationship with Dillon, and then withdraw your totally unsupported charge that Dillon was involved in the assasssination. Douglas Dillon was no more involved than Bobby Dylan!

Ted Sorenson is, I believe, still alive.  Perhaps I shall contact him for a response to the absurd charge that Dillon supported the murder of his close friend John F. Kennedy.

Tim-

I've actually read several (Salinger's With Kennedy, Dallek's An Unfinished Life, and Mahoney's Sons & Brothers, to name a few). And I am certain that as a result of your extensive research, you no doubt are familiar with the fact that Dillon was appointed to his position in large part based on the recommendation of Philip Graham who, it is believed, was involved with the CIA and Project Mockingbird. I however, have no such suspicions about Bob Dylan. :cheers

And Tim, if your concern is the withdrawal of "unsupported charges", then I anxiously await your next post! In which you will of course, follow your own advice.

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim-

I read over my last post, and perhaps that was a little to harshly worded. I'm not trying to tear you (or your theory, even though I don't subscribe to it) down. My opinions are what they are. And like most here, they are based on the facts (disputed as some of them may be) as they exist today, an extensive reading of history, some personal knowledge, and much supposition. I just wanted to make that clear, since your last post seemed tinged with a hint of condescension, and my response did likewise.

By the way, regardless of the degree to which you have studied history, I assume the names Judas and Brutus ring a bell with you somewhere. No? Perhaps that was the very last thought Kennedy had as he found himself in the middle of an ambush: Et tu, Bruti (Clarence)?

If you have a minute sometime, would you be kind enough to give me your take (being our resident "Castro did it" expert) on my questions in the "Cuba Today" thread? I'm not trying to be a smart alek there, but those are questions that I think are very relevant to your theory and that I frankly don't understand. I'm not "challenging" you to explain it or asking you to "prove" anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion (God, did I just type that?!?).

:cheers

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Greg, despite the fact that Dillon was (apparently became) JFK's close friend and most trusted adviser, you would hold him complicit in the assassination because his appointment was recommended by Phillip Graham of the Washington Post?

Is this for real? I assume you must be kidding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarence Dougla$$ Dillon NEVER gave John Fitzgerald Kennedy the Protection a President needed and was understood to have in the modern period.

He stripped security when Jack was inaugurated in 1961....

this is a silly dialogue, because the lack of running boards

tight motorcycle formations, hard tops and advance work in OTHER cities is evidence AGAINST

the 1963 Secret Service under CD DILLON....

And that is a provable , manifest fact ...

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg wrote:

If you have a minute sometime, would you be kind enough to give me your take (being our resident "Castro did it" expert) on my questions in the "Cuba Today" thread? I'm not trying to be a smart alek there, but those are questions that I think are very relevant to your theory and that I frankly don't understand. I'm not "challenging" you to explain it or asking you to "prove" anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion (God, did I just type that?!?).

Greg, I just did on that thread. I think it makes sense. Interested in your comments on my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...