Cut to the Chase

[Tim Gratz]

When it really comes right down to it, what evidence is there to suggest that any one organization or person was involved in the assassination? (I assume, of course, the existence of a conspiracy so I am not talking about evidence to prove a conspiracy.)

The existence of a motive to kill the President is certainly a factor that must be considered in any evaluation. I believe it cannot be disputed that Castro had a strong motive because of continuing U.S. schemes to kill him. His motive was simple: self-defense. I think John is making a persuasive case that, because of the developing Bobby Baker scandal, LBJ had a strong motive to kill Kennedy--his need to become president so he could control the investigation. I believe organized crime (and Jimmy Hoffa if you want to separate him) also had a strong motive. Anti-Castro Cubans could have a motive, either retaliation for JFK's perceived betrayal at the Bay of Pigs or to falsely pin the assassination on Castro to prompt a U.S. invasion. John has pointed oput, and I would, upon reflection agreee, that Southern racists could have a motive (to prevent the integration of the South) even though LBJ turned out to be at least as strong a champion of civil rights as JFK was. John also argues that members of the MICC had economic motives to kill Kennedy.

But motive in itself is insufficient to prove participation in a conspiracy. Absent any other evidence, clear proof of a motive would never be sufficient evidence, IMO, to prove a murder case against anyone.

So what other evidence exists?

Certainly proof of foreknowledge of the assassination is suggestive of participation in the conspiracy.

Confessions of involvement after the fact would also be evidence.

I suggest that the circumstances of Castro's Sept 7, 1963 warning, coupled with the circumstances of the ongoing Cubela plot, including Cubela's insistence on proof of RFK's endorsement of his plans, and the mysterious flights to Cuba after the assassination, are at least suggestive of Cuban involvement.

Assuming Ruby's murder of Oswald was part of a conspiracy, Ruby's involvement with organized crime could be considered evidence of the participation of organized crime.

The presence of a person, affiliated with a motivated group, at the "scene of the crime" could be some evidence of involvement.

If Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint was found on a box on the sixth floor, given his background, that would be evidence of his participation .

But, other than the foregoing, what other evidence exists to link any other person or group with any conspiracy?

Edited December 29, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Tim, having asked the same question myself about all I can say is that is what I have tried to address in Someone Would Have Talked.

There is of course a significant list of individuals and incidents, ranging from well known names like Sylvia Odio and Rose Charamie to much less well known names including Gilberto Alverato, Pedro Gonzalez, Jorge Soto Martinez, Ralph Yates, Ray January, SA Patterson and Homer Echevarria.

And of course on the Johnson thread you have Cliff Carter, Billy Sol Estes and his witnesses and Grant Stockdale.

Not to mention mysterious items such as the Kirknewton intercept incident which is still fully classifiedand but which certainly could, like the Cheramie incident, point to rumors/gossip within the Trafficante/Marcello drug running network. And what Admiral Burkley really had in mind in contacting the HSCA to offer evidence of conspiracy.

Of course there are also a string of "Castro did it" remarks but I think if you dig into the actual sources of those remarks e.g. who the informant was working for, what units or individuals floated the reports I think you will find almost all of them associated with people who were deeply into the secret war against Castro and eager to present information which might precipitate action against him - unfortunately the problem of "intelligence advocates" is still around as we have seen recently in the problems with information from exile Iraqi sources.

[Tim Gratz]

Hi Tim,  having asked the same question myself about all I can say is that is what I have tried to address in Someone Would Have Talked.

There is of course a significant list of individuals and incidents,  ranging from well known names like Sylvia Odio and Rose Charamie to much less well known names including Gilberto Alverato, Pedro Gonzalez, Jorge Soto Martinez, Ralph Yates, Ray January, SA Patterson and Homer Echevarria. 

And of course on the Johnson thread you have Cliff Carter,  Billy Sol Estes and his witnesses and Grant Stockdale.

Not to mention mysterious items such as the Kirknewton intercept incident which is still fully classifiedand but which certainly could,  like the Cheramie incident, point to rumors/gossip within the Trafficante/Marcello drug running network.  And what Admiral Burkley really had in mind in contacting the HSCA to offer evidence of conspiracy.

Of course there are also a string of "Castro did it" remarks but I think if you dig into the actual sources of those remarks e.g. who the informant was working for, what units or individuals floated the reports I think you will find almost all of them associated with people who were deeply into the secret war against Castro and eager to present information which might precipitate action against him - unfortunately the problem of "intelligence advocates" is still around as we have seen recently in the problems with information from exile Iraqi sources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent points, all. I have very much enjoyed your book and the 2004 supplement. IMO Trafficante is the key. As you know, Moldea reported that in spring 1963 (time frame from recollection) the lawyer who represented both Hoffa and Trafficante conveyed a message from Hoffa to Trafficante and Marcello that Hoffa wanted JFK killed. Plus, of course, there are the rumors connecting Trafficante to Castro. So if Trafficante orchestrated it several groups could have thought he was doing it for them. In addition, if (and I know there are theories to the contrary) Giancana and Rosselli were killed because of what they knew about JFK, Trafficante is the likeliest sponsor of their murders. As I am sure you know, Rosselli's biographers state in their book that a Trafficante lieutenant had boasted to two separate sources of his involvement in the Rosselli "hit". It is my understanding that this gentleman (using the term in its broadest possible sense) is still alive and incarcerated in a Florida prison.

[Tim Gratz]

When it really comes right down to it, what evidence is there to suggest that any one organization or person was involved in the assassination? (I assume, of course, the existence of a conspiracy so I am not talking about evidence to prove a conspiracy.)

Another possible evidence of involvement in the conspiracy could be the deliberate planting of false leads. There are stories that, shortly after the assassination, people affiliated with the CIA were planting false leads to link LHO to Fidel. It has apparently been established that the KGB forged the supposed letter from LHO to "Mr. Hunt". This dichotomy indicates, I think, that people could have been planting false leads who were not necessarily involved in the assassination. For instance, if the KGB was not involved in the assassination (some people think it was) it could have forged the KGB letter merely to embarrass the CIA. Similarly, anti-Castro zealots in the CIA could have seen the assassination as an opportunity to pin it on Castro even though they had nothing to do with the assassination itself.

Nevertheless, the fabrication of evidence is certainly something to be considered in evaluating the case. And the fact that false evidence has been planted shoud also, of course, make us very cautious in evaluating the evidence that does exist.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Richard J. Smith]

When it really comes right down to it, what evidence is there to suggest that any one organization or person was involved in the assassination?  (I assume, of course, the existence of a conspiracy so I am not talking about evidence to prove a conspiracy.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See Jeff Morley's article "What Jane Roman Said". There is absolute proof the CIA had something going on with LHO right up until 6 weeks prior to the assassination. CIA HQ even lied to their own Mexico City office, saying they had known nothing about Oswald since just after he returned from the Soviet Union. They also obviously withheld information from the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/fram...RomanSaid_1.htm

RJS

[Jim Root]

Tim

I always like to write using "if" and "perhaps."

"When it really comes right down to it, what evidence is there to suggest that any one organization or person was involved in the assassination?"

Lee Harvey Oswald is one person that was involved. "If" there was a conspiracy, he is the single most important person needed to cover up or protect the actual conspirators. Without Oswald being in Dealy Plaza the assassination story, as we know it, would not exist.

The Warren Commission is the "one organization" that must have been involved in either a conspiracy or a coverup of the actual events that occured on November 22, 1963 "if" a coverup or a conspiracy did in fact occure. "Perhaps" their report is the single best piece of evidence that we have while searching for clues of a coverup. It is, you might say, the crime scene, "if" in fact a crime was taking place.

"But, other than the foregoing, what other evidence exists to link any other person or group with any conspiracy?"

The Warren Report itself does not work without the attempted assassination of Major General Edwin Anderson Walker being attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald. Either this event occured in fact or it was a fabrication that supported the conspiracy. "If" it actually was designed to support the conspiracy the resignation of Walker from the Army in 1961 and his anti-Kennedy stance would have to be suspect as well. This would make the conspiracy plan a multi-year operation that predates Oswald's return to the US from the Soviet Union. In fact Walker's Pro Blue program troubles that led to his resignation is timed to Oswald's application with the State Department to return to the United States (just by coincidence).

Walker's involvement with Military Intelligence and Maxwell Taylor is, in my belief, without question. Did Oswald meet Walker on October 9/10, 1959 is, in my belief, a legitimate speculation. Was Walker "nervous" about being tied to the assassination on November 22/23, 1963? I believe so (interview and pulication of article in German Newspaper). Why? A connection to Lee Harvey Oswald?

"See Jeff Morley's article "What Jane Roman Said". There is absolute proof the CIA had something going on with LHO right up until 6 weeks prior to the assassination. CIA HQ even lied to their own Mexico City office, saying they had known nothing about Oswald since just after he returned from the Soviet Union. They also obviously withheld information from the Warren Commission and the HSCA."

Excellent article!

In the article we find that Tom Karamessine came into the CIA as a foot soldier in the Greek Civil War. Not surprizing that Edwin Walker was running the Greek Desk at the Pentagon during that "covert" War.

I believe that Oswald's CIA records predate October 1959 and the same names, Angleton, Helms, etc. knew it. We now know it predates what the Warren Commission wanted us to know. Would we all come to different conclusions if the Oswald file did, in fact, predate October 1959? Would an earlier date preempt a Cuban connection that would lead to new or additional speculations?

Jim Root

PS Since the article gives credence to the belief that "persons higher up" on the food chain were well aware of Oswald as a "person of interest," would those same people have known to run the motorcade past the School Book Depository?