Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Yet the authors of this theory claim that Johnson discovers details of this KGB/Castro plot and instead of taking advantage of this information, decides to put pressure on the CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission in order to cover up the plot.

John, I do not believe I (or anyone else) assert that Johnson HAD evidence of Soviet involvement in the assassination (other than the Hugh McDonald scenario discussed in a previous post that the KGB had told LBJ in the summer of 1963 that it was going to kill Kennedy).

It is not that Johnson had evidence of foreign involvement which he hid. Rather, Johnson feared the discovery of evidence of foreign involvement and ensured that no one sought such evidence. Most definitely FBI agents and CIA agents in Mexico City were instructed NOT to look for evidence of foreign involvement in the assassination. There is just no question that happened, and almost caused a rebellion within the CIA in Mexico City.

Johnson's primary objective was his "Great Society" and going down in history as a great president. The last thing he wanted to deal with was evidence that a foreign power engineered the assassination of JFK, forcing him to deal with inevitable pressure for war against the state or states that killed the man whose brother wanted to put him in jail.

Edited January 24, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John says:

Trento/Angleton explain this by selecting Oswald in order to “link him to Castro and not the Soviet Union” (page 260). To reinforce this idea the KGB employs two Cuban agents called Policarpo and Casas. For the first time Trento gives us a source other than Angleton to justify this claim. He quotes CIA documents to show that Policarpo and Casas were in the United States in 1963. Policarpo was in Mexico City on 25th November and he left for Cuba soon afterwards.

John:

The evidence (if true) is much stronger than this.

Miguel (the reported DGI member) was in a small plane that flew from Dallas to Tijuana, Mexico shortly after the assassination. The plane then flew from Tijuana to Mexico City. In Mexico City, Miguel flew back to Havana.

Gilberto exited Texas by car. He crossed the border at Nuevo Laredo on November 23, 1963, as soon as the border reopened after the assassination.

These gentlemen were not just "in the United States in 1963" as you put it. Miguel was in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963, and Gilberto was (at least) in Texas. Moreover, Gilberto moved from Key West (where Fidel had sent him to keep tabs on Cesar Diosdado (just my surmise) to Tampa (home of Santo Trafficante) a few months before the assassination. It was in Tampa that Gilberto received his 14 day VISA to visit Mexico (on Nov 20, 1963). Trafficante was a friend of Rolando Cubela, but he denied that under oath before the HSCA. Cubela had been in contact with Valery Kostikov, of Dept 13 of the KGB (dealing with "wet operations") as had Lee Harvey Oswald. Trafficante admitted to his attorney his involvement in the assassination. And there is evidence that a Trafficante gang member whacked Rosselli who was probably privy to the plot, and probably was the person who called the Belli law firm from the Desert Inn in Vegas (his usual stomping ground, and where he was when he was informed of the assassination).

The connections are clear, and ominous.

If each of these facts is true (and no one on this Forum has ever come up with reason to dispute them other than that some of the facts came from CIA sources) then, given Fidel's Sept 7 warning to the Kennedys, and given the history of our repeated attempts to kill Castro, the case that Fidel acted to save his own life is, I submit, rather compelling.

I have yet to see anyone post anything close to evidence (such as the above) to show that anyone connected with the CIA, FBI or LBJ was in Dallas or had anything to do with the assassination. Nothing. Nada. Except for the alleged Wallace fingerprint.

Come on, folks. I've given you some (not all) of my evidence.

Now is your opportunity.

Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Where is your evidence? How do you explain a member of DGI being in Dallas the day of the assassination? Did Miguel go to Dallas to watch a Cowboys training session? Come on; the evidence is there and it all fits together.

Edited January 24, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Let me make this very clear:

If Miguel was a member of DGI (Cuban intelligence)

and

if he was in Dallas on November 22

and

if flew back to Havana the night of the 22nd

if those facts are all true

I rest my case!

Does anyone have evidence to dispute those alleged facts?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

John says:

Trento/Angleton explain this by selecting Oswald in order to “link him to Castro and not the Soviet Union” (page 260). To reinforce this idea the KGB employs two Cuban agents called Policarpo and Casas. For the first time Trento gives us a source other than Angleton to justify this claim. He quotes CIA documents to show that Policarpo and Casas were in the United States in 1963. Policarpo was in Mexico City on 25th November and he left for Cuba soon afterwards.

John:

The evidence (if true) is much stronger than this.

Tim, the most important words in that sentence are the ones inserted in brackets: "if true."  That you would qualify your opening line this way indicates just how little "evidence" there is, and that it is not "strong;" on the contrary, it is merely what it was designed to be: superficially persuasive.

Miguel (the reported DGI member) was in a small plane that flew from Dallas to Tijuana, Mexico shortly after the assassination.  The plane then flew from Tijuana to Mexico City.  In Mexico City, Miguel flew back to Havana.

Miguel has now been downgraded to a "reported" DGI member?  I thought this was a resolved, dead-certainty issue.  And the CIA sources upon whom you exclusively rely for this information have provided you with what evidence of the plane flights from Dallas to Tijuana to DF to Havana?  Was there a flight plan filed in Dallas with the FAA?  Were you provided with immigration records by Mexican Immigration Department officials?  Did Cubana airlines provide a flight manifest listing this man as a passenger on the Havana-bound flight? 

The HSCA researched this and determined that the light plane referred to arrived in Mexico City after the Cubana plane had already left, making CIA's "mysterious passenger" transfer transparently meaningless, CIA's apoplexy notwithstanding.

 

It is one thing to assert a fiction; another thing, entirely, to buttress it with demonstrable fact. 

Gilberto exited Texas by car.  He crossed the border at Nuevo Laredo on November 23, 1963, as soon as the border reopened after the assassination.

Do tell.  And that car was presumably seen in Dealey Plaza, was it?  Or Gilberto's fingerprints were found on a murder weapon there?  Or his face is clearly depicted in Dealey Plaza photos?  And if my Aunt Fanny was in Dallas on 11/22/63, would she also be a suspect, due to her penchant for playing Mah Jong with "foreigners?" 

These gentlemen were not just "in the United States in 1963" as you put it.  Miguel was in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963, and Gilberto was (at least) in Texas.  Moreover, Gilberto moved from Key West (where Fidel had sent him to keep tabs on Cesar Diosdado (just my surmise) to Tampa (home of Santo Trafficante) a few months before the assassination.  It was in Tampa that Gilberto received his 14 day VISA to visit Mexico (on Nov 20, 1963).  Trafficante was a friend of Rolando Cubela, but he denied that under oath before the HSCA. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that because Trafficante denied it, we should assume it to be true.  Interesting strategy on your part. 

For my part, I would suggest that Cubela is the one whose testimony the HSCA should have sought.  He would have said two things - as he has repeatedly stated to others - we should bear in mind: 

First, that he was recruited to kill Castro on behalf of CIA, not Kennedy on behalf of the Mob. 

Second, if asked who in CIA recruited him [and if shown photos by the HSCA, as he was shown by Cuban DGI], he would have picked photos of a man whom Cubela maintains was in Paris in September 1963.  That man was instrumental in arranging the plots against Castro, according to Cubela.  His name will be familiar to you, Tim: David Morales.  If Trafficante's involvement in plots against Castro makes him a suspect in the Kennedy assassination, why does the same not hold true for David Morales?  What double standard in your evaluation of evidence makes the mobster suspect, but not the CIA officer? 

Cubela had been in contact with Valery Kostikov, of Dept 13 of the KGB (dealing with "wet operations") as had Lee Harvey Oswald. 

And your unimpeachable source for this is presumably the same unimpeachable source for the Oswald-Kostikov connection?  That would be CIA?

Trafficante admitted to his attorney his involvement in the assassination.  And there is evidence that a Trafficante gang member whacked Rosselli who was probably privy to the plot, and probably was the person who called the Belli law firm from the Desert Inn in Vegas (his usual stomping ground, and where he was when he was informed of the assassination).

Tim, that's two "probably"s in the same sentence.  What are we to conclude about the quality of evidence that comes with such qualifiers?

The connections are clear, and ominous.

Oh.  Apparently we have different evidentiary standards.

Well, in keeping with your application of qualifiers, let's say "probably clear" and "probably ominous," "if" CIA can be trusted, and "if the 'evidence' they provided is true," which is how you began this post.

If each of these facts is true

There's that sneaky "if" again...  Funny how that word keeps cropping up in connection with evidence we're told is "clear" and "ominous."

(and no one on this Forum has ever come up with reason to dispute them other than that some of the facts came from CIA sources)

"Some of the facts came from CIA sources?"  Try all.  You seem to have a blind spot for who provided you with the details you find so compelling.  You presumably find the Agency above suspicion, as you've repeatedly reminded us.  You'll forgive those of us who demur for our unwillingness to be quite so sanguine as you appear to be.

then, given Fidel's Sept 7 warning to the Kennedys, and given the history of our repeated attempts to kill Castro, the case that Fidel acted to save his own life is, I submit, rather compelling.

Again, I see what you  previously insisted was a "threat" has now been downgraded to a "warning."  That's some small progress, I guess. 

As for the "history of our repeated attempts to kill Castro;" the word "our" makes it seem as though this was an authorized action, undertaken in the nation's name.  It was not "our repeated attempts to kill Castro."  It was CIA's repeated attempts to kill Castro.  There is a difference, despite decades-long attempts by CIA to make this point indistinguishable.

I have yet to see anyone post anything close to evidence (such as the above) to show that anyone connected with the CIA, FBI or LBJ was in Dallas or had anything to do with the assassination.  Nothing.  Nada.  Except for the alleged Wallace fingerprint.

Come on, folks. I've given you some (not all) of my evidence.

No, you've given us some [not all] of CIA's "evidence."  You treat these as shocking new revelations, despite the fact that they've been in the public domain for 20 years.  [Even longer, actually; though when dealt with by HSCA and other panels before it, the names were deleted.]  Surely, if these facts were at all persuasive, they would have gained some currency in the 30 years since CIA floated them.

Now is your opportunity.

Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. 

Beware of too much bluster, buster.  It'll come back to bite your bum, as blowback often does.

Where is your evidence?

How many times do we get to use words like "if" and "probably?"  Are we allowed to supply only "evidence" provided to us by a chief suspect in the crime, as you like to do?  Even newspapers hold out for confirmation from a second source before they publish.  If your assertions are true, surely CIA had no trouble locating verification for these claims in the files of the US INS, FBI, ATF, Mexican immigration department, Cubana flight manifests, etc.  When can we expect you to post those? 

How do you explain a member of DGI being in Dallas the day of the assassination? 

You began by calling him a "reported" DGI operative.  Now you show no such reservation, despite giving no rationale for having dropped that qualifier in the interim. 

As I've pointed out before, a reputed OAS assassin was picked up and deported from Dallas immediately after the assassination.  Does that mean the French killed Kennedy?  [You might also wish to study the extent to which CIA recruited disaffected OAS men to train Cuban exiles.  But, then you'd have to entertain unwelcome ideas about what such an OAS assassin was doing in Dallas, which is clearly antithetical to your bias.

Did Miguel go to Dallas to watch a Cowboys training session? 

Maybe he did.  Have you demonstrated otherwise?

Come on; the evidence is there and it all fits together.

Yes, it does.  Just not the way you say it does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert:

You took my "If" in my recitation of facts as a sign of weakness. It was not so intended.

It was merely my acknowledgement that I an relying on seconday sources. I do not know the basis for the assertion, for instance, that Miguelito was a member of Cuban intelligence. I would prefer to know the basis for each and every assertion. On the other hand, even if the books included documentary references for such assertions, how would I be able to personally assess the credibility

of the source?

To a certain extent one must rely on the reputation and integrity of the authors. For instance, Trento is, to the best of my knowledge, a well-respected investigative reporter (quoted with approval, for instance, by Dick Russell) and the CIA hates his book. One can also take some comfort if the same factual assertion is made by several authors. (Although authors can duplicate errors, as I have pointed out elsewhere.) One can also take comfort if the author cites a publicly archived document to support an assertion of fact--it is at least subject to some type of verification.

But this is true of all assassination research. Many people who consider that agents of the CIA participated in the assassination place a great deal of stock in the Veciana assertion that he saw LHO with Maurice Bishop, who was controlling him and through him Alpha 66. But how do we know if Veciana is telling the truth? For all we know there never was a Maurice Bishop! Or, if there was indeed a Bishop Veciana was making up the LHO story to create trouble for Bishop due to a disagreement they'd had. And for all we know Veciana was a double agent for Castro (by his admission his cousin was a member of Cuban intelligence).

So caution ought to be exercised with respect to many stories about the assassination.

On the other hand, it is, IMO, ridiculous to dismiss every assertion that is ttraced back to a CIA source. This seems to be your position.

Now let me address some of your points.

I wrote: "Traffficante was a friend of Rolando Cubela, but he denied that under oath before the HSCA."

You wrote: "Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing that because Trafficante denied it, we should assume it to be true." You stand corrected, Robert. Cubela, as I am sure you know, helped arrange for Trafficante's temporary release from Trescornia so he could attend his daughter's wedding.

Jose Aleman also reported Cubela's association with Trafficante. My point about Trafficante's denial of the association with Cubela in his sworn testimony before the HSCA is simply that Trafficante apparently thought his association with Cubela important enough (i.e. sinister enough) to commit perjury in denying it. I am sorry if did not make myself clear. My point is simply this (and I believe the logic

is unassailable): if Trafficante's association with Cubela was innocent, why would he lie about it (under oath)?

With respect to Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, the man who moved from Key West to Trafficante's home town of Tampa a few months before the assassination (as the assassination plot was being unfolded) (perhaps his move, and the timing of his move, from Key West to Tampa was unrelated to Trafficante's presence in Tampa and the unfolding plot--if you believe that, let me know, I've got some nice ocean-

front acreage in Arizona to sell you:

I wrote: "Gilberto exited Texas by car. He crossed the border at Nuevo Laredo on November 23, 1963, as soon as the border opened after the assassination."

You wrote: "Do tell." I do not take this sarcasm as a personal insult, but as a rhetorical devise, but, frankly, I do not see how it advances your position here. You know full well that the unusual movements of Gilberto were in fact documented in the Warren Commission. Certainly you do not deny that

Gilberto entered Mexico shortly after the border re-opened the day after the assassination, do you?

You assert, rightly, that Gilberto's fingerprints were not found on the assassin weapon. Gee, Robert, even though he was Cuban, maybe he was smart enough to wear gloves, or maybe the police never found the actual murder weapon. (I mean, since you are not, I take it, a proponent of the LN scenario, I assume you must surmise at least two weapons, only one of which was found. ) By the way, if you are aware of a weapon bearing the fingerprints of a CIA officer, now is

surely an appropriate time to disclose your evidence.

You ask rhetorically if Gilberto's face is "clearly depicted in Dealey Plaza Photos". Well, come on, Robert, if it is my scenario that it was Gilberto shooting at JFK from one of the places from where the shots originated, why would I expect to see him in a crowd watching the motorcade pass by? If you failed to grasp my position, let me attempt to make it perfectly clear (apologies to RN): it is not my position that Fidel sent Gilberto from Key West to Dallas to watch the motorcade and wave Fidel's greeting to JFK ; it is my position that Fidel sent Gilberto from Key West to Dallas to shoot and KILL John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Why, then, would I expect to find his face in a photograph of parade bystanders, when he was in the TSBD, or perhaps the Dal-Tex Building?

Who knows. . . maybe Gilberto was not in the TSBD or Dal-Tex. Perhaps he was the "Badge Man". Have you ever compared the nose on the "badge man" with Gilberto's nose (as you know, his photo is in "Live By the Sword"). That nose looks awfully familiar!

Your rhetorical question about your Aunt Fanny does not deserve the dignity of a response an answer (unless you posit that her Mah Jong partners were two beared Cuban brothers named Fidel and Raul) As you know, Robert, I'm not the only one in addition to Gus Russo who found the movements of Gilberto around the time of the assassination troubelesome. So did the entire membership of the

HSCA. Your reference to your Aunt Fanny, IMO, wins you exactly zero debating points here.

You state that "Cubela was recruited to kill Castro on behalf of the CIA, not Kennedy on behalf of the Mob." I am not sure I understand your point here, but I also point out your facts are off:

it was Cubela who approached the CIA in Brazil on September 7, 1963 about his willingness to "eliminate" (i.e. kill) Castro on the very same day that Castro warned the U.S. political leaders of the dangers of participating in further plans to "eliminate" Cuban leaders.

The CIA did not, as I understand it, approach Cubela in 1963. Cubela, on his initiative, aopproached the CIA, apparently in Brazil.

Yet you seem to state that David Morales recruited Cubela to kill Castro in Paris. Do you deny what seems to be the established historical record that Cubela approached the CIA in Brazil? I am puzzled by the implication of your post that Morales, in Paris, recruited Cubela to kill Castro.

You state: "If Trafficante's involvement in the plots against Castro makes him a suspect in the Kennedy assassination, why does the same not hold true for David Morales? What double standard in your evaluation of evidence makes the mobster suspect but not the CIA officer?" Boy, do those two sentences merit an answer!

"Mobsters"--"gangsters"--"mafioso", call them what you may, kill people. Heck, it's a part of their job description. Not so CIA officers. Granted, Richard Bissell (who, as John pointed out in a different thread, was an early supporter of JFK) initiated murder plots against several foreign heads of state, and only later disclosed them to his boss Dulles (in round-about language) but so far not one member of this forum has offered any datum of evidence to show that the CIA ever plotted the murder of an American (political leader or otherwise). It is not a "double standard" to suspect a Mafia don like Trafficante is more likely to be a murderer than a CIA officer.

If you really believe that it is a "double standard" to expect a mafia don is more likely to be a murderer than a CIA officer, then I suggest, respectfully, your hatred for the CIA borders on the pathological.

Moreover, Trafficante had foreknowledge of the JFK murder (per Jose Aleman, as you know) and admiited his involvement in the assassination to his lawyer (in a conversation he knew was protected from disclosure). Can you, sir, cite me one single statement made by a CIA officer (not under the influence of alcohol) in which the CIA officer admitted either foreknowledge of or participation in the JFK assassination?

Let's go on. Jack Ruby knew Trafficante since at least 1959. I think we can agree that if Gerald Possner is wrong, JR killed LHO to silence him and JR was part of the conspiracy.

LHO may have been a participant in some manner, whether shooter or not, or may have been nothing but a patsy. So JR is probably the only person that all assassination researchers would agree was a member of the conspiracy.

As a member of organized crime (I think we can all agree he was that) JR was subject to mob discipline and could have been ordered by a mob leader to kill LHO.

Please tell me who, from the CIA, ordered JR to kill LHO and under what authority that CIA member was able to enforce that order? Do you have any basis for believing that JR had ever met David Morales, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, Ted Shackley, E Howard Hunt, Desmond Fitzgerald, Richard Helms, Allen Dulles, Tracey Barnes, or any other CIA official?

Let me make another thing clear. Trafficante is a suspect because of his connections to Cubela, Ruby, etc and his statements about the assassination both before and after it occured. He is not a suspect because he was a part of the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro.

In fact, I suspect, as many others do, that Trafficante was the reason the plots failed since he was acting as an agent for Castro in the U.S. and gave Castro advance warning of every single plot to which Trafficante was witting.

Trafficante is also a suspect because there is good evidence that a member of his Tampa organization killed Johnny Rosselli.

You ask how I know that Cubela was in contact with Kostikov. That fact is reported in the Evan Thomas book "The Very Best Men" and Thomas' journalistic integrity is beyond question. (As you know, he also wrote a highly acclaimed biography of RFK.)

So, in summary:

1. I said "If" to indicate the caution that, IMO, ought to be the characteristic

of any serious assassination researcher, regardless of who they think did it.

2. You apparently (again, I use apparently to be cautious) do NOT challenge

my conclusion that if the facts I set forth are true the conclusion that Cuban

intelligence participated in the assassination is compelling. All you do is

argue my facts because they come from the CIA. If you believe those

facts can all be true without G2 (DGI) involvement in the assassination, let me hear it. (I could use a laugh.

3. One thing that could exculpate Fidel would be, for instance, evidence of

inolvement by others e.g. CIA agents. So far neither you nor anyone else

posted any solid evidence of involvement by:

a) Southern racists

LBJ (granted, he had motive and there is that pesky fingerprint

that may or may not belong to Mac Wallace)

c) oil barons

d) J. Edgar Hoover

e) One or more CIA agents

f) Madame Nhu

Am I open to evidence that someone else did it? Emphatically, yes. If a conspirator other than Castro was judged guilty would I personally volunteer to participate in the scoudrel's execution? A hearty yes. Would the strongest supporter of Kennedy take any greater satisfaction than me in the apprehension of the guilty parties? I strongly doubt it (other than JFK's family members). But if the evidence is there, let me have it please.

Do I believe the CIA, through its multiple plots to kill Castro, caused the death of JFK even though neither it or its agents plotted his death? Yes, indeed.

Castro had the strongest POSSIBLE reason to orchestrate the assassination (self-preservation.).

There were at least two Cubans in Texas the day of the assassination (one in Dallas), both of whom fled to Havana shortly after

the assassination (one the very same day). Cubela was a double agent for Castro. Cubela was in contact with both Trafficante and Kostikov. Trafficante knew Ruby for years. Trafficantte predicted the assassination

and admitted involvement after the fact.

As the saying goes, it does not take a Werner von Braun to connect the dots!

Edited January 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

I'm curious about something. Former JFK and LBJ advance man Martin Underwood told the ARRB that former CIA station chief Win Scott told him in Mexico City in 1966 that a plane arrived in Mexico City from Havana on 11/22/63, and that one passenger got off and boarded another plane headed for Dallas, and that the CIA identified the passenger as Fabian Escalante, the now retired head of Cuban security.

Were you aware of this? I've been wondering why you have not included it in your argument that Castro did it.

It's in chapter 7 of the ARRB final report:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part10.htm

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron,

No, I did not know that. It is very interesting.

From what I hear, Escalante is a very intelligent man.

Obviously Castro dodged many of the plots against him because he had excellent intelligence.

In your opinion, is Underwood a reliable source? As I recall, he has made some statements that others have disputed but I do not recall what the controversy was about. I think it related to statements attributed to him re Judith Campbell.

Thanks again,

Edited January 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

I don't know much about Underwood, but I certainly don't consider Win Scott to be a reliable source.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

There is some intriguing information about Scott in Russell's book about Nagell. I assume you are familiar with it.

[Tim Gratz]

To my friend Robert:

I wrote:

Gilberto exited Texas by car. He crossed the border at Nuevo Laredo on November 23, 1963, as soon as the border reopened after the assassination.

You replied:

"Do tell. And that car was presumably seen in Dealey Plaza, was it? "

Indeed! My reliable sources in the CIA say Gilberto was the passenger in a Rambler station wagon being driven by Michael Paine. Rumor has it (not confirmed by CIA) Gilberto was picked up on the Mexican side and transported to Mexico City on a motorcycle driven by Che Guevera.

Edited January 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

To: Robert Charles-Dunne:

I wrote:

I have yet to see anyone post anything close to evidence (such as the above) to show that anyone connected with the CIA, FBI or LBJ was in Dallas or had anything to do with the assassination. Nothing. Nada. Except for the alleged Wallace fingerprint.

Come on, folks. I've given you some (not all) of my evidence.

Now is your opportunity.

Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

You wrote:

Beware of too much bluster, buster. It'll come back to bite your bum, as blowback often does.

"Blowback"--an interesting term. Did you know Fidel himself once used it in an interview with Arthur Miller, refering to the CIA plots against his lefe.

I wonder what he was trying to tell us!

[Dawn Meredith]

George Wallace (failed) and John Lennon can be added to the list of political assassinations, with the beneficiary as usual being the U.S. government at the time.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________________

I totally agree Ron. Not much has been written on Lennon's murder as a conspiracy. But Fenton Bressler's "Who Killed John Lennon" is a MOST interesting work.

Dawn

[Don Jeffries]

I can't believe we're seriously arguing the possibility that Castro was the power behind the JFK assassination. As the always insightful Robert-Charles Dunne has pointed out here so well, everything tells us that Castro would have preferred JFK to any potential successor and had no motive to kill him. I reject this theory on the same basis that I reject the theory, held by many here, that some consortium of "anti-Castro" and extreme right-wing forces were behind the assassination. In each case, I think the nature of the ensuing coverup proves that those who killed JFK were powerful enough to not only control the entire establishment press in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, but powerful enough to control them still, over 40 years later. I have pointed out that no "anti-Castro" group or members of right-wing fringe groups have ever had this kind of power, and obviously Fidel Castro never had this kind of power.

[Tim Gratz]

Don,

I apprciate your thoughts and your perspective is interesting.

Brief comments.

The cover-up may have been orchestrated by different people and for different reasons than the assassination. It depends upon whether you subscribe to theories e.g body alteration. (See thread "Why the Cover-up").

I recently read most of Holland's "The Assassination Tapes" and it interestingly shows the mental processes LBJ went through in the establishment of the WC. At first he wanted a Texas Board of Inquiry conducted by the Texas AG, and was upset at editorial calls for a national commission. He fiinally decided a national commission was better than multiple congressional investigations. The book goes on to describe his consultations and thoughts re who should be on the WC. It was RFK who suggested Allen Dulles, and Robert McNamara who suggested Gerald Ford. He had to clear congressional appointments with the party leadership. He wanted to get away from Sen Eastland because Eastland and staff were too diggedly anti-Communist.

With respect to Castro wanted to maintain JFK as president, Castro had every right to believe that RFK was plotting his murder (which is at least possible). In addition there is substantial evidence that the Kennedys wanted to remove Castro before the 1964 elections.

Demonstrably, for whatever reason, LBJ wound down the Kennedys' war against Castro. No question about that. He was more interested ikn fighting the Commies 10,000 miles away than the Commies 90 miles from Key West.

With respect to whether JFK wanted to make peace with Fidel or kill him, the easy answer is the old adage "Actions speak lounder than words." JFK may have told Jean Daniel a few encouraging words to whisper in Fidel's ear, but Nestor Sanchez gave Cubela a pen to put deadly poison into Fidel's bloodstreeam. And, according to what Des Fitzgerald told Cubela, the pen was compliments of RFK. A good bit of advise to you and Mr. Charles-Dunne: never break bread with someone who is secretly plotting your murder. You may not live to regret it!

Edited January 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Don Jeffries]

Don,

I apprciate your thoughts and your perspective is interesting.

Brief comments.

The cover-up may have been orchestrated by different people and for different reasons than the assassination.  It depends upon whether you subscribe to theories e.g body alteration. (See thread "Why the Cover-up").

How could Fidel Castro get anyone at CBS, ABC & NBC to lie about the murder of JFK for over 40 years? What hold would this tinpot dictator have on the likes of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, etc.? These establishment journalists have to know how impossible the official explanation is; why would they continue to knowingly lie, as Jennings did on ABC's fantastic disinfo special in 2003? Was Castro powerful enough in the offices of the Washington Post to get editor Ben Bradlee, a supposedly close friend of JFK's, to oversee his newspaper's fraudulent coverage of this event, for decades afterwards?

I recently read most of Holland's "The Assassination Tapes" and it interestingly shows the mental processes LBJ went through in the establishment of the WC.  At first he wanted a Texas Board of Inquiry conducted by the Texas AG, and was upset at editorial calls for a national commission.  He fiinally decided a national commission was better than multiple congressional investigations.  The book goes on to describe his consultations and thoughts re who should be on the WC.  It was RFK who suggested Allen Dulles, and Robert McNamara who suggested Gerald Ford.  He had to clear congressional appointments with the party leadership.  He wanted to get away from Sen Eastland because Eastland and staff were too diggedly anti-Communist.

I have never heard that RFK suggested Dulles. That flies in the face of all logic. Keep in mind that in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, RFK was in a state of shock and not very likely to suggest anything, especially the appointment of someone his brother fired after the Bay of Pigs. Holland, like all LNers, is arguing a virtually indefensible point. What was Holland's source for the statement that RFK suggested Dulles?

With respect to Castro wanted to maintain JFK as president, Castro had every right to believe that RFK was plotting his murder (which is at least possible).  In addition there is substantial evidence that the Kennedys wanted to remove Castro before the 1964 elections.

Demonstrably, for whatever reason, LBJ wound down the Kennedys' war against Castro.  No question about that.  He was more interested ikn fighting the Commies 10,000 miles away than the Commies 90 miles from Key West.

You have a point there, the only one in your favor, IMHO. Unlike the "anti-Castro" theory, it is undeniable that the attempts to oust Castro stopped after the assassination. That's not enough for me to buy into your theory. I maintain that the nature and length of the coverup proves that the most powerful forces in our society had JFK killed and are continuing the coverup.

With respect to whether JFK wanted to make peace with Fidel or kill him, the easy answer is the old adage "Actions speak lounder than words."  JFK may have told Jean Daniel a few encouraging words to whisper in Fidel's ear, but Nestor Sanchez gave Cubela a pen to put deadly poison into Fidel's bloodstreeam.  And, according to what Des Fitzgerald told Cubela, the pen was compliments of RFK.  A good bit of advise to you and Mr. Charles-Dunne:  never break bread with someone who is secretly plotting your murder.  You may not live to regret it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>