Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[James Richards]

The man that Tony Cuesta claimed had been one of the gunman that killed JFK. Eladio del Valle was himself murdered on 22nd February, 1967. (John Simkin)

John,

Did Cuesta claim del Valle as a gunman or did he just say that he was involved with the assassination?

James

[Tim Gratz]

John,

If we KNEW who killed JFK we would proably also KNOW who killed del Valle.

del Valle was killed, as you say, after he reported that Cubela was a double agent and was friendly with Santo Trafficante (who, as you know, later admitted his participation in the JFK assassination and had also claimed preknowledge of a planned assassination to Jose Aleman.

And let me set the record straight. Correct me if I am wrong.

It is my position that JFK was killed by agents of Cuban intelligence, probably including a man named Miguel. The alleged statement by Cuesta comes not from Cuesta's lips: it is a statement attributed to Cuesta by Fabian Escalante.

And who was Fabian Escalante? As you know, he was the head of Cuban intelligence. That's right: Miguel's boss!

Gordon Winslow was at the conference in Nassau at which Escalante made that statement. Winslow had the presence of mind to ask Escalante for documents supporting some of his statements. Escalante hemmed and hawed and refused to produce such statements.

For that reason, in addition to its inherent implausability, Winslow disbelieves Escalante's statement about Cuesta's "confession".

Hmm. Why do you supposed the head of Castro's intelligence might stonewall when backed into a corner by Winslow, a corner that exposed his lie?

As the saying goes, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that question. If Cuban intelligence was behind the assassination, Escalante was in it up to his elbows.

And del Valle was killed when he was trying to expose the Cubela/Trafficante association. And let's not forget another person with whom Cubela was communicating in the period leading up to the Kennedy assassination: Valirey Kostikov.

I agree with you del Valle was probably killed because of his knowledge. But remember what knowledge he was communicating to LE before his death.

Is there anybody who refutes that Winslow properly states what happened when he pressed Escalante for access to Cuban documents to verify Escalante's story?

[John Simkin]

Did Cuesta claim del Valle as a gunman or did he just say that he was involved with the assassination?

I accept your correction.

[Tim Gratz]

John:

Thank you.

It is certainly POSSIBLE that Cuesta made the statement to Escalante.

I just think we need to remember that Escalante is himself a possible suspect and that Winslow had good reasons to doubt his statement.

I believe there is an actual transcript of the proceeding in which Winslow is asking Escalante for access to Cuban documents re the assassination and Escalante stonewall on his web-site, cuban-exile.com (in case someone wants to read the actual colloquy between Winslow and Escalante).

Conspiracy theorists (all of us with few exceptions) are rightly suspicious when our government refuses to produce documents related to the assassination. We should, I submit, be equally suspicious when the Cuban government also refuses requests for complete disclosure.

Edited January 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Gordon Winslow was at the conference in Nassau at which Escalante made that statement.  Winslow had the presence of mind to ask Escalante for documents supporting some of his statements.  Escalante hemmed and hawed and refused to produce such statements.

For that reason, in addition to its inherent implausability, Winslow disbelieves Escalante's statement about Cuesta's "confession".

Hmm.  Why do you supposed the head of Castro's intelligence might stonewall when backed into a corner by Winslow, a corner that exposed his lie?

Did you really expect Escalante to provide a written confession from his pocket? In fact, Escalante explained that Tony Cuesta did not reveal this information as a result of his interrogation. As you probably know, Cuesta only told him the story just before he left Cuba. It was a reward for the great medical treatment he had received in Cuba. Cuesta was also probably aware that he had been set-up by being sent to Cuba in the first-place. (The Cuban secret police were waiting for him and Herminio Diaz Garcia when he arrived on the mission).

You then go on from making the comment about Escalante not being able to provide the evidence to saying that Winslow had “exposed his lie”. I don’t follow this logic. It seems to me a pure case of prejudice on your part.

As you know, this argument is not really about the provision of physical evidence like written confessions (anyway, what would that prove, you would just say Cuesta was tortured into confessing). When things are committed to paper they are quickly destroyed. What happened to the manuscript that Cuesta and Dunkin were working on?

The reason why I disagree with your theory about how JFK was assassinated by KGB/Castro is about political logic. It does not matter how many confessions the CIA provide to support the idea that the communists did it, I, and most other people who know anything about the political situation in 1963, will refuse to believe it.

Could you just give me just one logical reason why the KGB and Castro would want to kill JFK?

[Tim Gratz]

Motive of Castro: Save his life (it worked)

John, if I tried to kill you a dozen times, police refused to help you, you gave me a final warning, and I did it again, you might decide to "take the law in your own hands" since law enforcement could not protect your life. Castro was in a very similar issue. You think the UN was going to help him?

Motive of the KGB hard-liners: to get rid of those peace-niks, Kennedy and Khruschev

Motives of KGB hard-liners were not neccesarily dissimiliar to US militarists who would also look upon disfavor re thawing of US-Soviet relations.

The political situation in 1963 was we continued to try to kill Fidel. I am quite sure he caught 6-12 CIA-trained assassin would bes on Oct 31, 1963 and put them on Cuban TV. Plus we continued sabotage efforts into Cuba.

And re political situation world-wide, do you dispute that Kennedy and Khruschev were working to "end the Cold War?" Do you suppose there were KGB elements who wanted it continued?

Got to run now, more tonight!!

Thanks

Edited January 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

Motive of Castro:  Save his life  (it worked)

John, if I tried to kill you a dozen times, police refused to help you, you gave me a final warning, and I did it again, you might decide to "take the law in your own hands" since law enforcement could not protect your life.  Castro was in a very similar issue.  You think the UN was going to help him?   

Motive of the KGB hard-liners:    to get rid of those peace-niks, Kennedy and Khruschev

Motives of KGB hard-liners were not neccesarily dissimiliar to US militarists who would also look upon disfavor re thawing of US-Soviet relations.

The political situation in 1963 was we continued to try to kill Fidel.  I am quite sure he caught 6-12 CIA-trained assassin would bes on Oct 31, 1963 and put them on Cuban TV.  Plus we continued sabotage efforts into Cuba.

And re political situation world-wide, do you dispute that Kennedy and Khruschev were working to "end the Cold War?"  Do you suppose there were KGB elements who wanted it continued?

Got to run now, more tonight!! 

Thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________

Tim:

It was suggested on another thread that you read an article by Jim DiEugenio re Exner mess. I suggest you actually read the entire book, The Assassinations, JimDiEugenio and Lisa Pease. You spend an awful lot of time on this site pushing the Castro did it and other scenerios, then you spend a lot of time reading the great responses of John and the WONDERFUL Mr Dunne (sp?). I see that you and he are in agreement that Gary Underhill did NOT "commit suicide", with the wrong hand., so that's progress.

I have unsuccessfully tried to post a portion of the speech Castro made on 11/23/63. It is very long so I was only trying to scan the first page and then 3 other pages, as they are relevent to show that not only did Castro not kill JFK, he pretty much knew who did. (But my scanned copy was not printable for some reason, connected to a software problem/feature my computer seeems to lack). The full speech can be found in Dr Martin Schotz book "History Will Not Absolve Us".

If you are turly interested in truth and a healthy debate I would love to hear your response after reading this speech and JIm and Lisa's book. Both can be ordered online, or directly from the author.

Just a suggestion...

Dawn

[Chris Cox]

My two cent digression

Read pgs 142-44 in Turner’s Rearview Mirror, for his recent writing on EDV and other fascinating stories. A rivetting read.

Absolutely, Tim. History works both ways. Neither country wants to air their dirty laundry in public domain. Those of us piecing together family stories are testament to this. No help forthcoming from either the Hill or Havana. You’d think each country would enjoy the opportunity to embarrass the other, but not so! Sort of like “pulling teeth” but we’re not even allowed in the dentist’s office—ha!

The accommodation plan is secure and we are left to wonder how Castro has remained so vital in all of it. So much death on both sides and this is the result. Only Cuesta could tell his side and he’s gone. Perhaps a deal was made, purely fabricated or it’s all true and I’m mistaken.

I tend to concur with Gordon's position. It seems too simple, suspicious, years later with a willing audience to go to a conference and have the beans spilled about confessions-- esp. when the parties Cuesta and Escalante are rooted in intelligence. Both are liars “by trade.” Due respects to those in this business, it is a fact of the work. Others I’ve talked to who attended Nassau are of two minds on this Cuesta issue.

So Tony gets a street named after him near the dog track, a local Miami hero and Escalante gets a little demotion from Fidel as I understand it.

Paul Wolf has done some fabulous research on the murder of Colombia’s “JFK” Gaitan. He’s included the “confession” of John Mepples Espirrito’s (US intel operator) involvement therein. Gloria, Gaitan’s daughter was present in Cuba when officials taped the confession. Hardliners in US would loved to pin the death on Fidel who met with Rafael del Pino and Gaitan shortly before. Castro beat them to the punch you could say.

Just food for thought on this issue of confession.

[James Richards]

As far as Cuesta's confession goes, I think we need a little perspective here. Even if Cuesta didn't confess, guys like Herminio Diaz Garcia, Eladio del Valle and Cuesta himself would have to be seriously looked at.

A proper investigation in late 1963 and 1964 would have revealed Cuesta as a prime suspect. A proper investigation would have revealed Cuesta's connections and a proper investigation into Oswald would have revealed his connections to guys like Leopoldo, Angel, Hernandez, Garcia and indeed Cuesta. IMO.

The FBI and the Warren Commission dropped the ball and it is left up to private citizens 40 odd years later to try and piece things together. We should not focus on any confession per se, but instead conduct direct research which will either confirm suspicions or reveal disinformation.

IMO, Cuesta was not disinformation, Felipe Vidal Santiago was not disinformation and Herminio Diaz Garcia is a vital clue to putting the whole assassination together.

James

[Larry Hancock]

As usual, I'll back James point about cutting to the chase on any real investigation. There are multiple witnesses out of both New Orleans and Dallas who reported observing Lee Oswald in association with mysterous latins (call them Mexicans, call them Cubans) who were not known to the observers. And the individuals in question were clearly not people well known in either exile community. The WC was only made aware of one of those incidents, the Odio incident, and took it seriously enough to demand an explanation from the FBI. The FBI cooked up a bogus explanation and fed that to the WC, at the same time its own internal documents now clearly show that the FBI kew their response to the WC to be false since both Sylvia and her sister were shown photos of the men whose names were given to the WC and stated they were not the visitors.

Its always reasonable to be skeptical about confessions but if you just literally make a stack of individuals reported (and reported prior to the issuance of the WC report itself) to be seen in association with with Oswald in the three months prior to the assaination it is going to paint a very clear picture of the direction a serious and open endedl criminal investigation should have gone.

-- Larr

[James Richards]

There are multiple witnesses out of both New Orleans and Dallas who reported observing Lee Oswald in association with mysterous latins (call them Mexicans, call them Cubans) who were not known to the observers. And the individuals in question were clearly not people well known in either exile community. (Larry Hancock)

I think Larry makes a very important point here. These guys circling Oswald were not well known amongst militant ranks. It is my opinion that we must go back to July of 1963 and investigate the minor influx of Cuban ghouls who came into Mexico City before continuing on to the United States. Herminio Diaz Garcia was one of these guys, Angel Casas was another and I would put money on Leopoldo being one as well.

I also believe that we will find these guys connected to Trafficante back in the Havana casino days, most likely employees, most likely heavy duty thugs with nothing more than mercenary motivations.

Just my opinion of course.

James

[Tim Gratz]

To: Dawn (and Robert)

Dawn, I hate to disillusion you, but, after doing some additional research regarding the Gary Underhill story it is my understanding that it is far from clear that he was a CIA employee. Robert does a good job of holding my "feet to the fire" requesting proof of factual assertions, etc. so now it is my turn. What proof exists that Underhill was a CIA employee? I understand he allegedly told his story to friends from New York (only?). Does anyone know when they came forward with the story? Did they report it immediately after his death when it could best be investigated, or did they wait several years? (And, if so, why the delay?) Also, as I previously suggested, there are parts of his alleged story that do not "ring true". For one thing, as you know, the CIA, and all effective intelligence organizations are famous for comparmentalization. If there was a clique or group within the CIA that was planning an assassination, why, for heaven's sake, would any of its members "spill the beans" to a person not involved in the plot? Makes no sense whatsoever. Second, if Underhill had somehow discovered a serious scheme to kill the President, why would he not immediately report it to proper authorities? In fact, why would he not report it to the authorities even after the fact? Only the authorities could protect his life if indeed it was in jeopardy. Two alternatives suggest themselves. One, delusional or not, he invented the entire story. Second, if he had indeed heard something before the assassination, he obviously did not take it as a serious plot. just loose talk, or he would have reported it. After the assassination, he decided it must have been serious after all.

But the biggest issue is proof that Underhill was indeed, as people are claiming, a CIA agent. It is my understanding that is far from clear.

Also, I would note that I had repeatedly requested from Robert any evidence he had of CIA involvement in the assassination. All that has been offered so far is the Underhill story. I agree the story merits close examination. So let us do so. Let me try to list the questions I have re the story:

(1) What was Underhill's actual employment in November of 1963?

(2) What proof exists that he was an employee of, or associated with, the CIA in 1963?

(3) List every one to whom he told his story after the assassination.

(4) List the occupation of everyone to whom he told his story.

(5) List the first time any of his friends reported his story and to whom did they report it?

(6) What evidence exists concerning a discrepancy between the side of the entry wound to Underhill's head and whether he was right handed or left handed? Is the police investigation of his death, which concluded it was a suicide, a matter of public record?

[Tim Gratz]

To Dawn:

You wrote:

"I have unsuccessfully tried to post a portion of the speech Castro made on 11/23/63. It is very long so I was only trying to scan the first page and then 3 other pages, as they are relevent to show that not only did Castro not kill JFK, he pretty much knew who did."

Dawn, could you summarize the salient points of this long speech?

How could Castro do anything in a speech to prove his innocence? As an attorney, you are familiar with the term a "self-serving statement". What good is a denial from a suspect? A denial might be effective if backed up by an alibi, but in this case an alibi proves nothing since no one, of course, asserts that Fidel himself was a shooter.

How, pray tell, did Castro know who did it the day after the assassination? Do you believe he had foreknowledge of the assassination? Again, I have not read the speech but it strikes me that his claim that he kne who did it is, if he himself orchestrated it, deliberate disinformation, or, if in fact he had nothing to do with it, mere hyperbole. Unless you can suggest how he knew who did it.

Heck, I give Castro credit for great intelligence, but great minds have been researching this case for forty years and no one, myself included, can say with certainty, who did it. And Castro solved the case in a day?

[Tim Gratz]

To James (and all):

Your comments on the possible connections of the mysterious Cubans to Trafficante's old organization in Cuba are interesting indeed.

I am fairly convinced that Trafficante played an important role in the planning.

And he was at the apex of a lot of people or organizations who had motivation to kill Kennedy.

It is reported, of course, that he may have made an alliance with Castro when he left Cuba. In this case his connections with Cubela could be significant because I believe Cubela was acting on Castro's behalf in the fall of 1963.

Of course, he also had connections with anti-Castro Cubans.

He was closely associated with Carlos Marcello, who, of course, was livid with rage against the Kennedys for many reasons, including his illegal (is that too strong a word) removal from the US in 1961.

And he was connected to Jimmy Hoffa. As you know, Trafficante's lawyer reported that in early 1963 he carried a message from Hoffa to Trafficante and Marcello that he, Hoffa, wanted them to kill Kennedy on his behalf.

So if indeed Trafficante was involved in the assassination, he could probably expect thanks (at least) from several different sources.

[John Simkin]

Motive of Castro:  Save his life  (it worked)

John, if I tried to kill you a dozen times, police refused to help you, you gave me a final warning, and I did it again, you might decide to "take the law in your own hands" since law enforcement could not protect your life.  Castro was in a very similar issue.  You think the UN was going to help him?   

You write about Castro if he is a leader of some criminal gang. Castro’s main concern in 1963 was to stay in power (in fact, it has always been his main concern since taking office in 1959).

Remember, he is ruling an island off the coast of the United States. He knows, that any time the United States wants to, it can send in its armed forces and overthrow him. Luckily for him, JFK is a president who cares about the way he is seen in the rest of the world. He has shown during the Bay of Pigs fiasco that he is unwilling to give the order to invade.

Therefore it is Castro’s interests to keep JFK in power. He has no idea how LBJ will react if he becomes president. Nor would the other possible alternative, Barry Goldwater, look very appealing.

Castro is the last person in the world who wants JFK dead. In fact, I would claim that the main reason he had agents inside America was to try and keep JFK alive. It would not surprise me that in the future we will discover that Castro was supplying information to JFK that his life was in danger. His agents had infiltrated the various anti-Castro groups in America and if they knew about the assassination, this would have been passed back to Castro.

Motive of the KGB hard-liners: to get rid of those peace-niks, Kennedy and Khruschev

Motives of KGB hard-liners were not necessarily dissimilar to US militarists who would also look upon disfavor re thawing of US-Soviet relations.

The political situation in 1963 was we continued to try to kill Fidel.  I am quite sure he caught 6-12 CIA-trained assassin would bes on Oct 31, 1963 and put them on Cuban TV.  Plus we continued sabotage efforts into Cuba.

And re political situation world-wide, do you dispute that Kennedy and Khruschev were working to "end the Cold War?"  Do you suppose there were KGB elements who wanted it continued?

The second part of your theory, that the KGB helped Castro in this plot in order to remove Khrushchev is more ridiculous than the idea that it was a lone Cuban operation.

Why would the KGB organize such a complicated strategy to get rid of Khrushchev. We now know that Yuri Andropov, head of the KGB wanted Khrushchev out. So did Leonid Brezhnev and the Politburo. In time, this would be achieved. They definitely did not have to kill JFK to make this possible. In fact, like Castro, this could be the worst thing they could do. If the American government found evidence this is what happened, they were likely to declare war on the Soviet Union. If that happened, Andropov and Brezhnev would have had no country to rule.

So, according to your story, what then do they do? They employ agents that can be linked back to both the Soviet Union and Cuba.

Do you really think Castro, Andropov and Brezhnev were political illiterates? Does it not worry you that no other member of the forum is willing to support you in promoting this theory?