Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, thank you for the thoughtful post.

The theory is that a deal was made between Trafficante and Fidel (by his agent): Trafficante would help supply intelligence information to Castro in exchange for which Castro would allow Trafficante to flow drugs into the US through Cuba. Presumably, the drugs became a bigger source of profits than the casinos had been.

Castro did not want organized crime in Cuba. Obviously he would not mind poisoning American society with drugs.

A 1961 memo from the Bureau of Narcotics (available on the cuban-exile.com website) states that there was information in the Cuban community that Trafficante was using rigged bolita games to pay Castro's intelligence agents in the US.

Many people credit this Trafficante-Castro connection, including an investigative reporter from DC named George Crile III.

So it was not that Trafficante feared Castro. Nor did he, in my opinion, fear either Giancana or Rosselli. It is my understanding when Rosselli testified before the Church Committee he would not even speak Trafficante's name.

Now I will post another thread later wondering whether the JFK assassination was a pure mob operation (essentially the Blakely-Billings scenario).

But there are indications of Cuban involvement, including the possible presence of Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza; the possibility that Cubela was a double agent reporting to Castro and Cubela's links to Trafficante. Plus the very elemental analysis that Castro (in effect) warned JFK that if he continued to try to kill him (Castro) (the same speech in which Castro called JFK "a cretin" and "the Batista of our time), that he (JFK) would not be safe--a warning made on September 7, 1963, the very same day that Cubela approached the CIA and offered to kill Castro for the US. The CIA took him up on the offer and even offered him the assurance (whether true or not) that RFK personally endorsed Cubela's murderous scheme. It is difficult, I submit, NOT to suspect a Castro plot when the JFK assassination occured in the middle of the latest CIA plot to kill Castro.

The US had been firing bullets (figuratively speaking) at Castro for years. As I said before, the real question is not whether he fired back but rather what took him so long.

[Mark Knight]

The theory is that a deal was made between Trafficante and Fidel (by his agent): Trafficante would help supply intelligence information to Castro in exchange for which Castro would allow Trafficante to flow drugs into the US through Cuba. Presumably, the drugs became a bigger source of profits than the casinos had been.

I believe that, despite my questionable level of intelligence, I found the words "theory" and "presumably" in your statement which lays the foundation for a Castro-Trafficante alliance. Perhaps my intelligence is as you suspect, because the words "theory" and "presumably" imply that this alliance is...what was that word you so detest?...SPECULATION.

but no more speculation, please!

Yeah...that's the quote.

Many people credit this Trafficante-Castro connection, including an investigative reporter from DC named George Crile III.

"Many people..." OK, Tim; at this point I've got you and Crile. Even with my questionable level of intelligence, I detect a bit of difference between "many" and "two."

Nor did he, in my opinion, fear either Giancana or Rosselli.

Could that yet be another case of SPECULATION? It appears to be so...but, y'know, the questionable level of intelligence on my part may just make that MY perception alone and not a perception shared by others.

And about Castro:

Obviously he would not mind poisoning American society with drugs.

Did Castro ever state this, or is this more SPECULATION on your part?

The US had been firing bullets (figuratively speaking) at Castro for years. As I said before, the real question is not whether he fired back but rather what took him so long.

So...if "...the real question is not whether he fired back...", then you're obviously stating that THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT CASTRO "FIRED BACK." I just see theory, presumption, and SPECULATION here...not saying it COULDN'T have happened this way, but I don't think you'd get a conviction using the standard criteria ["beyond a reasonable doubt"]. Quite ironic, as it seems you consider anyone who doubts your scenario to be UNreasonable.

So convince me, Counselor...make your case, minus the SPECULATION you claim so much to detest.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Mark Knight

[John Simkin]

Tim, as you have not replied to this point on the "Mafia did it" thread, I thought I would add it here:

People who argue for a Castro/Soviet/Mafia conspiracy have two major problems to overcome.

(1) Motive: None of the above had a good motive to want JFK dead. In fact, Castro and the Soviets had good reasons to want him left alive. LBJ knew that and was probably a major factor in why he refused to go along with the Castro/Soviet theory. He knew what the American public did not know at the time, JFK was attempting to bring the Cold War to an end. The Mafia had good reason to hate the Kennedys. However, it was no way in their interests to have the brothers assassinated. They knew that if the plot was discovered, it would have meant the end of the Mafia in the United States.

(2) Cover-Up: Castro/Soviet/Mafia did not have the power to cover-up the assassination. This includes removing and tampering with the evidence, destroying FBI and CIA files, controlling the way the American media reported the assassination, the Warren Report, smearing critics of the lone gunman theory, etc. Although the people who carried out the cover-up might not have been the ones who carried out the assassination, they are obviously connected in some way. It is the person who shows the connections between the assassination and the cover-up who will eventually solve the crime of the century.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I shall reply, but it may very well be tomorrow night.

Thanks, though, a thoughtful post deserving an equally thoughtful response.

Let me just state now that by that theory JFK is still alive because no one would shoot him because anyone who considered shooting him would know there would be great consequences if he was discovered.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

First,  I have to say that most of us who have seriously wrestled with the conspiracy make use of the type of source material which is being discussed here - in this particular case Veciana's remarks about Phillips and Veciana's cousin in the MC embassy has some real potential value.

The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source.  And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deepley involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK.  The first is to cast suspicion on Castro for JFK's murder,  that is so consistent as to be almost universal and its pretty easy to understand why.  The second is to disclaim that they really had nothing against JFK and he was OK - that's not quite as universal but its frequently said by individuals who are on record saying the exact opposite when not talking to an interviewer.

I've seen more than one interview including approaches to the FBI by exiles with stories about Castro agents in DP,  in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine.  When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness.  Reminds me of Roselli telling his media friends he could name the Castro agents involved in the hit on JFK and the only individual he eventually was forced to cite was found be found was a long term inmate in a mental hospital.

Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro.  Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent.  Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.

....OK,  so that's my estimate of the data... Larry

[Dawn Meredith]

[Larry and John:

In a nutshell!!

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Larry wrote:

Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is falsified, then Castro did it.

Not that I necessarily believe in UFOS, but if 100 people reported seeing UFOs, and 99 were delusional, but one was not, and correctly reported what he saw, then UFOS do indeed exist.

But I will add to what Larry said. There could be reports linking Castro to the assassination which were not deliberately false but were simple cases of mistaken identity. So I will amend my reply to the following:

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is either falsified or mistaken, then Castro did it.

I think Larry impliedly acknowledges there is more evidence pointing to Castro than to anyone else. Larry believes each and every such piece of evidence must be falsified. But I suspect Larry would admit there are some reports that he cannot PROVE to be false. And, as I noted above, even if only ONE such report is true, then Castro did it.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Larry wrote:

Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is falsified, then Castro did it.

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is either falsified or mistaken, then Castro did it.

. But I suspect Larry would admit there are some reports that he cannot PROVE to be false. And, as I noted above, even if only ONE such report is true, then Castro did it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So this is the level that this "Debate" has reached May I humbly suggest that we stop wasting or time on this nonsence, and seek more fertile ground. From now,every time I see the names Files, or Castro mentioned, I shall choose to contribute to another thread, its either this, or my sanity,which hangs by a thread anyway.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[John Simkin]

In July, 1967, a British journalist, Comer Clark, interviewed Fidel Castro. During the conversation Castro told Clark that Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City in September, 1963. The first time he told Cuban officials he wanted to work for them (Cuba). However, he was unwilling to discuss what he meant by this. The second time he said he wanted to “free Cuba from American imperialism”. Then he said “somebody ought to shoot that President Kennedy… maybe I’ll try to do it.”

When he heard this information Castro thought there was two possible explanations for Oswald’s behaviour: (1) Oswald was mentally unstable and was not to be taken seriously: (2) Oswald was part of some right-wing conspiracy that was looking for an opportunity to persuade the US army to invade Cuba. Castro came to the conclusion that he was mentally unstable. After the assassination of JFK he realised he was part of a right-wing conspiracy.

Castro’s story is actually supported by none other than J. Edgar Hoover. On 17th June, 1964, Hoover sent by special courier, a top-secret letter to Lee J. Rankin of the Warren Commission. The letter said “through a confidential source which has furnished reliable information in the past, we have been advised of some statements made by Fidel Castro, Cuban Prime Minister, concerning the assassination of President Kennedy.”

This letter was classified and even when it was released in 1976 what Castro said was deleted. The full details of this letter was not published until the appearance of Daniel Schorr’s book, Clearing the Air (1977). Schorr discovered that the letter basically repeated what Castro had told Comer Clark in 1967. However, it went into more detail about what he believed was a right-wing conspiracy to provoke an invasion of Cuba.

[Ron Ecker]

Here's a link to a review of a book entitled The Castro Obsession, referring of course to the Kennedy obsession with getting rid of Castro.

Sam Halpern is a CIA agent whom I've never previously heard of, unless my memory is failing me.

There's also an Operation Mongoose scheme that I hadn't previously heard of, but I like it: spread the word of a "second coming of Christ, who is anti-Castro."

http://washingtontimes.com/books/20050723-092118-7370r.htm

[John Simkin]

Sam Halpern is a CIA agent whom I've never previously heard of, unless my memory is failing me.  

http://washingtontimes.com/books/20050723-092118-7370r.htm

Sam Halpern was a major source for Evan Thomas' book, The Very Best Men. Interviews with him also appeared in David Corn's book on Ted Shackley (Blond Ghost). Maybe James Richards has a photograph of him.

You can find a biography of the Bohning on my website:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbohning.htm

[Ron Ecker]

John,

Thanks for the info on Halpern and Bohning.

I think that the answer to the question "Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?" is yes. Not in the Gratzian sense, but in the same indirect sense that curiosity killed the cat.

It was the Kennedy "obsession" to get Castro that gave those who wanted to get rid of JFK a very effective cover story, i.e. that Castro was behind the assassination, with the "pro-Castro" Oswald as the patsy. Thus the plot would ideally get rid of JFK and Castro as well. But as we know, something went wrong and the plot was only halfway successful.

Would JFK have been assassinated anyway? Probably. But JFK, by obsessing over the elimination of Castro, unwittingly gave to his own enemies the same thing that Nixon admitted giving to his: "I gave them a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish."

Ron

[John Simkin]

I forgot, I also have a biography of Sam Halpern on my website:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhalpern.htm

[Chris Cox]

Yeah I second that. Now I have to get this book by Bohning. He did article Yanqui Fidelistas for Miami press?

[Chris Cox]

nope, wrong guy sorry a Rogers story

link and text here

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Cove...nqui_Fidelistas