Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Shanet Clark]

I agree with John in all of that.

The KGB angle is an angle that the counter-intelligence situation of the times demands to be looked into but it fails to rise above the domestic suspects. Eladio Del Valle, Tony Cueste, Herminio Diaz Garcia, all of these people were potential double agents. The fact that Oswald lived like Park Avenue in Minsk perhaps points in this direction. That was the beauty of framing Oswald - He pointed to Castro and Moscow.

Once he was candidate #1 this KGB Castro story was bound to evolve.

I am sorry, but Tim Gratz's theory is a derivative and corollary of the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, communist sympathizer theory put forward by LIFE and the Warren COmmission. It is a lead, a false lead, and a less than compelling theory.

The KGB didn't, couldn't wouldn't have wanted to and wouldn't have let Castro kill JFK !!

[Tim Gratz]

John:

On KGB later.

But with respect to Castro:

We know that agents of our government during the Kennedy administration made repeated attempts to kill Castro using various murder weapons. On that much I think we can all agree.

Do you remember the story (apparently true, I'm looking for sources) that CIA trained assassins were caught in Cuba in October of 1963?

And, whether or not true, and whether or not Castro believed it, a high-ranking CIA official had told Castro's agent that RFK supported Cubela's plan to "eliminate" Castro.

I think we can agree on all of the above.

You yourself posted in another thread the open discussion at a meeting of the Special Group (Augmented) that Robert Strange McNamara openly talked about assassinating Castro.

Do you dispute that there were at least contingent plans for a second invasion of Cuba, formulated while JFK was in power, but canceled by LBJ?

I think we can all agree that LBJ "wound down" the Kennedys' war against Castro (whether or not the Kennedys were witting of the ongoing assassination attempts they were certainly waging war against Castro and they re-started it in the spring of 1963.

So, as a matter of fact, it cannot be disputed that the United States' operations against Castro wound down under LBJ. Do you dispute that, at least after an interval, the assassination attempts and sabotage operations wound down under LBJ? It seems to me that is established fact.

Did Castro know that would be the result? That is difficult to say. But with the US under Kennedy planning not only the overthrow of his regime but also his personal demise, what did he have to lose? Moreover, if indeed he struck JFK, that in and of itself may have been sufficient to keep LBJ "on the straight and narrow." I'm sure LBJ was aware of Castro's September 7, 1963 threat or warning, call it what you will. If indeed Castro made good on that warning, LBJ had one very good reason to instruct Joseph Califano to "call off the dogs". He did not want to meet his predecessor's fate!

Whether or not he KNEW it would happen, I do not think you can dispute that Castro's fortunes improved under LBJ.

I have great respect for the intelligence of Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig (although I do not agree with all the politics of either). Not only are they very, very intelligent men, they were THERE. I think it significant that with their insiders' knowledge of what was going on, they have concluded that Castro probably did it. Most members of the Forum subscribe to the ""CIA did it"

or the entire Establishment or power group did it. I have great respect for James Richards' intelligence as well (and yours, of course). James has the intellectual integrity to admit that the evidence of David Morales' involvement in the assassination is "thin". The only evidence I have seen advanced by Robert is the story of Garrett Underhill and I believe that story deserves as careful evaluation as does the Miguel story. Both are important; neither should be accepted (or rejected) a priori.

Why use LHO with connections to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? Well, my instinct (and readings) suggest that LHO had connections to U.S. intelligence.

Finally, I would ask you, as I asked Robert, would you admit that it is difficult to suggest an innocent explanation for an agent of DGI being in Dallas at the time of the assassination and fleeing to Havana immediately thereafter? If you agree, should we not then attempt to determine the basis for the assertion that Miguel was a member of DGI? It seems to me a careful look at that issue could answer a lot. And of course, the mere presence in Dallas of two Cubans who left within a week thereafter raises substantial questions but the significance of the reported association of one with Cuban intelligence cannot be minimized.

Edited January 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

To Shanet:

LHO was either a lone nut or part of a conspiracy.

How can it be a "corollary" to the lone nut scenario to say that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, regardless of who the conspirators were?

[Shanet Clark]

Tim, my friend, thank you for the logical request.

Wherever Lee Harvey Oswald leads you, that is corollary to the Warren theory. If he leads you to Minsk, Elladio del valle, Kostikov, De Morehnschildt, whereever Lee takes you, that is where you are being led.

I think you are ingesting the patsy....

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet,

I am a total agnostic with respect to LHO.

I do not know whether he was an agent of US intelligence or not, though I believe there is strong evidence to suggest he was.

I am concerned that he may have been "doubled" in the Soviet Union because I give some credence to Nosenko's failure of the polygraph test.

I am not sure if he participated in any way in the assassination or was nothing but a patsy.

I think a determination of LHO's true allegiances might, however, shed some light on who did it. For instance, it could be argued that his sponsor would be unlikely to use him as a patsy, fearing exposure of the sponsorship.

Some time I want to write about McDonald's book. He "Appointment in Dallas" he says that LHO was told he was to participate, on behalf of the CIA, in a "fake" assassination attempt. Saul, the real shooter, shot from the Dal-Tex Building and Saul was supposed to take LHO out under cover of expected shots at LHO from Secret Service agents. Shots that never came. It is at least an interesting theory. McDonald seems like a credible person. So I don't know if he met a Saul who either did it or was a con artist that bamboozled McDonald, or if McDonald merely invented the whole story.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

"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)."

Two Points:

1. I only argued that Castro took steps to preserve his life. I do not see how that becomes that he was the "leader of some criminal gang". (Parenthetically, I think JFK used those words re Castro.) I certainly am not a supporter of Castro but I do not believe I have ever attempted to characterize the morality of any actions that he took to preserve his life.

2. Castro had a concern even more basic than preservation of his regime: preservation of his very life. Motive cannot get stronger than that.

Self-preservation is, of course, an even stronger need for humans than food or sex. His concern was, of course, legitimate since our (my) government tried to kill him on numerous ocassions using both Cuban proxies and members of the American underworld.

Edited January 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________

Tim:

No, the speech is way too long to "summerize" even just the 5 pages that I scanned would take me hours to type and I do not have this kind of time. Why can't you just get the book from the local liab and read the entire speech? A few minutes ago it occurred to me that all the time we spend here on forums is ( for me) taking away greatly from time spent reading BOOKS. Books are "permanent " forums are not. I have been trying with little success to re-read "The Man on the Grassy Knoll" (John Craig and Philip Rogers) for about two weeks now, and so I am really rethinking the value of this whole forum thing.

If people refuse to read books, especially books that can educate, then what is the point of this "debate"? For me, none.

I have contacted Marty Schotz to see if he can send me a better version of the speech, he has made some suggestions that I will try, but really, it would be so much simpler if you would just read it yourself. Unless of course you just do not want to know, that you are totally wedded to the idea that Castro did it, and no matter HOW much evidence to the contrary is produced, you will persist in this view. It is NOT a "self-serving " speech. But you won't know this unless you read it.

John sent me a PM re my scanning of the 5 pages, asking me to cite where it can be found. I have done so now at least four times.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________

Tim:

No, the speech is way too long to "summerize" even just the 5 pages that I scanned would take me hours to type and I do not have this kind of time. Why can't you just get the book from the local liab and read the entire speech? A few minutes ago it occurred to me that all the time we spend here on forums is ( for me) taking away greatly from time spent reading BOOKS. Books are "permanent " forums are not. I have been trying with little success to re-read "The Man on the Grassy Knoll" (John Craig and Philip Rogers) for about two weeks now, and so I am really rethinking the value of this whole forum thing.

If people refuse to read books, especially books that can educate, then what is the point of this "debate"? For me, none.

I have contacted Marty Schotz to see if he can send me a better version of the speech, he has made some suggestions that I will try, but really, it would be so much simpler if you would just read it yourself. Unless of course you just do not want to know, that you are totally wedded to the idea that Castro did it, and no matter HOW much evidence to the contrary is produced, you will persist in this view. It is NOT a "self-serving " speech. But you won't know this unless you read it.

John sent me a PM re my scanning of the 5 pages, asking me to cite where it can be found. I have done so now at least four times.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_____________________________________________----

ps I will just guote one or two sentences then I have a day job to go to: In summary ( a tiny bit) Castro is upset at JFK 's death and referes to it as "serious and bad news". As to foreknowledge? Such a notion came to him via something he READ. And he cites what it was, a speech given by one "editor" named Carbo "who is director of the Executive Council of the Inter American Press Assosiation-which is a very important job in the intellectual sectors of reaction and the oligarchy..." " Something in this speech drew my attention" states Castro, on 11/23/63. The statement which "drew (his) attention reads: " I believe that a coming serious event will oblige Washingto to change its policy of peaceful co-existence"

"What does this mean?" asks Castro, "when he said this three days before the assassination of Kennedy...in a cable that is not from Prensa Latina, but from Associated Press, dated Nov. 19th AP Num 254 November 19, Miami Beach... what did this gentleman mean by 'a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change its policy of peaceful co-existence'?.... Was there perhaps in certain civilian and military ultra-reactionary circles in the United States a plot against President Kennedy's life?"

The speech is very long, and very detailed, about all that Kennedy had done to try to BRING ABOUT PEACE with both USSR and Cuba, and how, in Castro's opinion, this was greeted with open hatred and hostility by the ultra right war machine.

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To Robert:

You are wrong, Robert, I give Castro plenty of credit for intelligence.

He outsmarted the Kennedys, the CIA and the Mafia, all of whom were trying to kill him (well, you can quibble about the Kennedys if you want but most historians believe the Kennedys were witting of at least some of the plots).

You wrote:

"The 'assurances' of RFK's approval for the Cubela plot came from a man who claimed to be a senior US Senator.  On so important a matter as determining whether or not the President wanted him dead - the same President who sent him back-channel peace feelers at the very same time - don't you think Castro might actually try to identify who provided Cubela with that 'assurance?'"

I was trying to figure out the source of the claim that Fitzgerald identified himself as a U.S. Senator.  Then I believe I came across it:  correct me if I am wrong, but it was Cubela who made that claim.  He is the only basis for it.  Nestor Sanchez, who freely testified that Fitzgerald told him not to put reference to the poison pen in his report of his 11/22/63 meeting with Cubela, did not hear any such statement.    So, you have an interesting source, if, as you seem to agree, Cubela was Castro's agent.

I have not finished posting my scenario (sorry) but I believe Castro knew exactly who Fitzgerald was.  Fitzgerald was well known as a CIA official in Washington.  You know that although he used a false name (James Clark) he wore no disguise when he met with Cubela on 10/29/1963.  I suspect he was photographed by agents of the KGB and/or DGI as he entered the meeting and very shortly after the 10/29/63 meeting Castro knew exactly who had given Cubela assurance of support for his plan to murder Castro:  one of the highest officials in the CIA.

Castro had every right to assume the CIA was acting with the express authority of the CIA.  Remember, it was not until 1975 or 1976 that Sen Church popularized the idea of the "rogue elephant".

Assuming, arguendo, that all of the foregoing is true, this is where we part company, my friend.  Well before Frank Church became a household name, Castro had ample reason to suspect that CIA and the White House had divergent agendas.  Please recall the following:

Prior to the Bay of Pigs invasion, CIA man Frank Bender instructed his Cuban exile charges that in the event of an 'abort' order from the White House, the Cubans were to pretend to take Bender, et al, as hostages and proceed with the invasion anyway.

Those same Cuban exiles were then captured by Castro's forces and remained in Cuban prisons, subject to DGI interrogation. 

In the course of those interrogations, I strongly suspect Castro became aware of the duplicity shown by Bender, and CIA, in countermanding an anticipated 'abort' order from Kennedy.  If so, Castro already knew that CIA was prepared to carry out its own Cuban policy, with or without White House approval.  He didn't need to wait for Frank Church, or anyone else.  He had a 15 year head start over Church and every citizen of the United States who wasn't employed in the covert operations of CIA.

Which is precisely why Cubela demanded to meet with RFK, to determine whether the Cubela plots were White House-approved, or yet another CIA provocation [designed, in this instance, to preclude the peace feelers Castro and Kennedy were exchanging.]

I'll go you one further:  I bet Castro had a recordation of the meeting at which Fitzgerald assured him that Robert Kennedy supported his plan to "eliminate Fidel".

And that, my friend, is why Fidel is still alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

"It seems to me that each of the bits and pieces you present would, if taken seriously, have stoked a US appetite for a military retaliation against Castro and Cuba.

"Can you think of anyone who might have laboured for years toward just such an end?"

Robert, as you know, the CIA ordered its operatives in Mexico City, and the FBI ordered its operatives, to cease any investigation that might link LHO to a foreign government.

It was not the position of either the CIA or the FBI to manufacture evidence of foreign involvement.  It was, precisely, the opposite:  bury any real evidence of foreign involvement.

There are any number of reasons CIA might have legitimately squelched inquiries into its Mexico City capers.  Helms' memos disclosed the worry that the MC telephone taps and photo surveillance might be compromised.  Or that because those operations involved elements of the Mexican DFS, it could create an international flap. 

However, on balance, I think you'll find CIA had another reason for shutting down investigations into the "evidence" eminating from MC: it wouldn't withstand impartial investigative scrutiny.

Hence, CIA's own manufactured witness, Alvarado, went from being "compelling" to "a fabricator" in its own memos.  Hence, CIA's own memos disclose that somebody in Langley decided that the Policarpo reports should be allowed to "die a natural death."  Etc. etc.

The Warren Commission may have been anxious to avoid indications of foreign involvement in the assassination.  Not so CIA, or FBI, or State Department personnel in Mexico City, all of whom thought they'd stumbled across something very compelling. 

Yet it was Richard Helms who turned off the tap from Langley.  You may wish to assume this was at White House or Warren Commission insistence.  I would ask you to consider there was another, unrelated reason for this.

With the arrest of Oswald, the spurious "mysterious passenger" nonsense, and much else, became not just irrelevant, but dangerous to those who promulgated it.  The same "evidence" could be tracked back to its authors, and demonstrated to be transparently prefabricated for the purpose of falsely implicating an innocent party in the assassination.

The only question is whether this was rank opportunism after the murder, or part of a pre-designed operation that revealed foreknowledge on the part of its authors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[James Richards]

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. (Tim Gratz)

Hi Tim,

Personally, I don't believe that Trafficante had a hand in assassination planning but I do think he was the financial backer of these ex employees entering the United States and that he bankrolled Leopoldo and Angel.

If Morales was running the show, then Roselli would have been the conduit to Mob money. Bagmen like Masferrer could have also filtered money into groups like Alpha 66 and individuals such as Eloy Menoyo. Menoyo's Everglades camp which was run by Vincente Mendez and attended by Herminio Diaz Garcia are an example of this.

FWIW.

James

[Tim Gratz]

Some people have argued Castro would not have "done it", thereby risking a certain invasion of Cuba. Similarly, it has been argued that the Soviets would not have "done it" and risked a war with the U.S.

It must be remembered, however, that whoever planned the assassination expected to "get away with it", and in the event, did.

The expectation that the plotters would "get away with it" explains why they (whoever they were) were willing to take whatever risks were incumbent with the assassination.

If the plotters were U.S. citizens they faced, if caught, certain capital punishment in Texas.

And, at least arguably, if the plotters were foreign, they faced prospects of a war.

To say the Soviets would not have risked war with the US by plotting the assassination because, if caught they faced a possible war with the U.S. becomes tantamount, then, to a "nobody did it" argument. For the same logic can be used to argue, for instance, that the CIA would not have done it because the plotters would not have wanted to risk the consequences: not only their certain death in the electric char but also the destruction of the CIA. Similarly, the Mafia would not have done it risking capital punishment and a vigorous war against the mafia.

The only possible suspect, under this analysis, would be a "nut".

And, of course, the Cuban missile crisis proves the Soviet Union was willing to risk war to put the missiles in Cuba.

If you concur that the plotters, if American, expected to "get away with it", certainly the plotters, if foreign (whether Soviet, Cuban, or both) ad te same expectation of success. And whoever did it, the expectation of success was indeed accurate.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

"However, on balance, I think you'll find CIA had another reason for shutting down investigations into the "evidence" eminating from MC: it wouldn't withstand impartial investigative scrutiny. . . .Hence, CIA's own memos disclose that somebody in Langley decided that the Policarpo reports should be allowed to "die a natural death." Etc. etc.

Robert:

What part of the Policarpo reports do you doubt?

1. That he came to Key West from Cuba in 1961?

2. That he was married in Key West.

3. That he moved to Tampa in 1963.

4. That on Nov 22, 1963 in Tampa he obtained a visa toi visit Mexico for

fourteen or fifteen days.

5. That he crossed the border from Texas to Mexico at Nuevo Laredo on Saturday, November 23, 1963 (as soon as it reopened after the assassination).

6. That he stayed in the Hotel Roosevelt for several days.

7. That he flew from Mexico City to Havana on Nov 25, 1963.

All of that information seems to be well documented. We even discovered his address in Key West.

So what points do you dispute, and on what basis do you dispute them?

Edited February 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

"However, on balance, I think you'll find CIA had another reason for shutting down investigations into the "evidence" eminating from MC: it wouldn't withstand impartial investigative scrutiny. . . .Hence, CIA's own memos disclose that somebody in Langley decided that the Policarpo reports should be allowed to "die a natural death."  Etc. etc.

Robert:

What part of the Policarpo reports do you doubt?

1.    That he came to Key West from Cuba in 1961?

2.    That he was married in Key West.

3.    That he moved to Tampa in 1963.

4.    That on Nov 22, 1963 in Tampa he obtained a visa toi visit Mexico for

      fourteen or fifteen days.

5.    That he crossed the border from Texas to Mexico at Nuevo Laredo on Saturday, November 23, 1963 (as soon as it reopened after the assassination).

6.    That he stayed in the Hotel Roosevelt for several days.

7.    That he flew from Mexico City to Havana on Nov 25, 1963.

All of that information seems to be well documented.  We even discovered his address in Key West.

So what points do you dispute, and on what basis do you dispute them?

Tim:

Pardon my weariness and frustration, but we've been over this same old ground a number of times. 

Try as I might, I have yet to locate a single meaningful document regarding Policarpo that didn't originate with CIA.  [The August 1964 FBI report of an interview with his wife might be superficially provocative, but she provided little of substance.] 

CIA reports on a variety of other Castro-implicating topics are, to be charitable, nonsense.

The "mysterious passenger" transfer story was a non-starter from the beginning, but that didn't prevent its recurrance, with fresh sources ["unnamed Cuban scientist" who was conveniently deceased by the time he was sought for clarification...indeed.] 

The Gilberto Alverado Lopez story, though uncritically accepted by David Atlee Phillips at the time, was later dismissed in his autobiography as a "transparent" fiction.  Yet CIA had no trouble finding a second man to make the same bogus allegations as Alverado had done, just in a time frame that didn't conflict with Oswald's known movements, which Alverado's tale had done.

CIA in Mexico City floated bogus stories about Oswald's associations while in Mexico City, meetings with Cuban consular staff that never took place, a sexual relationship with Ms. Duran that didn't happen, at least one phone call that included Ms. Duran, but didn't happen, etc., etc., etc.

CIA managed to allow Oswald to walk past its Cuban and Soviet consular surveillance cameras on no fewer than five occasions - by its own reckoning - yet couldn't produce a single photograph of him.

Hell, they couldn't even get his name right in their cable traffic. 

You find such information credible.

For my own part, I refuse to accept single-sourced, unattributable, uncorroborated, unverified, unconfirmed documents from the pack of nincompoops who racked up the abysmal track record outlined above, on Policarpo or anyone/anything else. 

You are free to do so, but must surely understand why others will demur.

"Garbage in, garbage out" is an expression that springs to mind.  And that's my most charitable interpretation of what you consider compelling evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert:

Respectfully, you did not answer a single one of my questions re Policarpo.

Mark Howell and I know he was in Key West from 1961 to 1963. We even identified his marriage license and the apartment that he shared with his wife.

His Monroe County (Key West) marriage license did not originate with the CIA.

Or will you say that the CIA faked his marriage license and was able to plant the fake license with the Clerk of the Monroe County Court system? Perhaps the minister or notary who performed the ceremony was secretly a CIA agent.

Policarpo also obtained a visa in Tampa to travel into Mexico for two weeks. He obtained that visa from U.S. Immigration. Did the CIA fake that visa as well?

Immigration also has records when Policarpo entered Mexico from Texas: the day after the assassination. That record is an Immigration record, not a CIA record. Did the CIA fake that record?

There is also a record of when Policarpo checked in and out of the Hotel Roosevelt in Mexico City. Those private hotel records are not CIA records. Or did the CIA fake those records as well?

Maybe Policarpo never left Key West to go to Dallas via Tampa, because the CIA faked all his travel records to place him in Texas at the time of the assassination. Do you think we ought to keep looking for Policarpo in Key West, my friend?

Also, regarding the records of LHO in Mexico City I think if you study the record you will find that the CIA was in fact doing everything it could to dispute such claims, again because it was concerned about provoking an international incident. I believe the 2004 supplement to Larry Hancock's book even documents one effort by Phillips to disprove one potentially sinister report.

So tell me: did you correctly advise the members of this Forum that every single record re Policarpo's travels at the time of the assassination were CIA generated? Because if that remains your position, the CIA was faking a lot of records and planting them with Monroe County, U.S. Customs and a private hotel in Mexico City. This defies logic.

Edited February 3, 2005 by Tim Gratz