Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Tim Gratz]

To David:

It is either true or false that:

(1) Miguelito (I'll use his first name) was trained in the Soviet Union.

(2) Miguelito was an agent of DGI.

(3) Miguelito was in Dallas on November 22 and shortly after the assassination took a private plane from Dallas to Mexico City.

Trento reports all of those things in "The Secret History of the CIA". Unless he invented them (making them false) he has seen government documents that report them. Robert suggests the information may be false because the documents were CIA-generated. Although there are obvious questions about the CIA's failure to disclose things (including of course its plots to kill Castro) I am not certain whether the CIA has been shown to have planted false documents. The more important question may be the accuracy of the SOURCES on which the CIA based its reports.

I do not believe the information is false, but I would like to see the actual CIA documents (ie so I am looking at a primary source not a secondary source) but my point is that you may disbelieve the CIA reports if you wish but they are either true or false; they are not speculative.

And of course there is no question that the CIA's numerous plots to kill Castro were true.

Nor is it speculative that Castro threatened, or warned, if you want to put it that way, that US leaders would not be safe if US plots to kill Cuban leaders continued, and this statement was made on the same day that Cubela approached the CIA and said he wanted to eliminate Castro for the US.

It is not speculative that Jose Aleman said that Trafficante said JFK would be hit before the 1964 election. Nor is it speculative that Trafficante's lawyer wrote that during his last illness Trafficante told his lawyer that he had been involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Nor is it speculative that the CIA states that Cubela had been in contact with Valery Kostikov. And that Cubela had links to Trafficante.

Of course I have not listed all the information here.

My point is all I have listed are facts; not speculation. Some of the facts may be false. For instance, it is POSSIBLE Trafficante's attorney made up his report about Trafficante's statements to him. But nothing I have said is SPECULATIVE.

If all (or even most) of the information I have posted is true, a rather compelling case can be made that Castro did it. I have now said this so often I am, metaphorically, blue in the face: where is there similar evidence pointing to someone other than Castro?

As I have also side, I believe the WEIGHT of the evidence indicates that Castro killed Kennedy but IMO it is not evidence that meets the standard of proof for conviction in a criminal case.

Let me put it this way. If we IGNORE Castro's possible defense of self defense, and Caroline Kennedy brought a civil, wrongful death against Castro, she would win and an appellate court would sustain her judgment. If a criminal case was brought against Castro (again ignoring the self-defense defense) and if the jury convicted him, IMO the judge would reverse the decision of the jury on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he did it.

But I have seen NO evidence (other than a single statement attributed to Morales) that anyone else did it.

Edited February 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

There is no credible evidence that LBJ really BELIEVED that JFK was killed by a "foreign conspiracy".

Dawn, by this comment I assume you have read Joseph Califano's book and are calling him a xxxx?

Surely you have read his book? Surely you would want to since it is widely reported that LBJ had attributed made such statements to Califano.

You surely remember Califano, he represented YOUR party during the Watergate period.

I am not sure which is more interesting: that you consider Califano a xxxx; or that you made that comment witghout reading his book.

Have you, I wonder, read ANY books that are counter to your preconceived ideas? I think you once said it was a waste of time to read Russo's book. It surprises me that an attorney would make judgments without considering all the evidence: calling it a waste of time to read evidence contrary to your theory.

I read as much as time and budget allows.

Nevertheless, best personal regards!

Edited February 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

There is no credible evidence that LBJ really BELIEVED that JFK was killed by a "foreign conspiracy".

Dawn, as you know, I'm sure, Lord George Weidenfeld was the publisher of LBJ's biography, "The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the President: 1963-1969."

Therefore, I am sure you consulted his memoirs to see what Johnson told him about his belief before you made your statement.

Or did you?

Edited February 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Dawn wrote:

Tim: Yes Castro did not die, but it was not JFK who was trying to kill him. But I suppose you will continue to " read" this into whatever author you read, and post such. Regardless to the massive evidence to the contrary.

Dawn, no you are right.  It was not JFK who was personally going to shoot Castro (which must be what you meant).

It was JFK's agents, acting upon his authority and direction, and particularly through his brother.

Actually, Tim, neither you nor anyone else - to my knowledge - has demonstrated this to be a fact.  After both men you cite were dead, or course, CIA personnel testified to the effect that it was White House pressure which led to plots to kill Castro.  Yet, this is a demonstrable falsehood.  The plots predated Kennedy's election, and continued well after his death, despite the apparent insistence of LBJ that all actions against Cuba cease.  The fact that CIA continued its dalliance with Cubela in direct contravention of LBJ's purported orders is something that I've yet to see you address.  Would you care to do so now?  Finally?

But, more pertinent by far is this: assuming that the Kennedys wished Castro dead and brought pressure to bear upon CIA to ensure that their wish was achieved, surely they would have done so through their own appointee to head CIA, John McCone.  If anyone within CIA should have felt the "White House pressure," it should have been McCone.  Despite this obvious chain-of-command, McCone was left out of the loop entirely.  McCone couldn't offer a single instance when either Kennedy had insisted CIA kill Castro, and wasn't even aware of the existence of such plots until after the assassination.  Before one calls McCone's denials into question, let us remember that his version of events was corroborated by Bill Harvey.

I suspect that CIA did an end-run around McCone, knowing that he would feel obligated to inform his Commander In Chief about the plots, which Kennedy hadn't sanctioned.  This is why McCone was kept in the dark. 

Your only rationale to date for McCone's enforced ignorance  [that I've read] is that CIA may not have wished to offend its Catholic head; presumably CIA felt no such compunction about the President's equally Catholic religious beliefs?  Is that your position?  If so, why did Richard Helms testify that he never discussed murdering Castro with JFK because "one doesn't wish to embarrass the President by discussing with him the murder of foreign heads of state?" [or words to that effect]  For men who had hypothetically been tasked with killing Castro, CIA personnel certainly seemed reticent to discuss the issue with the very people who had purportedly originated the order.  

Please cite some of your "massive evidence to the contrary".

I keep asking the people who disagree with the "Castro did it" scenario for actual evidence.  So far, NONE has been forthcoming.

Actually, Tim, every other poster in this thread has asked the ONLY proponent of the "Castro did it" hypothesis for "actual evidence and so far NONE has been forthcoming."

Yes, yes, purported Castro personnel allegedly appeared in potentially provocative places and did what?  Nothing, by your own admission.  You cannot find a DGI fingerprint on a weapon; you cannot identify a DGI face in Dealey Plaza; you cannot even confirm that the CIA data you uncritically regurgitate, without confirmation or verification from a single second source, is true. 

Your fallback whenever challenged is: "Then you're calling Russo or Trento or Haig or Califano a xxxx?"  xxxx is, of course, not the only alternative explanation, but it is the most extremely harsh, which is why you favour it.  I would settle for "misinformed" or "agenda-driven" or "disingenuous."     

If your evidence to date has been uniformly unimpressive to other posters here, you cannot simply demand that they refute your points, all of which to date add up solely to vapor and steam.  To date, we are still waiting for actual "evidence" to refute; not merely speculation and supposition that cannot sustain your position by adamant repetition alone.  It is only by the good manners and restraint of other posters that you've not been called to account more forcefully.

I asked Robert Charles-Dunne certain questions re Gary Underhill, after I read more information about him.  Were any of those questions answered?  Nada. (Nor has anyone else answered those questions, for that matter.

Since I have posted all that is known in the public domain about Gary Underhill's assertions, I'm not sure what more you can rightly expect.  I did so in response to your own question about anyone within CIA having foreknowledge of the planned assassination.  Underhill is the only one I know of who alleged that he had such foreknowledge, though even he apparently didn't take it seriously, to his chagrin.  Since he was murdered soon after making those assertions, I don't find it surprising that others didn't rush to follow suit.

In any event, I haven't started any threads charging "CIA DID IT," as you have done with Castro, because I think the level of proof needed to make such charges is greater than what is demonstrable at present.  You feel no such reluctance, but then you must suffer the consequences when others dismiss the charges you make without benefit of the slightest evidence.  Others are not being unfair to you by being unconvinced by the "nothing" that you've offered to date.

As I said before, there comes a time to "put up or shot up".

Yes, indeed.  So, which will you do?

I have posted information that is strongly suggestion of Cuban involvement in the assassination. 

Or, the reasonable mind might conclude the same data -ALL of it coming, as it does, from CIA - strongly reeks of an attempt by CIA to place blame for the assassination on Castro, whether it's true or not.  That's a hair you don't seem to feel is worth splitting, for reasons that are not lost on others.

Robert Charles-Dunne SPECULATES that the infoprmation MAY be false because it came from the CIA.  He has offered no evidence that the information was false.

Again, you confuse our roles.  You make the charge; you provide the evidence.  If this jury is uniformly unimpressed, blame your evidence, not the jury.

You are an attorney.  Why don't you try to posit five pieces of evidence that would be admissible in court to demonstrate that someone other than Castro did it?

Or, you could start by providing a single piece of evidence that he did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To David:

It is either true or false that:

(1)  Miguelito (I'll use his first name) was trained in the Soviet Union.

(2)  Miguelito was an agent of DGI.

(3)  Miguelito was in Dallas on November 22 and shortly after the assassination took a private plane from Dallas to Mexico City.

Trento reports all of those things in "The Secret History of the CIA".  Unless he invented them (making them false) he has seen government documents that report them. 

And, having access to those documents, they were included in his book, right?  After all, neither Trento nor any other author wishing to be taken seriously would dare withhold from his readers the incendiary documents which are unambiguous evidence for the author's own contentions.  Right?

And since even lowly newspaper journalists must obtain confirmation from a second corroborating source before being allowed to publish, the due diligence level incumbent upon authors - particularly those making sensational charges - should be higher, or at least as high, not lower.  Right?  Therefore, whatever is contained in a provocative CIA document should find confirmation elsewhere.  Right?

And, having obtained those documents for inclusion in his book, a reputable author will do all in his power to validate the provenance of both the documents and their contents.  Right?  After all, no author relishes finding himself in the tight spot that arises when one uncritically accepts possibly spurious documents at face value.  Dan Rather and Seymour Hersh could and should give tutorials on the importance of knowing whether or not the documents one offers as proof are actually, you know, genuine.

Robert suggests the information may be false because the documents were CIA-generated.  Although there are obvious questions about the CIA's failure to disclose things (including of course its plots to kill Castro)

That's only the tip of the iceberg of data CIA has withheld, and continues to withhold.  Surely, you're aware of the various documents known to have disappeared from Oswald's 201 file.  Surely, you're aware of the Mexico City cable traffic that is still withheld, yet is referred to in the extant cable traffic.  Surely, you're aware of the fact that CIA knew about Oswald's visits to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, yet failed to disclose that knowledge until after the assassination.  Etc., etc.

I am not certain whether the CIA has been shown to have planted false documents. 

Then you may profit from re-reading much, particularly the Morley/Newman interview with Jane Roman.  There is a key line regarding Mexico City/Langley cable traffic - and the false information contained therein - that you might find illuminating, if you're sincere about seeking such data:  “Yeah, I mean I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true.” 

The more important question may be the accuracy of the SOURCES on which the CIA based its reports.

I do not believe the information is false, but I would like to see the actual CIA documents (ie so I am looking at a primary source not a secondary source)

You have the process bass-ackwards.  First you actually read the documents, and establish whether the documents are genuine; then you decide what to "believe."

but my point is that you may disbelieve the CIA reports if you wish but they are either true or false; they are not speculative.

Again, you make the process needlessly obtuse.  First you read the documents; if they are genuine according the best available data, and their contents are demonstrably true, there is no longer room for whatever the reader "may disbelieve."  Such room for caveats and qualifiers only exists when one either hasn't read the documents, or has been unable to determine the veracity of their contents.  If so, one doesn't rush to too many conclusions based on documents that may be spurious. 

And of course there is no question that the CIA's numerous plots to kill Castro were true.

Nor is it speculative that Castro threatened, or warned, if you want to put it that way, that US leaders would not be safe if US plots to kill Cuban leaders continued, and this statement was made on the same day that Cubela approached the CIA and said he wanted to eliminate Castro for the US.

Which is the very date on which CIA should have cut Cubela loose, for all the self-evident reasons implied by the time and circumstance of Castro's warning.  That it did not do so may tell us much about CIA's true plans for Cubela.

It is not speculative that Jose Aleman said that Trafficante said JFK would be hit before the 1964 election. 

No, but that doesn't make it true, either.  Moreover, the same rule you applied to Gary Underhill should also hold true for Aleman.  Underhill claimed to have foreknowledge of the assassination, but didn't speak about it until shortly after it happened.  Aleman claims to have had his own foreknowledge, yet sat on that data for a further decade.  Underhill was murdered for his efforts, yet there was no retribution against Aleman for his disclosure.  Based on that fact alone, which 'witness' seems more credible?

Nor is it speculative that Trafficante's lawyer wrote that during his last illness Trafficante told his lawyer that he had been involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Nor is it speculative that the CIA states that Cubela had been in contact with Valery Kostikov. 

Nor is it true, unless and until proven to be so.  Nor is Kostikov's Agency-divined 'special duty status' true, unless and until proven to be so.  Not that this prevents people from extrapolating too many conclusions from too few demonstrable facts.

And that Cubela had links to Trafficante.

Of course I have not listed all the information here.

My point is all I have listed are facts; not speculation. 

No, the only thing factual is that they are "assertions" that have yet to be proven true.  Unless and until they are proven true, they are speculation, your efforts to dress them in a prettier frock notwithstanding.

Some of the facts may be false.  For instance, it is POSSIBLE Trafficante's attorney made up his report about Trafficante's statements to him.  But nothing I have said is SPECULATIVE.

If all (or even most) of the information I have posted is true, a rather compelling case can be made that Castro did it. 

Oh, it's a "case" alright.  "Compelling?"  Apparently not, or there wouldn't be a vacuum of deafening silence where your many acolytes and adherents should be singing your praises.

I have now said this so often I am, metaphorically, blue in the face:  where is there similar evidence pointing to someone other than Castro?

According to you, there's substantial reason to believe it was done by the KGB, Madame Nhu, the Mob, and/or all of the above working in concert with Castro.  You just have this teeny-weeny blind spot when it comes to accepting that the plot may have been orchestrated by someone within the contential United States. 

As I have also side, I believe the WEIGHT of the evidence indicates that Castro killed Kennedy

We "got" that part 14 pages of posts ago...

but IMO it is not evidence that meets the standard of proof for conviction in a criminal case.

No disagreement, there, finally....

Let me put it this way.  If we IGNORE Castro's possible defense of self defense, and Caroline Kennedy brought a civil, wrongful death against Castro, she would win and an appellate court would sustain her judgment.  If a criminal case was brought against Castro (again ignoring the self-defense defense) and if the jury convicted him, IMO the judge would reverse the decision of the jury on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he did it.

But I have seen NO evidence (other than a single statement attributed to Morales) that anyone else did it.

Nor will you, ever, until you have that teeny-weeny blind spot removed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dawn Meredith]

Dawn wrote:

There is no credible evidence that LBJ really BELIEVED that JFK was killed by a "foreign conspiracy".

Dawn, as you know, I'm sure, Lord George Weidenfeld was the publisher of LBJ's biography, "The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the President: 1963-1969." 

Therefore, I am sure you consulted his memoirs to see what Johnson told him about his belief before you made your statement.

Or did you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

________________________

Tim,

Read my lips: It is LBJ who I do not think is telling the truth. I think his statement was self-serving, as were many other peoples' who have participated in this long cover-up.

Caroline is not ever going to bring a wrongful death action, nor could she: statute of limitations is long over. But even if it were not I am sure she has not ever believed that Castro killed her dad. (And I did learn from a cousin one time that members of this family do read books and do have an opinion on this case).

Leave my friggen job out of this!! What on earth does what I do for a living have to do with this case???

Do you even have a job???? And if so, do I harrass you about it??

I have read LOTS of books on this subject, but I right now I am extremely busy with my job. And I will not be made to feel defensive by you that I am not prepared to "try" this case here in cyberspace. I have not once ever said that I "know" who killed JFK. I just know who did not: LHO, Castro or the Mafia.

So, just continue Jack Anderson's little message:" Castro did it" . When you know FULL WELL that if the leaders of this country ever believed that any U. S. president was killed by Castro, an invasion would be launched and this time Castro would be DEAD.

Have a good day gentlemen, but I have participated in this silliness long enough.

I feel like I am speaking with my right wing cousin Howard now, who is calling me an "intolerant liberal" because I have asked him to cease sending me his never ending "enlightening" words of Rush Limbough and Ann Coulter. I am not impressed with either that crap or your arguments in favor of Castro.

I also do not believe you really believe this, but just like to debate it here.

Dawn

ps: Out of curiosity, what exactly are you you up to with Gerry Hemming??? Now there's a real bastion of truth for you.

[Tim Gratz]

Are Forum members familiar with this information? I am particularly interested in the report that RFK was working with a Cuban dissident other than Cubela and that, on November 22, 1963, a plot to overthrow Castro was "imminent".

The report is from the 2001 update of "The Ghosts of November" by Summers and Swan:

Manuel Artime, a Cuban exile leader much favored by the Kennedy’s, told a congressional investigator that the president personally was behind the Cubela plot. “Artime stated he had direct contact with J.F.K. and R.F.K.,” the investigator noted. “They in turn contacted the C.I.A….AM/LASH (the C.I.A. cryptonym for the Cubela operation) was proposed by J.F.K.”

On the morning of Kennedy’s death, FitzGerald attended a meeting to put the finishing touches to another murderous scheme, one promoted by Robert Kennedy. Those present allegedly included future Watergate villains E. Howard Hunt and James McCord – although Hunt, whose movements that day have long been a contentious issue, claims he attended no such meeting and was not handling Cuban matters at the time. (McCord did not respond when we attempted to reach him.) On the other hand, Harry Ruiz-Williams, a Cuban exile whom the president’s brother had taken into his confidence, admitted having been present. Robert Kennedy had made favorites of a handful of exiles, invited then to his home, and plotted mayhem with them. One of these Cubans, while insisting on anonymity, told how in 1963 another senior Castro official, not Cubela, agreed that – for a large cash payment – he would organize the violent overthrow of Castro and key colleagues. Robert Kennedy arranged for a deposit to be paid into a foreign bank, and by November 22 the operation was imminent. Had the president’s assassination not intervened, the exile go-between would have set off on a secret mission to Havana. The coup, to be followed by American support, was expected to occur within 10 days.

Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, two Atlanta researchers, have obtained corroboration of its existence from U.S. military and government sources. Former secretary of state Dean Rusk said he learned of the coup operation after the president’s death.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Are Forum members familiar with this information?  I am particularly interested in the report that RFK was working with a Cuban dissident other than Cubela and that, on November 22, 1963, a plot to overthrow Castro was "imminent".

The report is from the 2001 update of "The Ghosts of November" by Summers and Swan:

Manuel Artime, a Cuban exile leader much favored by the Kennedy’s, told a congressional investigator that the president personally was behind the Cubela plot. “Artime stated he had direct contact with J.F.K. and R.F.K.,” the investigator noted. “They in turn contacted the C.I.A….AM/LASH (the C.I.A. cryptonym for the Cubela operation) was proposed by J.F.K.”

This is unsurprising.  CIA has always maintained the Cubela operation was authorized by the Kennedys - despite the stunning lack of evidence for that contention, and much that militates in an opposite direction - and Artime, a prime CIA toady, would be unlikely to contradict the Agency that supported him.

On the morning of Kennedy’s death, FitzGerald attended a meeting to put the finishing touches to another murderous scheme, one promoted by Robert Kennedy. Those present allegedly included future Watergate villains E. Howard Hunt and James McCord – although Hunt, whose movements that day have long been a contentious issue, claims he attended no such meeting and was not handling Cuban matters at the time.

Since Hunt was anathema to the White House, it is unlikely he was invited to participate in a meeting with either Kennedy.  I find it hard to imagine that I'm saying this, but for once, I believe Howard Hunt.

(McCord did not respond when we attempted to reach him.) On the other hand, Harry Ruiz-Williams, a Cuban exile whom the president’s brother had taken into his confidence, admitted having been present.

Does Ruiz-Williams corroborate the claim that he was there with Robert Kennedy "to put the finishing touches to another murderous scheme, one promoted by Robert Kennedy?"

Robert Kennedy had made favorites of a handful of exiles, invited then to his home, and plotted mayhem with them.

Unfortunately, none of those favoured by Robert Kennedy were terribly popular with CIA, or its various Cuban exile surrogates.

One of these Cubans, while insisting on anonymity, told how in 1963 another senior Castro official, not Cubela, agreed that – for a large cash payment – he would organize the violent overthrow of Castro and key colleagues. Robert Kennedy arranged for a deposit to be paid into a foreign bank, and by November 22 the operation was imminent. Had the president’s assassination not intervened, the exile go-between would have set off on a secret mission to Havana. The coup, to be followed by American support, was expected to occur within 10 days.

There is a wealth of circumstantial information that there was an invasion scheduled for late November.  It would be interesting to know whether this anonymous Cuban - who claimed so much knowledge - was one of those "favoured by Robert Kennedy" or among those favoured by CIA.  The White House and the Agency had two entirely divergent plans for Cuba's future at the time, as I'm sure you know.  The White House sought an internal revolution; the Agency sought a military confrontation, under its control.

Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, two Atlanta researchers, have obtained corroboration of its existence from U.S. military and government sources. Former secretary of state Dean Rusk said he learned of the coup operation after the president’s death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Many people have questioned whether Fidel would kill Kennedy because it would invite the wrath of the United States upon Cuba.

However, how many of you have heard of Roberto Santiestaban who arrived in New York City on October 3, 1962 on a diplomatic passport, as an aide to Castro's UN ambassador Carlos Lechuga.

Less than two months later, on November 21, 1962 (a year and a day before the Kennedy assassination) Santiestaban was indicted in New York City (later returned to Cuba as I understand when the BOP prisoners were released).

Why was he indicted? Why did Fidel send him to New York? Was it related to a warning Fidel Castro had given to the United States (similar to his famous warning on september 7, 1963 about U.S. leaders not being safe)?

To adequately evaluate Castro's willingness tp engage in what might be considered a suicidal attack on the United States, one must, I think, consider this 1962 incident.

But I suspect many Forum members may not be aware of it.

Details tonight!

If you know of the incident to which I refer, please feel free to post comments beforehand.

Thanks!

Edited April 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

I assume many members of the Forum are aware that former JFK advance man Martin Underwood told the Assassinations Records Review Board Win Scott told him that the morning of the assassination Fabian Escalante boarded a plane in Mexico City bound for Dallas.

Now I understand that it is possible that for whatever reason Underwood made this up, or that Scott lied to him, and it never happened.

However, assuming arguendo the truth of the assertion, would you agree this is fairly strong evidence that the Castro intelligence organization participated in the assassination?

Does it then come down to whether Underwood lied and Scott never told him this or that Scott lied?

Supposedly Underwood went to Mexico City at the behest of LBJ, so it is possible that LBJ's firm conviction that Castro did it may indicate that Underwood was telling the truth.

Scott, of course, was one of the victims of what could be considered a "mysterious death". If indeed his death was mysterious, who do suspect was behind it?

Edited April 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

In any event, I haven't started any threads charging "CIA DID IT," as you have done with Castro, because I think the level of proof needed to make such charges is greater than what is demonstrable at present.

Robert is indeed an articulate debater and I do think it appropriate to condone him for his caution here (as well as his admission re the paucity of the evidence that the CIA did it).

As I have stated, I do not believe there would be sufficient evidence to criminally convict the Maximum Leader of killing Kennedy, or even convicting his intelligence organization of doing so without his express authorization (even ignoring his ability to plead an argument of "necessity" (self-defense).

I do believe, however, that there is more evidence pointing toward Castro or his forces than anyone else. Well, I guess I will modify that: since Ruby had to be a conspirator (hard to believe a conspiracy but Ruby was not involved and shot LHO for the reasons he claimed) the greatest evidence is that organized crime was involved. That coupled with Trafficante's admission.

I also acknowledge there is some evidence that Rosselli communicated with Ruby in the months before the assassination and of course Rosselli was at the time a drinking buddy with both David Morales and Rip Robertson. I don't think Rosselli's association with Morales and Robertson to sufficient in itself to reasonably link either of them to the assassination, but, of course, there is Morales' alleged drunken statement and there is the photographic likeness of Robertson in Dealey Plaza.

I do not necessarily place much credence, however, in the photographic likeness (as I stated I worked with a man who looks more like Gordon Liddy than the Dealey Plaza onlooker looks like Robertson). And as others have noted Morales statement could be no more than drunken braggadacio to impress his JFK friends how much her really hated that "SOB" (or whatever term he used).

[Tim Gratz]

Oops! Above post inadvertently duplicated!

Edited April 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Ranting about U.S. intervention, Castro warned (in a 1961 speech) that if the United States continued its "aggressive imperialistic policies against Cuba" it was "putting New York in danger of becoming another Hiroshima." Source:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=27620

Castro's warning was not in jest, but the US ignored it. The US continued efforts to kill him and to sabotage the Cuban economy, e.g. Operation Mongoose.

On Friday, November 16, 1962, FBI agents had discovered a Cuban plot to bomb New York subways and department stores with 500 kilos of TNT--on the Friday after Thanksgiving, the busiest shopping day of the year. If successful, the plot would have killed more innocent civilians than the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

The plot was foolhardy for it surely would have guaranteed US retaliation against Cuba. But the fact that Castro sanctioned it certainly demonstrates that arguments that it would have been foolhardy for Castro to kill JFK should carry little if any weight.

The head organizer of the 1962 plot was Roberto Santiesban. He had arrived in the US on October 3, 1962 on a diplomatic passport as an aide to Cuban's UN ambassador Carlos Lechuga. (Yes, that's right, the same Mr. Lechuga involved in the 1963 peace feelures!). Other participants in the plot were two Cuban immigrants named Marino Suero and Jose Garcia who ran a costume jewelry shop on West 27th Street in Manhattan that served as the storage facility for the plot. Suero and Garcia were members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (a name that must surely ring a bell!).

The FBI knew of the plot because it had infiltrated the conspiracy. It knew that there was a meeting scheduled for Garcia's shop on the night of November 17th.

Involved in the plans to arrest the conspirators were Alan Belmont, the number two man at the FBI and John Malone, the head of the FBI's New York office. Belmont was in telephonic contact with Malone as well as other New York FBI agents charged with keeping surveillance on the plotters.

Malone reported to Belmont that they had Suero and Garcia in sight and could easily arrest them. Belmont asked if they had yet spotted Santiesban. Malone replied that they had the area around the UN under surveillance but had not yet seen him. Belmont ordered Malone to hold off on Suero and Garcia lest their arrests would allow Santiesban to escape. Two hours later, Malone relayed field agent reports that Suero and Garcia seemed skittish but again Belmont wanted to wait for Santiesban.

In mid morning on the 17th the FBI finally saw Santiesban walking on Riverside Drive heading for a car with UN diplomatic plates. That was it. Belmont ordered the agents to swoop down and arrest all three.

Santiesban saw the FBI agents approaching and took off running. He even managed to pull away when an FBI agent grabbed him. Finally several FBI agents tackled him and managed to pin his arm behind his back as he reached for a pistol.

Suero was plucked from his car without incident. Garcia was in his shop stacking grenades and detonators when he was arrested.

Other agents arrested the Cuban missions switchboard operator and her husband. The FBI estimated their may have been as many as 25 or more other me,bers of the plot. From interrogation and captured documents they discovered the target list also included Manhattan's main bus terminal and the Statue of Liberty.

If Castro would send a man into New York City under a diplomatic passport to plot mass murder how can anyone argue that he would not have done anything as foolhardy as to plot the murder of John Kennedy?

It should be remembered that Castro had warned the US that he would target New York City if the US did not stop what he considered US "terrorist" attacks on Cuba, clearly not an idle warning.

On September 7, 1963 Castro warned that US political leaders would not be safe if the US continued efforts to kill Cuban leaders. On that very same day Rolando Cubela, a member of Castro's Cabinet, approached the CIA and offered to murder Fidel Castro for the US. Not only did the CIA ignore Castro's "warning" and accept Cubela's offer, it even gave him assurance (whether true or not is certainly debateable) that JFK's own brother enthusiastically endorsed his murderous scheme. The CIA even prepared a Papermate pen with which Cubela could poison Castro. CIA case officer Nestor Sanchez handed Cubela the poison pen in Paris at the very hour Kennedy was killed in Dallas. At the same time, Castro had scheduled a meeting with French journalist Jean Daniel who came to tell him how much JFK wanted to make peace with Cuba.

When Lisa Howard, the CBS journalist who had helped initiate the peace feelures with Castro, found out about the ongoing plots to kill Castro in the midst of the peace initiatives she was so upset she helped start Democrats for Keating in New York (RFK's Senatorial opponent) even though she knew her involvement risked her journalistic career. Within months thereafter she was dead, an apparent suicide.

[Ron Ecker]

The problem with the Castro-did-it scenario is that there was a cover-up. Castro did not have the power to cover up his role in assassinating the president. This cover-up includes the setting up of Oswald (whether or not Oswald was a knowing participant in the crime). Did Castro set Oswald up? If so, how did the government immediately know it, and obligingly take over from there?

If I were to believe Castro did it, I would have to argue that the government covered up who did it and blamed Oswald out of fear that in blaming Castro and invading Cuba the CIA/Mafia plots to assassinate Castro would come to light. This would mean that the U.S. government, while working in cahoots with hoodlums, had brought the killing of JFK on itself.

I would also have to argue, in order to explain such a foolhardy action by Castro, that Castro knew this fear of the CIA/Mafia plots being exposed would exist and would protect him from exposure. The U.S. government would cover up for him.

But this doesn’t really make sense. There is a widely held theory, based on all sorts of evidence, that Oswald was given a pro-Castro legend as he was being set up in order for the conspirators to blame Castro and prompt an invasion of Cuba. If this is true, it follows that the conspirators were not overly concerned that such action might cause the CIA/Mafia plots against Castro to be brought to light.

Why would this fear exist in one scenario (Castro did it) but not in the other (Castro is falsely blamed), since an invasion of Cuba was theoretically to follow in either case. Either this fear of CIA/Mafia exposure existed or it didn’t.

I’m persuaded by the evidence that this fear, that the CIA/Mafia plots would be exposed, didn’t exist to any prohibitive degree. The conspiracy involved killing JFK, blaming Castro, and invading Cuba, but the plan to blame Castro went awry because Oswald was taken alive by DPD.

In sum, I don’t see why this fear would exist if the government somehow immediately found out that Castro did it, fear existing to the extent that the government would cover up Castro’s role, but wouldn’t exist in the case of the government itself (i.e. elements thereof) committing the murder. What’s the difference?

[Larry Hancock]

Tim, could you please point out your source for the details in the

500 K TNT plot (including where and how the people named would

get that much TNT). If it is in the url you posted I'm missing it

completely. According to your post there was fully corroborated

evidence that Castro was building a half megaton weapon for use

against NYC...

I don't think I'm the only one who has missed such a dramatic incident, it

should have been in all the books about the missile crisis and seems like

a rather huge item to be missing from the history books. Indeed if if

it were true it seems pretty strange that SAC wasn't on its way to Cuba

immediately afterwards. And not only didn't JFK dispatch SAC he began

a covert dialog with Castro only months afterwards?

If everybody else knows about this great but I'd like to see a source and

some corroboration as it strikes me as a serious cold war history incident that

needs some attention.

-- Larry

Ranting about U.S. intervention, Castro warned (in a 1961 speech) that if the United States continued its "aggressive imperialistic policies against Cuba" it was "putting New York in danger of becoming another Hiroshima."  Source:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=27620

Castro's warning was not in jest, but the US ignored it. The US continued efforts to kill him and to sabotage the Cuban economy, e.g. Operation Mongoose.

On Friday, November 16, 1962, FBI agents had discovered a Cuban plot to bomb New York subways and department stores with 500 kilos of TNT--on the Friday after Thanksgiving, the busiest shopping day of the year.  If successful, the plot would have killed more innocent civilians than the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

The plot was foolhardy for it surely would have guaranteed US retaliation against Cuba.  But the fact that Castro sanctioned it certainly demonstrates that arguments that it would have been foolhardy for Castro to kill JFK should carry little if any weight.

The head organizer of the 1962 plot was Roberto Santiesban.  He had arrived in the US on October 3, 1962 on a diplomatic passport as an aide to Cuban's UN ambassador Carlos Lechuga.  (Yes, that's right, the same Mr. Lechuga involved in the 1963 peace feelures!).  Other participants in the plot were two Cuban immigrants named Marino Suero and Jose Garcia who ran a costume jewelry shop on West 27th Street in Manhattan that served as the storage facility for the plot.  Suero and Garcia were members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (a name that must surely ring a bell!).

The FBI knew of the plot because it had infiltrated the conspiracy.  It knew that there was a meeting scheduled for Garcia's shop on the night of November 17th.

Involved in the plans to arrest the conspirators were Alan Belmont, the number two man at the FBI and John Malone, the head of the FBI's New York office.  Belmont was in telephonic contact with Malone as well as other New York FBI agents charged with keeping surveillance on the plotters.

Malone reported to Belmont that they had Suero and Garcia in sight and could easily arrest them.  Belmont asked if they had yet spotted Santiesban.  Malone replied that they had the area around the UN under surveillance but had not yet seen him.  Belmont ordered Malone to hold off on Suero and Garcia lest their arrests would allow Santiesban to escape.  Two hours later, Malone relayed field agent reports that Suero and Garcia seemed skittish but again Belmont wanted to wait for Santiesban.

In mid morning on the 17th the FBI finally saw Santiesban walking on Riverside Drive heading for a car with UN diplomatic plates.  That was it.  Belmont ordered the agents to swoop down and arrest all three.

Santiesban saw the FBI agents approaching and took off running.  He even managed to pull away when an FBI agent grabbed him.  Finally several FBI agents tackled him and managed to pin his arm behind his back as he reached for a pistol.

Suero was plucked from his car without incident.  Garcia was in his shop stacking grenades and detonators when he was arrested.

Other agents arrested the Cuban missions switchboard operator and her husband. The FBI estimated their may have been as many as 25 or more other me,bers of the plot.  From interrogation and captured documents they discovered the target list also included Manhattan's main bus terminal and the Statue of Liberty.

If Castro would send a man into New York City under a diplomatic passport to plot mass murder how can anyone argue that he would not have done anything as foolhardy as to plot the murder of John Kennedy? 

It should be remembered that Castro had warned the US that he would target New York City if the US did not stop what he considered US "terrorist" attacks on Cuba, clearly not an idle warning.

On September 7, 1963 Castro warned that US political leaders would not be safe if the US continued efforts to kill Cuban leaders.  On that very same day Rolando Cubela, a member of Castro's Cabinet, approached the CIA and offered to murder Fidel Castro for the US.  Not only did the CIA ignore Castro's "warning" and accept Cubela's offer, it even gave him assurance (whether true or not is certainly debateable) that JFK's own brother enthusiastically endorsed his murderous scheme.  The CIA even prepared a Papermate pen with which Cubela could poison Castro.  CIA case officer Nestor Sanchez handed Cubela the poison pen in Paris at the very hour Kennedy was killed in Dallas.  At the same time, Castro had scheduled a meeting with French journalist Jean Daniel who came to tell him how much JFK wanted to make peace with Cuba.

When Lisa Howard, the CBS journalist who had helped initiate the peace feelures with Castro, found out about the ongoing plots to kill Castro in the midst of the peace initiatives she was so upset she helped start Democrats for Keating in New York (RFK's Senatorial opponent) even though she knew her involvement risked her journalistic career.  Within months thereafter she was dead, an apparent suicide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>