Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

While we're waiting, here's a link to an article out of Cuba about the history of Cubans assassinating each other in Miami and elsewhere. It mentions "the attack on November 17, 1962 against Cuban representatives to the United Nations, particularly Roberto Santiesteban Casanova."

Ron, Santiesteban, acting under diplomatic cover, was the principal plotter. The attack refered to in the article is the physical alteration that took place when he resisted arrest by the FBI agents. As I understand it, it took several FBI agents to restrain him, he was so desperate to flee.

[Mark Knight]

It's the summer rerun season on TV, so I figured it might be time to rerun a post that hasn't generated a response from the party toward whom it was directed:

On another thread, in reply to Tim Gratz, Robert wrote:

Back in April, you claimed you would soon supply us with the smoking gun news reports that bolstered your assertion Castro planned to bomb NYC. You needed only to re-type the data you had downloaded from a pay-site. Perhaps you will either provide what was promised, or acknowledge that what you originally claimed just isn't true. Either one would help to salvage your own credibility, which is just as important to readers here as Sprague's own shortcomings.

It's been nearly four months, Tim...my Granny's slow, but she died in 1973, so she has a valid excuse for not moving.

Do you have the information or not? If you have it, what's the delay in posting it?

[Stuart Wexler]

Tim.

I've been meaning to comment on this thread for some time. Let me first say that I think the Castro-did-it theory gets a bum rap. Those who say Castro did not have a motive are fooling themselves: he probably had more at stake-- his life and his regime-- than any of the usual suspects we name. But motive is not evidence--- people with lesser motives can commit crimes. Those who point out that Castro had a great disincentive-- the potential toppling of his regime from retaliation-- ignore the fact that Castro had nothing to lose if the American government was plotting his downfall (and there is good reason to believe that Castro knew this.) But to take it even one step farther-- Castro was bold; during the Missile Crisis he was the only one of the three major leaders pushing hard for the kind of actions that would plunge the world in WWIII. I think the political leanings of this board DO get in the way of an objective analysis of Castro's potential involvement; even though I agree with many of those leanings.

That said, the major problem I have with the Castro-did-it-theory has nothing to do with motive or with political rationale. It has to do with unnecessary risks. Yes, Castro faced possible elimination if he let Kennedy live, leaving himself in a position where he had nothing to lose. But why would Castro make the stupid mistake of using someone who so clearly tied to his regime? Of all the people Castro chose to employ, he would have chosen someone who was openly pro-Castro, who had visited his consulate, etc. Given the amount of infiltration he had of the exile movement, he could have easily engineered something that implicated his enemies. Instead, he did something stupid. Why?

-Stu

[Tim Gratz]

Stuart, a good post, and I agree that you have identified a major logical problem. I think it possible, however, that Castro or the DGI knew that Oswald was indeed a US intelligence agent. I think that if Castro worked through Trafficante Trafficante could have used Marcello to ensure an LBJ cover-up, And if Oswald was indeed a US intelligence asset, his potential involvement would have ensured a cover-up by the CIA. Do you think it probable that Castro had proof of Oswald's association with anti-Castro groups (something not known to the public in 1963)? I think Castro through his sources in the US (including, probably, Trafficante) had such information. Had the heat been turned on him, I suspect he had the evidence to turn it right around.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

.  I think it possible,.  I think,  And if Oswald was indeed a US intelligence asset, .  Do you think it probable )?  I think Castro , I suspect

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Open the pure speculation thread, this is going straight in

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Tim.

I've been meaning to comment on this thread for some time.  Let me first say that I think the Castro-did-it theory gets a bum rap.  Those who say Castro did not have a motive are fooling themselves:  he probably had more at stake--  his life and his regime--  than any of the usual suspects we name.  But motive is not evidence---  people with lesser motives can commit crimes.    Those who point out that Castro had a great disincentive--  the potential toppling of his regime from retaliation--  ignore the fact that Castro had nothing to lose if the American government was plotting his downfall (and there is good reason to believe that Castro knew this.)    But to take it even one step farther--  Castro was bold;  during the Missile Crisis he was the only one of the three major leaders pushing hard for the kind of actions that would plunge the world in WWIII. 

Stuart, the "three major leaders" may have wished to resolve the crisis in different ways.  But a leader's wishes become nearly irrelevant when underlings like "Maurice Bishop" directly defy those wishes by fomenting paramilitary action at the precise time that those "kind of actions would plunge the world in WW III."  Whatever Castro may have wanted, he refrained from attacking the US or its interests, or the merchant ships of other countries dealing with the US.  Not so Bishop and the DRE and Alpha 66, which continued their harassment attacks all the while.  What Castro proposed may have been lunacy, but it was words and not deeds, compared to the lunacy of what Bishop, et al, actually did.  Which party has demonstrated a greater capacity for brinksmanship at any cost: Castro or the anti-Castro Cubans sponsored by CIA? 

I think the political leanings of this board DO get in the way of an objective analysis of Castro's potential involvement; even though I agree with many of those leanings.

It's interesting that this point keeps coming up.  With the exception of the few here who self-identify their political leanings, I couldn't discern a Democrat poster from a Republican one based on how they analyze the evidence.  I don't think ballistics evidence, or medical evidence, or poring over data in old FBI files can be construed in a "conservative" way or "progressive" way.  It is only the topic of Castro that seems to create this schism, with the assumption apparently being that only conservatives would suspect Castro of culpability, and only progressives would disregard this possibility.  This is a disservice to those capable of thinking for themselves, on either side of the political spectrum.    

That said, the major problem I have with the Castro-did-it-theory has nothing to do with motive or with political rationale.    It has to do with unnecessary risks.  Yes, Castro faced possible elimination if he let Kennedy live, leaving himself in a position where he had nothing to lose.    But why would Castro make the stupid mistake of using someone who so clearly tied to his regime?    Of all the people Castro chose to employ, he would have chosen someone who was openly pro-Castro, who had visited his consulate, etc.    Given the amount of infiltration he had of the exile movement, he could have easily engineered something that implicated his enemies.  Instead, he did something stupid.  Why?

In the past, I've raised this point with Tim more times than I can remember.  In reply, Tim has stated that if Oswald was a US intel operative and Castro was aware of this fact, by using LHO as the patsy, Castro guaranteed a coverup by US authorities anxious to avoid disclosing their relationship with the putative assassin.  It strikes me that this is false on every level.

First, it equates the public knowledge of LHO as a pro-Castro operative [even if it was a masquerade, he was arrested handing out FPCC literature], with the non-public relationship between Oswald and CIA [or ONI or what-have-you].  No matter what Oswald's purported relationship with CIA, et al, it was covert and wouldn't have come out at all after the assassination unless CIA, et al, allowed its release.  Tim's scenario presupposes that there was something about this relationship that was bound to be made public knowledge after the assassination, but has yet to offer up what that might have been.

Second, to believe this requires us to identify the means by which Castro knew of Oswald's purported relationship with US intel.  While there very well may have been such a relationship, if we diligent researchers haven't found smoking gun evidence of it in 40-plus years, how did Castro know this in 1963? 

Third, Tim's scenario presupposes that Castro knew how US authorities would react, but Tim has yet to offer any suggestions indicating what gave Castro this level of certainty, which must be weighed against the colossal strategic gamble of killing the world's most powerful man.  Remember, the treasonous acts of Bishop, et al, were largely a secret to the US populace at large, but not so to Castro and the Cubans.  If Castro knew that certain US interests were pushing for a military confrontation at the very height of the Missile Crisis, did he really expect those same interests to remain sanguine post-11/22, and to cover up Castro's own culpability in the assassination, rather than seize the pretext for war with Cuba?  What would have given Castro this rock-solid certainty?

Fourth, you'll note over time that Tim is really quite flexible.  His hard and fast determination to prove Castro was the ultimate author of 11/22 doesn't preclude him tossing various Mobsters, Soviets, Madame Nhu and even US intel operatives into the plot when the fancy strikes him. 

Glad to see you here, Stu.  You've done much admirable work in the past, and we look forward to more of the same here in the future. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Harry J.Dean]

Stuart, a good post, and I agree that you have identified a major logical problem.  I think it possible, however, that Castro or the DGI knew that Oswald was indeed a US intelligence agent.  I think that if Castro worked through Trafficante Trafficante could have used Marcello to ensure an LBJ cover-up,  And if Oswald was indeed a US intelligence asset, his potential involvement would have ensured a cover-up by the CIA.  Do you think it probable that Castro had proof of Oswald's association with anti-Castro groups (something not known to the public in 1963)?  I think Castro through his sources in the US (including, probably, Trafficante) had such information.  Had the heat been turned on him, I suspect he had the evidence to turn it right around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Tim

Having been dealt "fearsome" treatment in Havana by Castro's DGI in 1960, my natural opinion should be that Castro and his nothing Cuban DGI skunks were in someway guilty in Kennedy's Nov. 1963 death, but I cannot. Also I cannot forget the endless number of "pro-Castro revolutionaries" that were gunned down by his firing squads since the Revolution. Sorry, Castro is a murderer for certain, but he did not reach out for Kennedy.

Harry

[Mark Knight]

So, Gratz...

...where's that info on the NYC bombing?

Yeah, the stuff that you promised back in April...

I'm beginning to believe you never had it; prove me wrong if you can. [For the sake of your credibility, I hope you can.]

[JL Allen]

Castro was actually in the middle of an interview being conducted by a reporter from The New Republic when he was first notified of the assassination. His reactions, comments and the details of what transpired appeared in an article on December 7, 1963. I find it very interesting and enlightening - and, believable. I find it improbable that any plotter would put himself in this position of being scrupulously examined by the media in the exact moments in which his dasterdly deed was unfolding. That would seem like a huge scheduling conflict if you were the boss and could have it any way you pleased. Who would need the aggravation? He comes off too naturally. Why would anyone want to do that much "acting" at such a time. Some will say, "That's part of his alibi!" I don't buy it. To each, his own.

"...Personally, I consider him responsible for everything, but I will say this: he has come to understand many things over the past few months; and then too, in the last analysis, I'm convinced that anyone else would be worse.." Then Fidel had added with a broad and boyish grin: "If you see him again, you can tell him that I'm willing to declare Goldwater my friend if that will guarantee Kennedy's re-election!"

When Castro Heard the News

By Jean Daniel

The New Republic, 7 December 1963, pp. 7–9

Havana

It was around 1:30 in the afternoon, Cuban time. We were having lunch in the living room of the modest summer residence which Fidel Castro owns on magnificent Varadero Beach, 120 kilometers from Havana. For at least the tenth time. I was questioning the Cuban leader on details of the negotiations with Russia before the missile installations last year. The telephone rang, a secretary in guerrilla garb announced that Mr. Dorticós, President of the Cuban Republic, had an urgent communication for the Prime Minister. Fidel picked up the phone and I heard him say: "Como? Un atentado?" ("What's that? An attempted assassination?") He then turned to us to say that Kennedy had just been struck down in Dallas. Then he went back to the telephone and exclaimed in a loud voice "Herido? Muy gravemente?" ("Wounded? Very seriously?")

He came back, sat down, and repeated three times the words: "Es una mala noticia." ("This is bad news.") He remained silent for a moment, awaiting another call with further news. He remarked while we waited that there was an alarmingly sizable lunatic fringe in American society and that this deed could equally well have been the work of a madman or a terrorist. Perhaps a Vietnamese? Or a member of the Ku Klux Klan? The second call came through: it was hoped they would be able to announce that the United States President was still alive, that there was hope of saving him. Fidel Castro's immediate reaction was: "If they can, he is already re-elected." He pronounced these words with satisfaction.

This sentence was a sequel to a conversation we had held on a previous evening and which had turned into an all-night session. To be precise, it lasted from 10 in the evening until 4 in the morning. A good part of the talk revolved about the impressions I recounted to him of an interview which President Kennedy granted me this last October 24, and about Fidel Castro's reactions to these impressions. During this nocturnal discussion, Castro had delivered himself of a relentless indictment of US policy, adding that in the recent past Washington had had ample opportunity to normalize its relations with Cuba, but that instead he had tolerated a CIA program of training, equipping and organizing a counter-revolution. He had told me that he wasn't in the least fearful of his life, since danger was his natural milieu, and if he were to become a victim of the United States this would simply enhance his radius of influence in Latin America as well as throughout the socialist world. He was speaking, he said, from the viewpoint of the interests of peace in both the American continents. To achieve this goal, a leader would have to arise in the United States capable of understanding the explosive realities of Latin America and of meeting them halfway. Then, suddenly, he had taken a less hostile tack: "Kennedy could still be this man. He still has the possibility of becoming, in the eyes of history, the greatest President of the United States, the leader who may at last understand that there can be coexistence between capitalists and socialists, even in the Americas. He would then be an even greater President than Lincoln. I know, for example, that for Khrushchev, Kennedy is a man you can talk with. I have gotten this impression from all my conversations with Khrushchev. Other leaders have assured me that to attain this goal, we must first await his re-election. Personally, I consider him responsible for everything, but I will say this: he has come to understand many things over the past few months; and then too, in the last analysis, I'm convinced that anyone else would be worse.." Then Fidel had added with a broad and boyish grin: "If you see him again, you can tell him that I'm willing to declare Goldwater my friend if that will guarantee Kennedy's re-election!"

This conversation was held on November 19.

Now it was nearly 2 o'clock and we got up from the table and settled ourselves in front of a radio. Commandant Vallero, his physician, aide-de-camp, and intimate friend, was easily able to get the broadcasts from the NBC network in Miami. As the news came in, Vallero would translate it for Fidel: Kennedy wounded in the head; pursuit of the assassin; murder of a policeman; finally the fatal announcement: President Kennedy is dead. Then Fidel stood up and said to me: "Everything is changed. Everything is going to change. The United States occupies such a position in world affairs that the death of a President of that country affects millions of people in every corner of the globe. The cold war, relations with Russia, Latin America, Cuba, the Negro question…all will have to be rethought. I'll tell you one thing: at least Kennedy was an enemy to whom we had become accustomed. This is a serious matter, an extremely serious matter."

After this quarter-hour of silence observed by all the American radio stations, we once more tuned in on Miami; the silence had only been broken by a rebroadcasting of the American national anthem. Strange indeed was the impression made, on hearing this hymn ring out in the house of Fidel Castro, in the midst of a circle of worried faces. "Now," Fidel said, "they will have to find the assassin quickly, but very quickly, otherwise, you watch and see, I know them, they will try to put the blame on us for this thing. But tell me, how many Presidents have been assassinated? Four? This is most disturbing! In Cuba, only one has been assassinated. You know, when we were hiding out in the Sierra there were some (not in my group, in another) who wanted to kill Batista. They thought they could do away with a regime by decapitating it. I have always been violently opposed to such methods. First of all from the viewpoint of political self-interest, because so far as Cuba is concerned, if Batista had been killed he would have been replaced by some military figure who would have tried to make the revolutionists pay for the martyrdom of the dictator. But I was also opposed to it on personal grounds; assassination is repellant to me."

The broadcasts were now resumed. One reporter felt he should mention the difficulty Mrs. Kennedy was having in getting rid of her bloodstained stockings. Fidel exploded: "What sort of a mind is this!" He repeated the remark several times: "What sort of a mind is this? There is a difference in our civilizations after all. Are you like this in Europe? For us Latin Americans, death is a sacred matter; not only does it mark the close of hostilities, but it also imposes decency, dignity, respect. There are even street urchins who behave like kings in the face of death. Incidentally, this reminds me of something else: if you write all those things I told you yesterday against Kennedy's policy, don't use his name now; speak instead of the policy of the United States government."

Toward 5 o'clock, Fidel Castro declared that since there was nothing we could do to alter the tragedy, we must try to put our time to good use in spite of it. He wanted to accompany me in person on a visit to a granja de pueblo (state farm), where he had been engaging in some experiments. His present obsession is agriculture. He reads nothing but agronomical studies and reports. He dwells lyrically on the soil, fertilizers, and the possibilities which will give Cuba enough sugar cane by 1970 to achieve economic independence.

"Didn't I Tell You"

We went by car, with the radio on. The Dallas police were now hot on the trail of the assassin. He is a Russian spy, says the news commentator. Five minutes later, correction: he is a spy married to a Russian. Fidel said: "There, didn't I tell you; it'll be my turn next." But not yet. The next word was: the assassin is a Marxist deserter. Then the word came through, in effect, that the assassin was a young man who was a member of the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," that he was an admirer of Fidel Castro. Fidel declared: "If they had had proof, they would have said he was an agent, a hired killer. In saying simply that he is an admirer, this is just to try and make an association in people's minds between the name of Castro and the emotion awakened by the assassination. This is a publicity method, a propaganda device. It's terrible. But you know, I'm sure this will all soon blow over. There are too many competing policies in the United States for any single one to be able to impose itself universally for very long."

We arrived at the granja de pueblo, where the farmers welcomed Fidel. At that very moment, a speaker announced over the radio that it was now known that the assassin is a "pro-Castro Marxist." One commentator followed another; the remarks became increasingly emotional, increasingly aggressive. Fidel then excused himself: "We shall have to give up the visit to the farm." We went on toward Matanzas from where he could telephone President Dorticós. On the way he had questions: "Who is Lyndon Johnson? What is his reputation? What were his relations with Kennedy? With Khrushchev? What was his position at the time of the attempted invasion of Cuba?" Finally and most important of all: "What authority does he exercise over the CIA?" Then abruptly he looked at his watch, saw that it would be half an hour before we reached Matanzas and, practically on the spot, he dropped off to sleep.

After Matanzas, where he must have decreed a state of alert, we returned to Vardero for dinner. Quoting the words spoken to him by a woman shortly before, he said to me that it was an irony of history for the Cubans, in the situation to which they had been reduced by the blockade, to have to mourn the death of a President of the United States. "After all," he added, "there are perhaps some people in the world to whom this news is cause for rejoicing. The South Vietnamese guerrillas, for example, and also, I would imagine, Madame Nhu!"

I thought of the people of Cuba, accustomed to the sight of posters like the one depicting the Red Army with Maquis superimposed in front, and the screaming captions "HALT, MR. KENNEDY! CUBA IS NOT ALONE…." I thought of all those who had been led to associate their deprivations with the policies of President John F. Kennedy.

At dinner I was able to take up all my questions. What had motivated Castro to endanger the peace of the world with the missiles in Cuba? How dependent was Cuba on the Soviet Union? Is it not possible to envisage relations between Cuba and the United Sates along the same lines as those between Finland and the Russians? How was the transition made from the humanism of Sierra Maestra to the Marxism-Leninism of 1961? Fidel Castro, once more in top form, had an explanation for everything. Then he questioned me once more on Kennedy, and each time I eulogized the intellectual qualities of the assassinated President, I awakened the keenest interest in him.

The Cubans have lived with the United States in that cruel intimacy so familiar to me of the colonized with their colonizers. Nevertheless, it was an intimacy. In that very seductive city of Havana to which we returned in the evening, where the luminous signboards with Marxist slogans have replaced the Coca Cola and toothpaste billboards, in the midst of Soviet exhibits and Czechoslovakian trucks, a certain American emotion vibrated in the atmosphere, compounded of resentment, of concern, of anxiety, yet also, in spite of everything, of a mysterious almost imperceptible rapprochement. After all, this American President was able to reach accord with our Russian friends during his lifetime, said a young Cuban intellectual to me as I was taking my leave. It was almost as though he were apologizing for not rejoicing at the assassination.

Jean Daniel

[John Simkin]

Castro was actually in the middle of an interview being conducted by a reporter from The New Republic when he was first notified of the assassination.  His reactions, comments and the details of what transpired appeared in an article on December 7, 1963.  I find it very interesting and enlightening - and, believable.  I find it improbable that any plotter would put himself in this position of being scrupulously examined by the media in the exact moments in which his dasterdly deed was unfolding. 

Very good point. Jean Daniel was not only interviewing Castro, he was negotiating with him on behalf of JFK. See:

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

[Mark Knight]

Just a reminder that we're still waiting on the information about the Castro plot to bomb NYC.

Lest you forget...

[Pat Speer]

Stuart, the "three major leaders" may have wished to resolve the crisis in different ways. But a leader's wishes become nearly irrelevant when underlings like "Maurice Bishop" directly defy those wishes by fomenting paramilitary action at the precise time that those "kind of actions would plunge the world in WW III." Whatever Castro may have wanted, he refrained from attacking the US or its interests, or the merchant ships of other countries dealing with the US. Not so Bishop and the DRE and Alpha 66, which continued their harassment attacks all the while. What Castro proposed may have been lunacy, but it was words and not deeds, compared to the lunacy of what Bishop, et al, actually did. Which party has demonstrated a greater capacity for brinksmanship at any cost: Castro or the anti-Castro Cubans sponsored by CIA?

Robert, you've brought this point up several times and I think it is a good one. I'm away from home right now and can't double-check, but I believe Shackley in his recently published memoirs says RFK blamed William Harvey for these raids, and that that was why Harvey was shipped out to Italy. If this is so, what with Harvey's friendship with Rosselli, these raids may indeed hold the key to the assassination.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, from memory, there was a meeting of some organization (as you know there were so many different task forces and groups meeting). Harvey was chastised, by RFK I believe, not for the Alpha 66 attacks, but for attempting to infiltrate agents into Cuba. His defense was that the US would need the agents in place. Harvey then got into a shouting match with Bobby. It was the shouting match and harsh exchange that doomed Harvey's career. I will try to look up what the exchange was but you can probably imagine it. I understand Harvey refered to both Kennedys with a word that is unprintable in US newspapers and on this Forum.

But I have not read Shackley's memoirs.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

Castro....bombing plot...NYC.....

Where's the beef? [Apologies to the late Clara Peller.]

[Don Bohning]

I have a bit of a problem with those people who think the Kennedys were planning another invasion: At the same time I have no doubt they were hoping to provoke an uprising that would create the conditions for an invasion under Mongoose, or the subsequent covert program - and particularly the Artime autonomous group which operating from Costa Rica and Nicaragua. [Despite what some accounts say was code-named Second Naval Guerrilla, both Rafael Quintero, Artime's deputy, and Sam Halpern, executive assistant to Desmond Fitzgerald, the head of the Cuba task force at the time, both told me they never heard of.]

As I recall, Gus Russo's book, Live by The Sword, also claims - as I recall without going back to look for it - that Kennedy was planning another invasion, coming to that conclusion by selectively citing from a declassified document by Robert McNamara.