Did Fidel Kill Kennedy?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Hi Tim:

Thanks for posting Peter Whitmey's piece.  It contains information that I trust didn't escape your notice:

QUOTE ON:

During the HSCA’s investigation, the Cubana Airlines flight incident was reviewed. The committee ascertained that the Cubana flight had been delayed, but by four hours and ten minutes, not five hours as previously reported. It was also learned that the Cubana flight left Mexico City at 8:30 p.m., an hour before the twin-engine private aircraft arrived, so a transfer of a passenger was not possible. Had such a transfer occurred, the committee felt that it was highly unlikely that it would have gone unnoticed, given the extensive records maintained at the airport.

QUOTE OFF:

Given these facts, why do you persist in championing a theory that depends solely upon CIA reports that are clearly wrong?

The following article by Peter Whitney, published in "The Fourth Decade", merits our consideration.

The Cubana Airlines Flight of November 22, 1963

Peter R. Whitmey

The Fourth Decade, January 1995

      In June of 1976 the Senate Select Committee described in Book V of its report the mysterious delay of a Cubana Airlines flight, not long after the assassination of President Kennedy, originating in Mexico City and destined for Cuba. The reason given for the five-hour delay (from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m. EST), according to information received by the CIA on Dec. 1, 1963, was for the purpose of transporting an “unidentified passenger (who) had arrived at the Mexico city airport in a twin-engine aircraft at 10:30 p.m.” (1) The man had apparently boarded the Cubana flight without going through customs, and traveled to Cuba in the cockpit.

      During the HSCA’s investigation, the Cubana Airlines flight incident was reviewed. The committee ascertained that the Cubana flight had been delayed, but by four hours and ten minutes, not five hours as previously reported. It was also learned that the Cubana flight left Mexico City at 8:30 p.m., an hour before the twin-engine private aircraft arrived, so a transfer of a passenger was not possible. Had such a transfer occurred, the committee felt that it was highly unlikely that it would have gone unnoticed, given the extensive records maintained at the airport. However, for some reason, the committee failed to divulge the name of the mystery passenger who had landed in Mexico City in their report. (2)

      The likely identity of the individual first referred to by the Senate Select Committee as an “unidentified passenger” was revealed in two CIA reports dated Jan. 25 and Jan. 27, 1964, released under the Freedom of Information Act in November 1983. A detailed summary was provided by Henry Hurt in his 1985 book Reasonable Doubt. (3) According to CIA sources, the man’s name was Miguel Casas Saez. He was born in Cuba, and at the time of the assassination was either twenty-one or twenty-seven, 5’5” in height, and weighing 155 lbs. Saez was an ardent admirer of Raul Castro, Fidel Castro’s brother, and was possibly a member of the Cuban intelligence service; he even spoke Russian.

      Much of the information about Saez was provided to the CIA before the assassination, on November 5 and 15, 1963. He had entered the U.S. in Miami in early November using the name “Angel Dominiguez Martinez” on a “sabotage and espionage mission”, according to one CIA source, and had been in Dallas on November 22 with two friends (confirmed by CIA sources inside Cuba), returning to Dallas later that day. Saez apparently had experience with weapons while in the militia, and was described as being “capable of doing anything” by the same source. Further investigation by two men working under the Cuban source determined that Saez had gone from being poorly dressed to well dressed with lots of money, after having disappeared for several weeks.

      Another CIA source, considered reliable, provided further details from Saez’s aunt, who knew him as “Miguelito.” She also confirmed that he had been in Dallas on November 22, had left the U.S. at Laredo for Mexico City and then onto Cuba. The aunt described her nephew as one of “Raul’s men” and “very brave, very brave.”

      Hurt also points out that in late 1964, the CIA informed the FBI that an “untested” source had provided information from a Cuban scientist who had been at the Havana airport late on Nov. 22, 1963. He had noticed a plane with Mexican markings land at the far end of the air field, with two men, whom he recognized as Cuban “gangsters,” emerging from the back door of the administration building. The scientist learned that the flight had originated in Dallas. Were they possibly friends of Saez and co-conspirators in the assassination?

      An intriguing footnote to the Cubana Airlines incident came to my attention in the fall of 1988 during a telephone conversation with Alan Edmunds, a former Maclean’s journalist. (4) He mentioned to me that a small contingent of Canadian and British journalists, including himself, had been granted visas by the Cuban government to cover the trial of two Canadian pilots who had been caught smuggling explosives into Cuba, hidden in cans of papaya juice. (5) The trial was to begin on November 23, 1963, and the reporters arranged to meet “at noon in the bar of Mexico City Airport on November 22.” Their flight to Cuba on Cubana Airlines was scheduled to leave at 2:00 p.m. CST, but they had been warned that “the plane would be held until the last of the refugee passengers had been cleared by U.S. Immigration.” (6)

      While at the bar, Edmunds and his eight colleagues learned that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, and immediately ran for the phones, with seats available on an Eastern Airlines flight to Dallas. However, Edmunds was told to continue on to Cuba, despite the feeling that Castro was behind the assassination, which could likely have resulted in a nuclear attack on Cuba.

      Edmunds recalled that their flight was not called until 9:00 pm—a delay of seven hours—and that they were the only passengers allowed on board. It was pitch black as they were escorted by “a small man with a nervous smile and impeccable New York English…across several hundred yards of tarmac.” They were led up the front steps and seated in what had been “the first class compartment in pre-egalitarian days.”

      After the seat-belt sign went out, Edmunds got up and began walking to the rear of the plane in search of the washroom, which he assumed was in the economy section, separated by a curtain. As he opened the curtain, the Cuban escort, who doubled as the steward, grabbed his arm and abruptly directed him to a washroom in the first class section. However, Edmunds had been able to take note of four to six people in that area of the plane, including two men to his left and a woman to his right.

      Edmunds recalled that years later, possibly in 1978 (more likely 1975, unless he meant the HSCA) a “U.S. Senate Inquiry into the Kennedy assassination had been presented with the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a patsy, and it was a Cuban hit squad that had got Kennedy from the grassy knoll near the book warehouse. They’d driven Hell for Leather to Dallas airport and boarded a scheduled flight to Mexico City. The inquiry had been told that the Cubana Airlines flight to Havana that day had been deliberately delayed so it could fly them back to Cuba before anyone caught on.” Edmunds indicated that someone had suggested the possibility that one of the Canadian journalists aboard that flight might have seen the hit squad, and therefore should be questioned. Although Edmunds states in his manuscript that neither he nor his colleagues were contacted, he did recall during our conversation having been phoned [by someone from the committee], with the expectation of a follow-up interview, which never materialized.

      In his manuscript, Edmunds suggested that, had he taken the theory at all seriously, he “should, in all conscience, have at least phoned Washington.” But then he would have been forced to publicly admit that further investigation on his part might have been expected. In retrospect, Edmunds wondered whether the other passengers were merely rejected refugees being sent back to Cuba, or maybe cabin crew from the previous flight returning home. If not, he facetiously suggested the possibility of having “missed the story of the century” in his “eagerness to get to the washroom.”

      Edmunds’s description of the Cubana flight makes no reference to having observed an incoming private plane or the boarding of a passenger who went directly to the cockpit, although it is conceivable that these events took place prior to the journalists being escorted to the plane. In addition, Edmunds’s recollection of the scheduled and actual time of departure is not consistent with the Senate Committee’s report, nor with the HSCA’s, but there is no indication that Cuban Airlines had more than one flight to Cuba that day. (In fact, Edmunds stated that Cubana Airlines had only one flight per week from Mexico City to Cuba.)

      So we are left with a suspicious, but inconclusive, possibility, that one or more pro-Castro Cubans might have been involved in the assassination of JFK, with or without Lee Harvey Oswald’s knowledge and participation. Even though the CIA had informed the FBI about the observation of a Cuban scientist at the Havana Airport described earlier, on a routing sheet that accompanied the document, someone at the CIA had scrawled the following comment: “I’d let this die its natural death, as the FBI is doing.” The CIA’s source in Cuba had, in fact, died by then. (7)

      As for Saez, no attempt had apparently been made to determine why he had traveled to the U.S., why he happened to be in Dallas on November 22, 1963, why he had abruptly returned to Cuba with apparent assistance that day, why he suddenly came into more money than ever before, and whatever happened to him. Presumably the HSCA was aware of the CIA documents cited by Henry Hurt, but no specific reference was made to Saez in its report. It is also apparent that the Warren Commission was never informed by the CIA about the Cuban connection.

Notes:

1.      Bernard Fensterwald with Michael Ewing, Coincidence or Conspiracy? (New York: Zebra Books, 1977), pp. 494–495. It should be noted that the authors describe the man as being a twenty-three-year-old “Cuban-American,” with connections to Tampa, Florida, Fair Play For Cuba Committee, who might have been involved in the assassination, according to a CIA source. However, this description clearly applies to Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, whose suspicious movements are described in detail in The Final Assassinations Report (Bantam Books: N.Y.), pp. 136–141.

2.      The Final Assassinations Report (Bantam Books, N.Y.), 1979, p. 136. Note: the Cubana Airline flight is incorrectly stated as having taken place on Nov. 23, 1963, but the report referred to in the footnotes on p. 695 gives the correct date of Nov. 22, 1963.

3.      Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (Henry Holt and Co. N.Y., 1985), pp. 421–23.

4.      I had contacted Edmunds in the course of trying to locate another former Maclean’s writer named Jon Ruddy related to my Richard Giesbrecht research, and through Edmunds was successful (Ruddy died in 1995 in Mexico, as a result of an accident.)

5.      “The Great Cuban Spy Caper” (part one) by William Milne as told to Barbara Moon, Maclean’s, February 22, 1964, pp. 7–8, March 7, 1964, pp. 24–25, 39–45. Also, New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 25 and New York Times, Dec. 11, 1963, p. 11.

6.      Alan Edmunds, “Airlines to Avoid: Cubana,” sent to me on Jan. 22, 1990; it was to be published in a Canadian travel magazine, although I don’t know if it ever was.

7.      Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 423.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

To my friend Robert:

Again I want to start by complimenting you on the usual articuleness of your language. Your argument here makes perfect sense until we think a little bit more about its implication.

Based on the language from the HSCA, the twin-engine plane that came from Dallas to Mexico City via Tijuana Mexico carrying Miguel landed in Mexico City at 9:30 p.m., an hour before the Cubana airplane took off for Cuba. Ergo, Miguel did not transfer to the Cubana airplane from the twin-engine plane that carried him from Dallas to Mexico City.

Therefore, unless the record of when the Cubana airplane departed is in error (a possibility) you argue that Miguel did not ride the last Cubana airplane from Mexico City to Havana on 11-22-1963. Makes perfect sense to me. He couldn't have. No one could argue with that (again assuming the Cubana flight record was correct).

So what are we left with:

Miguel, an agent of Cuban intellifence (so far I have seen no facts from you to dispute that) is in Dallas on the afternoon of the 22nd of November. He takes off in a twin-engine plane from Dallas to Tijuana, Mexico and then flies on the same plane from Tijuana to Mexico City, arriving in Mexico City at 9:30 p.m. on the 22nd.

We know Miguel got back to Cuba somehow. We just don't know how or when.

As I assume you know, Russo suggests he could have taken a FAR plane to Havana on the 22nd.

But maybe he just got a room in Mexico City (or even stayed at the Cuban embassy), rested up from his heavy day (killing a head of state can be stressful) and caught the first Cubana plane back on the 23rd.

What the heck difference does it make if he took a FAR plane to Havana on the 22nd or a Cubana airplane on the 23rd? We KNOW he got back to Havana, whether on the 22nd, 23rd, or whenever.

What is significant is that the HSCA report, which you credit, confirms his arrival on the twin-engine plane from Dallas at 9:30 p.m. in Mexico City.

What is ominous, my friend, is not how Miguel got back to Havana (we know he got back someway) but his presence in Dallas at the time of the assassination. So unless you assert he just went to Dallas to watch the motorcade, I think comrade Raul has a little explaining to do.

Edited January 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

We have previously discussed the fact that French journalist Jean Daniel met with President Kennedy at the White House on Tuesday, November 19, at which time JFK and Danil talked about the possibility of peace with Cuba.

JFK had just returned from Miami where he had delivered a speech to the IAPA that, according to some sources, included coded language meant to assure Major Cubela that JFK endorsed Cubela's plan to "eliminate" Fidel Castro as the first part of a Cuban coup.

Daniel had been scheduled to meet with Castro the next day (Wednesday, Nov 20) but the meeting was re-scheduled until Friday, November 22, 1963. I submit the rescheduling of the meeting was a message sent by Castro.

For while Castro was listening to Daniel talk peace, in Paris the CIA agent was giving Cubela a device to kill Castro. At the same time, in Dallas, President Kennedy was shot dead.

On January 11, 1992, speaking to the Tripartite Conference, Castro commented on the confluence of events that fateful Friday:

"Look at the paradox, the contradictions and coincidences: on the same day and at the same hour that Jean Daniel was giving me Kennedy's message [of peace], an agent of the United States was handing over a fountain pen with a poison dart to be used in an assassination attempt against me. Look how many paradoxes and how many crazy things there are in the world."

When Daniel was talking Kennedy's peace with Fidel, Fidel knew that the CIA was giving an assassination device to Major Cubela in Paris (for, of course, Cubela was reporting back to Castro, who still held his allegiance). What satisfaction Castro must have had knowing what was going to happen in Dallas.

And of course, Robert, it matters not whether both JFK and RFK approved the Cubela operation; if RFK approved it without his brother's express consent; or if, as you argue, the CIA was acting on its own. Cubela had received assurances that RFK supported his plan and Castro acted accordingly.

Edited January 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

Given the evidence that there were Cuban exile and other anti-Castro operatives who knew that something was up in Dallas, to the extent that they were there that day in Dealey Plaza, it would hardly be surprising if Castro agents within the exile community also knew something was up.

Perhaps Castro, knowing something was up, wanted someone there on the ground to observe exactly what happened and report to him ASAP, since he himself could be a suspect if JFK were murdered in Dallas.

This would of course explain what a couple of Castro agents were doing in Dallas, and why they wanted to get to Havana ASAP to report personally how things went down as they saw it.

To say that Castro was able to make a prompt study of the case would be an understatement. Castro gave an immediate analysis of Oswald and the assassination in a speech on Cuban TV and radio on the night of 11/23/63. In this speech Castro even noted that Oswald was able to return to the U.S. from Russia "thanks to a loan of 435 dollars and 71 cents," acquired from the U.S. "after an appeal to Senator John G. Tower, Republican, Texas." (The text of Castro's speech is in E. Martin Schotz's book History Will Not Absolve Us.)

It seems obvious that Cuban security had a file on Oswald before the assassination. Cuban security may even have had Oswald identified as a potential patsy if JFK happened to get shot in Dallas. Indeed there's one thing I'm almost sure of: If Castro had been included on the Warren Commission, this case could have been solved long ago.

Ron

Edited January 29, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[David G. Healy]

Ron penned:

[...]

Indeed there's one thing I'm almost sure of: If Castro had been included on the Warren Commission, this case could have been solved long ago.

Ron

___________________

Brilliant Ron! What he, Castro knows may be the ONLY reason he's still alive, today!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To my friend Robert:

Again I want to start by complimenting you on the usual articuleness of your language.  Your argument here makes perfect sense until we think a little bit more about its implication.

Based on the language from the HSCA, the twin-engine plane that came from Dallas to Mexico City via Tijuana Mexico carrying Miguel landed in Mexico City at 9:30 p.m., an hour before the Cubana airplane took off for Cuba.  Ergo, Miguel did not transfer to the Cubana airplane from the twin-engine plane that carried him from Dallas to Mexico City.

Therefore, unless the record of when the Cubana airplane departed is in error (a possibility) you argue that Miguel did not ride the last Cubana airplane from Mexico City to Havana on 11-22-1963.  Makes perfect sense to me.  He couldn't have.  No one could argue with that (again assuming the Cubana flight record was correct).

So what are we left with:

Miguel, an agent of Cuban intellifence (so far I have seen no facts from you to dispute that) is in Dallas on the afternoon of the 22nd of November.  He takes off in a twin-engine plane from Dallas to Tijuana, Mexico and then flies on the same plane from Tijuana to Mexico City, arriving in Mexico City at 9:30 p.m. on the 22nd.

We know Miguel got back to Cuba somehow.  We just don't know how or when.

As I assume you know, Russo suggests he could have taken a FAR plane to Havana on the 22nd.

But maybe he just got a room in Mexico City (or even stayed at the Cuban embassy), rested up from his heavy day (killing a head of state can be stressful) and caught the first Cubana plane back on the 23rd.

What the heck difference does it make if he took a FAR plane to Havana on the 22nd or a Cubana airplane on the 23rd?  We KNOW he got back to Havana, whether on the 22nd, 23rd, or whenever.

What is significant is that the HSCA report, which you credit, confirms his arrival on the twin-engine plane from Dallas at 9:30 p.m. in Mexico City.

What is ominous, my friend, is not how Miguel got back to Havana (we know he got back someway) but his presence in Dallas at the time of the assassination.  So unless you assert he just went to Dallas to watch the motorcade, I think comrade Raul has a little explaining to do.

Hi Tim:

My central point throughout remains the same: all of the evidence you cite is from the same source, the agency you seem to hold sacrosanct.  I have just demonstrated to you that the first official body to actually investigate the details, to the extent that they could do so that much later in time, found sufficient reason to disbelieve CIA's "mysterious passenger" scenario was even possible.

So, how do you explain the multiple sources developed by CIA for these allegations, who are witnesses to an event that never happened?

HSCA staff seemed impressed with the voluminous records kept by the Mexico City airport, and said so.  Consequently, I can only assume the HSCA counsel had access to whatever documentation they needed to reach that conclusion.  How is it possible that CIA and FBI, both of whom were initially working on the Mexico City angle, failed to avail themselves of the self-same records the HSCA staff used to reach its conclusion 15 years later? 

If they were only wrong [to be charitable] on so elementary a clue, why do you think any of these provocative contentions are any more genuine?

Who told you of Gilberto's and Miguelito's travel itineraries?  How do you know these allegations are any more true than the "mysterious passenger" scenario, which could only serve to incite anti-Castro sentiments and suspicions?

To be less charitable to the Agency, what makes you think that these spurious allegations weren't custom-fabricated for that very purpose?

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?

I can.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

And of course, Robert, it matters not whether both JFK and RFK approved the Cubela operation; if RFK approved it without his brother's express consent; or if, as you argue, the CIA was acting on its own.  Cubela had received assurances that RFK supported his plan and Castro acted accordingly.

You give Castro too little credit, Tim.  Love him or loathe him, the man has outlasted ten Presidents somehow, and it wasn't by being stupid.

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?"

Upon concluding that there was no such senior US Senator, what would Castro have concluded about the quality of such "assurances?"

What would you conclude?  That RFK actually approved?  Or that somebody else had gone to elaborate, but self-defeating, efforts to make it appear that RFK approved?

You think CIA was "foolish" to continue with the Cubela plot, after the Agency had good reason to suspect Cubela's allegiance.  I would ask you to entertain that it wasn't foolishness, but a deliberate and calculated decision to continue for the impact it might have in Havana: the unilateral cessation by Castro of the back-channel "peace-feeler" swapping that CIA knew of, and was anxious to prevent reaching fruition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

"Given the evidence that there were Cuban exile and other anti-Castro operatives who knew that something was up in Dallas, to the extent that they were there that day in Dealey Plaza. . ."

Ron, three questions:

1. Who specifically do you believe was in Dealey Plaza?

2. For each such person you identify, please state the basis for your belief that

such person was in Dealey Plaza.

3. Is your opinion that such persons "knew that something was up" based soley,

as your post implies, based solely on their presence in Dealey Plaza?

[Tim Gratz]

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".

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.

Edited January 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

1.  Who specifically do you believe was in Dealey Plaza?

An unidentified black Latino known as DCM, an unidentified cohort called UM, a Latino using a radio at the corner of Elm and Houston (seen in Altgens 6), and Rip Robertson and other known covert operatives on the corner of Main and Houston.

2.  For each such person you identify, please state the basis for your belief that

    such person was in Dealey Plaza.

The behavior of DCM and UM, the Latino's radio, and the physical appearance of Robertson and others.

3.  Is your opinion that such persons "knew that something was up" based soley,

    as your post implies, based solely on their presence in Dealey Plaza?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. I don't believe they all converged at Dealey Plaza by some big collective coincidence or for an annual JFK conference.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

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.

[Tim Gratz]

To Ron:

No one knows, of couse, who DCM or UM were. To the extent there were unidentified Latino or Hispanic males in Dealey Plaza, no one can say for sure whether they were anti-Castro operatives or pro-Castro operatives, can they?

So does it all boil down to a photograph of a spectator in Dealey Plaza that bears a resemblance to Rip Robertson?

And did I gather from your previous post that you assume that Castro had foreknowledge of the assassination plot, which foreknowledge, of course, he denied? Wonder why he would lie about such an important matter? Hmmm?

And if he had foreknowledge of the plot, but was not a party to it, do you think he would be stupid enought to send one of his intelligence agents to Dealey Plaza just to watch it unfold? My gosh, what if he'd been picked up in a dragnet?

I think any reasonable person would conclude that if there were agents of Cuban intelligence in Dealey Plaza on the afternoon of 11/22/1963, they were there for one purpose only, and it wasn't to watch the "parade". So, IMO, it comes down to the fact that Mr. Charles-Dunne (and others apparently) will not believe the report that Migiel was a DGI agent because the report was generated by the CIA.

[John Simkin]

Tim: Do you know who tipped off the CIA that Rolando Cubela was a double agent? Eladio del Valle. The man that Tony Cuesta claimed had been one of the gunman that killed JFK. Eladio del Valle was himself murdered on 22nd February, 1967. The CIA asset who killed him is alive and kicking and is still covering up the assassination.

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

[Shanet Clark]

Photographic evidence is also pretty strong for

Lucien Conein, James McCord, Ted Shackley and Tracy Barnes

being "in the picture" .....

1.  Who specifically do you believe was in Dealey Plaza?

An unidentified black Latino known as DCM, an unidentified cohort called UM, a Latino using a radio at the corner of Elm and Houston (seen in Altgens 6), and Rip Robertson and other known covert operatives on the corner of Main and Houston.

2.  For each such person you identify, please state the basis for your belief that

     such person was in Dealey Plaza.

The behavior of DCM and UM, the Latino's radio, and the physical appearance of Robertson and others.

3.  Is your opinion that such persons "knew that something was up" based soley,

     as your post implies, based solely on their presence in Dealey Plaza?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. I don't believe they all converged at Dealey Plaza by some big collective coincidence or for an annual JFK conference.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ron Ecker]

No one knows, of couse, who DCM or UM were.  To the extent there were unidentified Latino or Hispanic males in Dealey Plaza, no one can say for sure whether they were anti-Castro operatives or pro-Castro operatives, can they?

No. But logic tells me they were anti-Castro operatives, not pro, since the U.S. government, not Castro, was all set to start a 41-year cover-up.

So does it all boil down to a photograph of a spectator in Dealey Plaza that bears a resemblance to Rip Robertson?

No, Conein and Pakse Base Man were there too, among possible others. I didn't mention them by name because they were not identified with anti-Castro operations.

And did I gather from your previous post that you assume that Castro had foreknowledge of the assassination plot, which foreknowledge, of course, he denied? 

No, I don't assume that at all. I said perhaps, as a possible explanation for the presence of your Castro agents. But I'm inclined to agree with Robert that these mysteriously traveling Castro agents were products of CIA disinformation. Don't forget that the CIA is an organization of professional liars and you can't believe a damn thing they say, whether it's about Castro agents in Dealey Plaza or WMDs in Iraq.

And if he had foreknowledge of the plot, but was not a party to it, do you think he would be stupid enought to send one of his intelligence agents to Dealey Plaza just to watch it unfold?  My gosh, what if he'd been picked up in a dragnet?

You're probably right, in which case no Castro agents were there.

So, IMO, it comes down to the fact that Mr. Charles-Dunne (and others apparently) will not believe the report that Migiel was a DGI agent because the report was generated by the CIA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See my above comments on the CIA.

Ron