Jump to content
The Education Forum

Carlos Marcello Admits Involvement


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are two items in the book "Triangle of Death" indicating the involvement of Carlos Marcello in the assassination.

In the appendix is a copy of FBI Document 124-10182-10430 (FILE #CR 137A-5467-69, 70, 72) which comes from an FBI undercover agent or an informant. The document is heavily redacted but states in part that when the Kennedys came up, Marcello flew into such a rage the informant thought he would have a stroke. When he calmed down he said "yeah I had the little son of a bitch killed, and I would do it again. He was a thorn in my side. I wish I could have done it myself."

The book also includes a copy of FBI Agency File Number 175A-DL-109-7, Memorandum to J. D. Swinson, Jr. dated 2/28/1989. At that time Marcello was incarcerated under federal guard at Wadley Regional Medical Center. He was asleep, hooked up to an IV line and a heart monitor. He apparently mistook the two federal detention agents guarding him for his bodyguards and stated it was time to get back to New Orleans. He rambled, slipping in and out of sleep. Sometimes his speech was incoherent and garbled, but at other times clear and concise. At about 2:30 a.m. he said: "That Kennedy, that smiling motherf***er. We'll fix him in Dallas." That same night, on two other occasions, he said, "We are going to get that motherf***ing Kennedy in Dallas."

Granted, he was sedated at the time, and slipping in and out of lucidity. But taken together with the informant's report, it suggests Marcello involvement in the assassination. And of course, when Trafficante admitted his involvement to Frank Ragano, he also mentioned the involvement of Marcello.

I had not seen these items in other books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never heard of these either. But in John Davis' books, Mafia Kingfish and The Kennedy Contract, there are a number of other references to him saying similar things. On one tape, when the FBI was eavesdropping, someone asked him about killing Kennedy and he got real quiet and asked the man to step outside. At least that's how I remember it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat I think I recall that as well.

It was interesting to find these references in a book that concentrates of course on S Vietnamese involvement. Interesting no other researcher or writer located them.

The book also has a very good discussion of Souetre/Michael Mertz issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, a number of Marcello's remarks in this context have been discussed for a very long time; I presented one of your examples in November Patriots several years ago. However, the one FBI report is indeed new. Of course there is also Thomas Beckham's detailed HSCA interview directly identifying Marcello as the sponsor - lots of resons to question that one but it was amazing Blakey didn't put it to any use.

If one were strictly looking for motive, Marcello would probably have to tower above everyone else. Not only because of his personal vendetta against RFK but because the Kennedy's in 1963 were threatening his financial empire in several ways, including initiatives against both his drug operations and against his much less well known but massive sports gambling revenues.

Its also possible to demonstrate that Marcello had been "in business" with John Roselli over a number of years and used him for some very successful projects.

Its even more fascinating when you dig into Marcello position in the Mafia that his particular family and he were very unique; in fact Marcello was probably the only senior mob figure that could have unilaterally acting against JFK with no permission nor risk from the Mafia itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its even more fascinating when you dig into Marcello position in the Mafia that his particular family and he were very unique;  in fact Marcello was probably the only senior mob figure that could have unilaterally acting against JFK with no permission nor risk from the Mafia itself.

In their book The Plot to Kill the President (1981) George Robert Blakey and Richard Billings argue that Carlos Marcello organized the assassination. As far as I am concerned, that raises doubt about whether Marcello was really involved in the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their book The Plot to Kill the President (1981) George Robert Blakey and Richard Billings argue that Carlos Marcello organized the assassination.  As far as I am concerned, that raises doubt about whether Marcello was really involved in the assassination.

I think this was a "modified limited hangout" on Blakey and Billings's part, the HSCA having reluctantly concluded there was a conspiracy. Marcello was one of the people involved. (He was ultimately Jack Ruby's boss.)

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their book The Plot to Kill the President (1981) George Robert Blakey and Richard Billings argue that Carlos Marcello organized the assassination. As far as I am concerned, that raises doubt about whether Marcello was really involved in the assassination.

John, I think you're too hard on Blakey. In Michael Baden's book, Unnatural Death, he describes Blakey as being the main impetus behind the HSCA's declaration of probable conspiracy, the only government body to do so. In defiance of the Justice Dept, Blakey continues to cry conspiracy. Blakey knew that the mob killed people and didn't always talk and that the strange circumstances surrounding Ruby, Rosselli, and Marcello denoted mob involvement. His refusal to openly extend his suspicions to the CIA in 1977-78 pissed a lot of people off, but his recent letter about Joannides is proof that Blakey is at least now open-minded about their involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, Pat is right.

There is certainly a lot of evidence to indicate involvement by organized crime in the assassination (including the pre-assassination threats by Marcello and Trafficante and the post-assassination confessions by them). It should also be noted that we are all influenced to some extent by our background and philosophies. Blakey was, of course, a part of RFK's anti-mob Justice Department and he spent a lot of his career prosecuting organized crime. Given his background, then, it is natural that he would look for evidence associating organized crime with the assassination.

Pat also raises a good point that Blakey was upset to discover the role Joannides played in the anti-Castro groups. Not only did he join in a letter criticizing the CIA for its failure to make full disclosure re Joannides, I believe he is also part of a lawsuit to force the CIA to open up all of its documents re Joannides.

So I think it is rather superficial reasoning to say that if Blakey believes that Marcello was a conspirator that proves he was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 years later...

Pat also raises a good point that Blakey was upset to discover the role Joannides played in the anti-Castro groups. Not only did he join in a letter criticizing the CIA for its failure to make full disclosure re Joannides, I believe he is also part of a lawsuit to force the CIA to open up all of its documents re Joannides.

No, he is not. The only parts are Morley vs. CIA. Jeff is being assisted by his attorney Jim Lesar.

http://jfkfacts.org/tag/morley-v-cia/

There have been petition letters (*), however. Even McAdams signed one.

-Ramon

(*) We badly need more of those.

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my view.

- The US government decided to reveal the truth in slow motion, not unlike the strippers at the Carousel Club.

- The initial term was going to be 75 years. Public opinion (aka We The People) forced them to shorten it to 50+ (??)

- HSCA: The people would never tolerate rubber stamping the WCR. We are rabid dogs who demand fresh meat once in a while.

- Prof. Blakey knows better than anyone of us what happened. He is not dummy.

- Like a baseball game, Richard Sprague was pitching too well and therefore a relief (NB: relief for the OPPOSITE team) pitcher was brought. The one and only reason Blakey was placed in charge was to put the blame on the mafia, and stop just short of accusing the CIA.

- Since the official HSCA Report read "the other party could not be identified", Blakey held his own conference: "It was Marcelo!".

- In later years, after Jeff Morley told him: "They fu cked you, Bob!!" Blakey has had either a guilt conscience, peer pressure or else has decided -in a cold, calculated manner- that the time has come for the stripper to drop yet another veil.

-RFH

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hasn't really dropped the other veil though.

Because he:

1.) Still propagates the Single Bullet Fantasy. (Mantik asked him point blank at the AARC seminar, if he still bought this and he replied that he did, without batting an eyelash.)

2.) He does this so he can preserve Oswald as the assassin (recall, in Blakey's world the guy firing in front missed).

3.) Although he now says the CIA lied to him, he still thinks Oswald did it for the Mob. In other words, Trafficante, Marcello, Roselli and GIancana could not find a better marksman than "Maggie's Drawers" Lee Harvey Oswald.

BTW, one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole limited hangout scenario is the fact that Tony Summers now seems to be a part of it. He cooperated with Blakey on the National Enquirer cover story that came out at the fiftieth. And then he and Larry Hancock had an absolutely stunning back and forth as to what Summers now believes about the JFK case.

I should add, in doing my research for Reclaiming Parkland, I found out that Summers was the chief consultant on that phony trial they held in London. Which started Bugliosi down the path to RH.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hasn't really dropped the other veil though.

Because he:

1.) Still propagates the Single Bullet Fantasy. (Mantik asked him point blank at the AARC seminar, if he still bought this and he replied that he did, without batting an eyelash.)

2.) He does this so he can preserve Oswald as the assassin (recall, in Blakey's world the guy firing in front missed).

3.) Although he now says the CIA lied to him, he still thinks Oswald did it for the Mob. In other words, Trafficante, Marcello, Roselli and GIancana could not find a better marksman than "Maggie's Drawers" Lee Harvey Oswald.

BTW, one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole limited hangout scenario is the fact that Tony Summers now seems to be a part of it. He cooperated with Blakey on the National Enquirer cover story that came out at the fiftieth. And then he and Larry Hancock had an absolutely stunning back and forth as to what Summers now believes about the JFK case.

I should add, in doing my research for Reclaiming Parkland, I found out that Summers was the chief consultant on that phony trial they held in London. Which started Bugliosi down the path to RH.

Robert Blakey has a very large debt to America and the truth.

For starters, he ordered this drawing:

http://www.dealey-plaza.org/~ramon/jfk/Tangential-Shot.png

http://www.dealey-plaza.org/~ramon/jfk/Tangential-Shot-Symmetric.png (my version)

Gaeton and Marie have mouthfuls (or penfuls) to say about the professor. I am convinced that he is a hypocrite.

Let's say that instead of Jeff Morley -very publicly- telling Blakey about Joannides, the professor had found out in a secret CIA document. If that were the case, Blakey would have kept it to himself and would not have written the recent damning letter against the Agency.

I cannot stress this enough: Morley forced Blakey and McAdams to reluctantly sign letters against their own cause.

That is a rich venue and mine streak that needs to be exploited further. That is our kryptonite, our Silver Bullet to defeat the LN side.

-Ramon

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...