JFK and Watergate

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

There were several reasons for leaking information about the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro. One was to suggest a motive. For example, Castro seeking revenge (a theory much loved by Tim Gratz). This of course was completely undermined when it was revealed that JFK was having secret talks with Castro. JFK might have initially been in favour of having Castro assassinated, but clearly he did not hold this view in 1963.

John, as I have written repeatedly, revenge is not the right word to describe Castro's motive if he in fact ordered the assassination. Revenge implies a payback for a past event. ("The US tried unsuccessfully to kill me, so I will kill the president of the US.") Whether or not he did it, Castro had the strongest possible motive: self-defense, since the US plots to kill him continued unabated, and one was in progress on November 22, 1963. As I have also said, how often could the US shoot bullets at Fidel, without expecting him to shoot back?

Re your statement that in 1963 JFK no longer favoured Castro's assassination, this may or may not be true. There are some indications that RFK and JFK was witting of the Cubela plot. Moreover, clearly they were planning a second invasion of Cuba (a fact you seem wont to ignore). The first assassination plot was clearly tied into the BOP invasion. It is not unreasonable to assume the Cubela plot was related to AMTRUNK and the Second Naval Guerilla.

Moreover, Castro was clearly led to believe (rightly or wrongly) by Desmond FitzGerald that RFK (and thus by implication JFK) endorsed Cubela's plan to kill him. If Castro was aware of FitzGerald's statements to Cubela (as most assume) he clearly would have concluded the peace talks were insincere. Just as Lisa Howard did. In fact, Howard's bitter rejection of RFK's bid for the US Senate is probably most significant in this regard.

Whether or not the Kennedys were aware of Cubela, they were certainly enthusiastically behind the second invasion and there is little doubt Castro knew that was coming. So Castro was aware the Kennedys were planning to invade Cuba, in violation of the accord reached to end the missile crisis, and despite his response to the peace initiatives. Castro thus had little reason to doubt the statements FitzGerald made to Cubela that RFK endorsed the plan to kill him (as he endorsed the plan to invade Cuba).

Clearly, Castro had a motive, and the strongest possible motive (save his life, save his regime. One can argue how Castro knew things would change if Kennedy was eliminated, but they did.

It is simply for you to say "I don't think the Cubela affair was related to the Kennedy assassination" but there is strong evidence it was. Perhaps the strongest is Cubela's ties to Santo Trafficante, Jr. As we have also said repeatedly: 1) Trafficante knew Ruby and was in sufficient authority within the Mob to order Ruby to kill Oswald; 2) Trafficante had foreknowledge of the assassination (Aleman); 3) Trafficante admitted involvement in the assassination (Ragano); 4) Trafficante was probably the person who whacked Rosselli. And then there is the intriguing fact that six months before the assassination (presumably as it was being planned) Gilberto Lopez moved from Key West to Tampa (Trafficante's home base).

Edited May 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

I agree, John. After the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy's mistrust of the military and their cold war strategy was cemented. The MIC knew it, LBJ knew it and selected insiders knew it but the public didn't. I believe you are correct in your assertion that JFK was also being influenced by Mary Meyer. Things were about to change. JFK knew that if the Republicans nominated Goldwater he would defeat him easily. Just mosey on down to Texas and tie up a few administrative problems and everything's looking peachy for the campaign. Can't find a fault in your reasoning.

[Tim Gratz]

QUOTE(James Richards @ May 24 2005, 10:09 PM)

A few things, I don't think Interpen as an organization was involved. I do believe however that some of the guys who were connected to Interpen at one point in time found themselves mixed up in what happened in Dallas.

To which John replied:

I agree. I should have made that clearer. I was not suggesting that Gerry Hemming as leader of Interpen helped to arrange this. (Although I suspect he now knows who was involved in this operation). What I was trying to say that the people who were recruited were either members of Interpen or had worked with the organization against Castro.

To which I may thus assume since John is not aware of any actual Interpen contact person that the assertion that Interpen was involved is not any unnamed source but is mere speculation. John can correct me if I am wrong (a source told him someone from Interpen recruited Cuban assassins but did not bother to go the next step and say who it was from Interpen who did the recruiting).

But where does speculation get us? To quote an American saying, we can speculate until the cows come home.

(Of course I have read Hargrave's interview with Twyman and hope Gerry will comment on it.)

Edited May 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

I believe the intelligence agencies of the US Defense Department were involved.

I agree with Shanet that there must also have been some help from the top echelons of the U.S. Military and sections of the Executive in order to explain--- A. The Military's hijacking of the body to perform a crooked autopsy and B. The removal of adequate Secret Service protection and protocols, this being the domain of the Treasury Secretary.

I agree that the military can't be ignored in this. It jumped in with both boots on the cover-up, as soon as the body, already altered (either by the SS or military), was delivered to it for a sham autopsy.

I accept they were involved in the cover-up. This was vitally important after LBJ decided on promoting the “lone gunman” theory. However, I need to be convinced that the SS or military knew about the conspiracy before the assassination. If they did, this dramatically increased the possibility of the plot being uncovered before JFK was killed.

According to Robert Caro and other, JFK had no intention of nominating LBJ for VP until the day after JFK was nominated.

Agreed. But I don’t believe this was a long-term plan to assassinate JFK. They just wanted LBJ in a position where he would be able to protect their interests. They had enough information on JFK to blackmail him if he got out of line. They probably even thought of the possibility of getting JFK impeached during the presidency. However, JFK got in first. In 1963 it was LBJ who was on the verge of being impeached. Therefore, assassination was the only answer to the problem they faced.

I fully expect that if JFK had been elected in 1964 he would have begun his presidency with a speech that developed the themes raised by Eisenhower’s last speech – the dangers of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. Oliver Stone was right to start off his film JFK with Eisenhower’s speech. It really is the key to understanding the assassination of JFK.

What do you mean they will "always remain a secret"?  Do you know their names?  Does anyone?

It is possible that even Morales did not know who ordered the assassination of JFK. I suspect that Morales was dealing with a “Deep Throat” type figure. I assume that those who paid for the assassination are now dead. So are all those who had an overview of the assassination: Morales, Sullivan and Angleton. As I said earlier, Hunt is the only one left alive who has information about a large part of the operation (although nothing about the people who paid for it). However, there are others, Gerry Hemming and Bernardo de Torres, who probably know about certain aspects of the operation and the cover-up. However, they are not currently telling us very much. There are some people who know a little bit who are willing to talk off the record. It is only by putting these bits of information together that it is possible to come up with a theory of what took place.

Last week I was given a piece of information that was vitally important in understanding the conspiracy. (It came from a close friend of an investigator who committed suicide).

Only yesterday I received an email from a woman who has only a very small part of the story (came from her father who is now dead). We have been communicating for over a year. She is very frightened. However, she now appears to be ready to tell me what she knows. Maybe it will not be as important as I think it is. But it could be another bit of the jigsaw that helps us understand what happened.

[JFK] had agreed not to try to introduce effective civil rights legislation. He had also promised not to do anything about the oil deprecation allowance and other tax benefits members of this group enjoyed.

Your source for these alleged JFK "promises" is ---?

The deals that JFK did when he became a presidential candidate are well documented. One of the best sources is the private interviews that Robert Kennedy gave after the assassination.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

I accept they were involved in the cover-up. This was vitally important after LBJ decided on promoting the “lone gunman” theory. However, I need to be convinced that the SS or military knew about the conspiracy before the assassination. If they did, this dramatically increased the possibility of the plot being uncovered before JFK was killed.

Well, I agree with John about something! If it was an internal assassination, the fewer the people who knew about it beforehand, the less chance of exposure (and therefore cancellation). Shanet talks about "intelligence" involvement, Wellm a basic tenet of any intelligence operation is to limit its exposure only to those with a "need to know". Any sane plotter would limit the participants to those absolutely essential to its success since every unnecessary participant substantially increases the risk of exposure.

I also agree that if it was an internal operation many of those involved were probably not aware of the "big fish", as someone once put it.

[James Richards]

I agree about his competence but believe he had the imagination to develop such a plan. However, he was clearly subordinate to Morales. After studying Hunt for some time I have concluded that he overcomplicated things. He also did not know as much as he thought he knew. For example, one of the reasons I don’t believe any senior figures in the CIA were involved in the original conspiracy is that they would not have gone along with the “Castro did it” plan. Like LBJ, they would have known that JFK was involved in secret negotiations with Castro. They knew that he did not have a motive.

In time I think it is well worth starting up a thread on Hunt. However, in the meantime I would like to discuss him in relation to this particular theory. After all, he is still alive. He is also someone who has shown that he cares what his children think of him (that was the reason he gave for the libel action against Spotlight). Maybe he will like Gerry join us in this discussion. It will be interesting to know if he believes in the “lone gunman” theory. (John Simkin)

Hunt is certainly interesting as to what his role, if any, really was. Were some of the Cubans Hunt knew or was running involved in the assassination?

Gerry Hemming has offered that Nestor 'Tony' Izquierdo was the Dal-Tex spotter and I agree that Izquierdo was indeed involved. Hunt was very close to Manuel Artime and Artime was very close to Izquierdo. Both Artime and Izquierdo being involved with the Rural Commandos at the beginning of the Cuban revolution.

Izquierdo was also well known to Rip Robertson during the Brigade 2506 training and Bay of Pigs invasion. I also have unconfirmed information that Izquierdo was involved with a small group of Cubans that Morales and Robertson were running.

One would have to consider that if Izquierdo was involved with the assassination, Hunt would have known about it as would Artime. I guess my point is, that Hunt was in the right place to either be a plotter or at least to know who was doing what.

As to Hunt joining the discussion, when his web site first hit cyberspace, there was a contact feature of which I took advantage of and wrote to him. Not only did I not receive a reply, but within days, the feature was disabled. I guess he didn't like the questions being directed his way. I have no doubts that he was inundated with all variety of inquiry.

For those who have not seen the site - http://www.ehowardhunt.com

James

[John Simkin]

How was the CIA domestic operative JOHN PAISLEY mixed up in all this?

I know he was aware of the Sheraton Hotel Washington DC prostitution ring that was used by the CIA for extortion and intimidation of US and foreign political leaders in 1972.

I know he was someone in CIA with an early interest and understanding of the Watergate burglary.

I know he was murdered.

I now am reading that he was considered a Soviet Mole.

What is your take on JOHN PAISLEY?

You are right to raise the name of John Paisley. He clearly was murdered in September, 1978. I believe he was murdered because he knew a great deal about the JFK assassination. According to Dick Russell, Paisley may have been involved in running Oswald in the Soviet Union. If so, he might well have continued to monitor his activities in America. If so, he would have probably discovered that he was set up as a patsy by people within the CIA.

James Angleton leaked the story that Paisley was Soviet mole. This does surprise me that Angleton pushed this story. Angleton is the one figure in the CIA who had a good overview of the assassination. After all, he was the one who carried out the original investigation into the death of JFK. As a result of what he found, Angleton took control of the cover-up within the CIA. That is why he is found at the scene of the deaths of people like Mary Pinchot Meyer and Win Scott.

Angleton’s story is that these people were dangerous because they intended to leak information to the media or to the Soviets. The Soviet angle is an interesting one. It went down well with some researchers like Joe Trento because of what we know about the Soviet penetration of MI5.

I suspect that Angleton used this belief in Soviet moles to cover-up his own actions. However, it is possible that he really believed it. Angleton knew Philby well. He liked him and never recovered from his discovery that he was a Soviet spy. It made him obsessed about exposing Soviet spies in the CIA. The more he liked someone, the more he suspected them of being a Soviet mole.

This is to fundamentally to misunderstand the Philby spy ring. Philby was recruited as a student. At the time he was a committed communist. This was not unusual amongst public school boys in Britain’s elite universities during the Great Depression. At the time, it seemed that communism was the future. It was only a matter of time before it spread from the east to the capitalist west. Philby was instructed to abandon all left-wing activity. So were the others that Philby recruited (Burgess, McLean, Blunt, Caincross, etc.).

Philby and his friends were told to join far right organizations. The reason for this was that this was the main source of recruits. Maxwell Knight, who was in charge of recruitment, was himself a former member of the original British Fascist Party. At the time, all senior members of MI5 were on the extreme right. It was therefore easy for Philby and his friends to penetrate MI5. They came in at a low level but their talent and connections made it inevitable that they would move up the ladder into positions of power. They were such good spies because they were motivated by ideology.

The same thing never happened in the CIA. Whereas the senior officials in MI5 and MI6 were extreme right-wingers, the CIA was mainly dominated by liberals who were hostile to communism. It was impossible for the Soviets to penetrate this system. The Soviets only success was to corrupt low level operatives with money. Therefore I do not think there is any chance at all that the Soviets penetrated the higher levels of the CIA. I know J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy believed this did happen. But we all know they were wrong about almost everything.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

Can't find a fault in your reasoning.

Well . . . I can.

John wrote:

It is possible that even Morales did not know who ordered the assassination of JFK. I suspect that Morales was dealing with a “Deep Throat” type figure. I assume that those who paid for the assassination are now dead. So are all those who had an overview of the assassination

If we assume ONLY FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE that Morales was involved, and Morales, as John states, may not have known who ordered and paid for the assassination, then of course this whole thread that it was the Suite 8F group (or one of its members) who initiated it is nothing but PURE SPECULATION, which gets us nowhere whatsoever.

It is fine to SPECULATE if you want that JFK was going to turn from a Cold Warrior to a long-haired peacefreak once he had defeated Barry Goldwater and so some old Texas Southern Democrat ordered him killed, but that proves absolutely nothing. I might as well argue that Joe DiMaggio ordered the hit because he was certain the Kennedys had killed Marilyn.

Why propose a scenario if there is nothing to back it up?

And now we are throwing in the names James Jesus Angleton and E. Howard Hunt with not one iota of evidence they had anything to do with it. I see little difference between this name-calling and McCarthyism. If there is evidence, let's have it. If there's not, let's just label this what it is: "My speculation."

[Tim Gratz]

Perhaps, just perhaps, we can make a little progress here!

John wrote:

James Angleton leaked the story that Paisley was Soviet mole.

John, as I assume you know, Richard Nagell said Paisley was a Soviet mole within the CIA.

John also wrote:

According to Dick Russell, Paisley may have been involved in running Oswald in the Soviet Union. If so, he might well have continued to monitor his activities in America. If so, he would have probably discovered that he was set up as a patsy by people within the CIA.

Are the implications not astounding if a KGB mole within the CIA was involved in running Oswald's operations in the Soviet Union? Does this not fit with Victor Marchetti's theory that the "KGB Section" of the CIA killed JFK?

What could the Soviets have done with the knowledge that Oswald was a CIA operative, and one under the influence of one of their moles--but a mole Oswald had no way of suspecting?

And let's not forget that Paisley was a close friend of Nosenko, who flunked his ploygraph when he was asked if the KGB had sent Oswald into the US with a mission. Nosenko could have flunked not because Oswald was doubled (Oswald might have remained a loyal American) but because he was witting of Paisley.

This goes a long way toward explaining why Angleton thought there was Soviet involvement in the assassination. I am sure Angleton told Trento this, and a lot more.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

You are right to raise the name of John Paisley. He clearly was murdered in September, 1978. I believe he was murdered because he knew a great deal about the JFK assassination

So let's see here. Paisley was a Soviet mole in the KGB. He had knowledge of the assassination. So who killed him to keep him quiet? Gee . . .I wonder!

So here we have a "mysterious death" quite likely linked to the assassination and it traces to the Soviets!

[Pat Speer]

And let's not forget that Paisley was a close friend of Nosenko, who flunked his ploygraph when he was asked if the KGB had sent Oswald into the US with a mission.  Nosenko could have flunked not because Oswald was doubled (Oswald might have remained a loyal American) but because he was witting of Paisley.

This goes a long way toward explaining why Angleton thought there was Soviet involvement in the assassination.  I am sure Angleton told Trento this, and a lot more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's been awhile since I've read Widows, Trento's book on Paisley, but I don't remember him and his co-writer Corson (Marchetti's source for the Hunt memo) concluding that Paisley was a mole. If Angleton, who knew Paisley and had recommended him for a position working with the White House, had told him this, he would have written it, si? Instead, Trento guessed that Angleton placed Paisley in the White House to keep an eye on Henry the K, who Angleton didn't trust. What I remember from the book is that the man who performed Paisley's very suspect autopsy, and concluded he'd committed suicide, was the legendary Russell Fisher, of the Clark Panel.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, as I wrote, it was Dick Russell (in "The Man Who Knew Too Much") who said Nagell informed him that Paisley was a Soviet mole.

Of course, there are those who think that Angleton himself could have been a mole...or Richard Helms.

Never read "Widows". Is it worth a read?

Edited May 25, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Whether or not he did it, Castro had the strongest possible motive: self-defense, since the US plots to kill him continued unabated, and one was in progress on November 22, 1963.  As I have also said, how often could the US shoot bullets at Fidel, without expecting him to shoot back?

Re your statement that in 1963 JFK no longer favoured Castro's assassination, this may or may not be true.  There are some indications that RFK and JFK was witting of the Cubela plot.  Moreover, clearly they were planning a second invasion of Cuba (a fact you seem wont to ignore).  The first assassination plot was clearly tied into the BOP invasion.  It is not unreasonable to assume the Cubela plot was related to AMTRUNK and the Second Naval Guerilla.

Moreover, Castro was clearly led to believe (rightly or wrongly) by Desmond FitzGerald that RFK (and thus by implication JFK) endorsed Cubela's plan to kill him.  If Castro was aware of FitzGerald's statements to Cubela (as most assume) he clearly would have concluded the peace talks were insincere.  Just as Lisa Howard did.  In fact, Howard's bitter rejection of RFK's bid for the US Senate is probably most significant in this regard.

Whether or not the Kennedys were aware of Cubela, they were certainly enthusiastically behind the second invasion and there is little doubt Castro knew that was coming.  So Castro was aware the Kennedys were planning to invade Cuba, in violation of the accord reached to end the missile crisis, and despite his response to the peace initiatives. 

I suppose we can’t do anything about your constant tactic of hijacking every thread with the “Castro did it” theory. True much of my theory is pure speculation, but at least it is based on political logic.

Where is your evidence for this planned invasion of Cuba in 1963?

What was the point of JFK carrying out secret negotiations with Castro in 1963? (I assume you are not claiming that the documents released in 2003 were not forgeries.) Why would he take all the risks that this strategy entailed? After all, if his Cuba strategy was exposed he could have lost the 1964 election.

How do you explain your inability to get any other member to support your Castro did it theory?

[Tim Gratz]

John, perhaps we can approach some common ground.

It is most important (I am sure you would agree) first to get our facts in order.

You have been quick to dismiss my theory of Cuban involvement in the asssassination because you felt Castro had no motive. Therefore, my position was illogical. Now, I gather from your post, that you are not familiar with the plans for the second invasion of Cuba. They are discussed both in "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Live By the Sword". I will prepare to post on them at greater length tomorrow. Clearly RFK was following these plans very closely.

I would assume you might concede Castro motive if I convince you of the seriousness of the plans.

You wrote:

What was the point of JFK carrying out secret negotiations with Castro in 1963? (I assume you are not claiming that the documents released in 2003 were not forgeries.) Why would he take all the risks that this strategy entailed? After all, if his Cuba strategy was exposed he could have lost the 1964 election.

Your last point is very good. Clearly, if the public (which hasd gone through the missile crisis) had learned that JFK was going to "sell out" to Castro, even Barry Goldwater might have been able to defeat him. Had he successfully removed Castro, on the other hand, his re-election would have been assured. JFK, being the political animal that he was, realized this, of course.

So how does one reconcile the peace talks (of course I agree they existed) with the invasion plans? There have been several suggestions.

One is that the peace talks were insincere, an effort to lull Castro prior to the invasion. Similar to what the Japanese did to the Americans prior to Pearl Harbor. This is what Lisa Howard concluded.

Another possibility is that it was a deliberate "two track" policy and if JFK could negotiate with Castro a solution that was politically acceptable, i.e. that would not doom JFK at the polls, then the invasion plans would be cancelled. It may have been unlikely that Castro would have kicked the Soviets out of Cuba, but an imminent invasion would certainly give him incentive to consider it to guarantee the survival of his regime.

There are many intelligent people who accept the possibility of Cuban involvement in the assassination. Some have had access to inside information. If forum members are unwilling to read "Live By the Sword" it does not surpise me they are not willing to consider my scenario.

[Pat Speer]

Never read "Widows".  Is it worth a read?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Widows is worth a read in that it gets into the dirt of intelligence, kind of like Wilderness of Mirrors. I can't say it's particularly illuminating of the JFK assassination, outside the fact it was co-written by Trento and Corson, who testified on opposite sides in the Hunt/Marchetti case.

FWIW Ted Shackley's new (and one can assume final) book discusses the CIA's failed attempts to build-up Artime as an alternative to Castro. His words suggest there never were plans for a second invasion, but that they wanted Cubans to think one was coming in hopes it would spur a pro-Artime resistance movement within Cuba. Since this movement never developed, Shackley makes it sound like the CIA just called it a day and took off for Nam. Sorry, Tim. (BTW Larry Hancock says Shackley's a xxxx and we shouldn't believe anything he's written, even from the grave.)

While I have no problem with John's speculating, his specualtion should be based as much as possible on the known facts. With this in mind, a few errors caught my eye.

1. The Warren Report was not written by Angleton and Sullivan but by the WC's staff lawyers, with Lee Rankin and Norman Redlich supervising its over-all construction, as I remember. I believe Redlich, who was almost fired by the Commission for his extreme-left views, re-wrote the majority of its text, in order to bring a consistency to its tone and content.

2. Hunt knew Colson before he was hired by the White House. The two men had met years before at a reunion at Brown University.

3. It's doubtful Hunt and Morales would work together. The papers released on the 1954 Guatemalan operation reveal that one paramilitary officer, a Vincent Pivall, reported an intelligence agent for a security breach, when the agent left important papers behind in his apartment after heading back to Washington. As Rip Robertson was Morales' boss, and as Robertson sung the praises of this Pivall in his final report, I believe Pivall was Morales. Phillips' The Night Watch reveals the close relationship between the two men. Similarly, Hunt's Undercover reveals he was pulled off the Guatemalan operation just before it went into action, and was not brought back to celebrate at the Washington party for the operation attended by Eisenhower, Nixon, Dulles, Barnes, Haney, Robertson, and Morales. I suspect the men hated each other.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Pat Speer