Ruby's strange motivation

Robert Charles-Dunne · May 27, 2005

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
However, your scenario is rendered anemic by a paucity of evidence, and what little does exist was originally scripted by CIA, with no confirmation or verification.

Funny, Robert, John's most recent scenario factors in Gilberto Policarpo Lopez in Dallas but assumes (without evidence) that he was a double agent working for both the CIA and Castro's intelligence.

Then perhaps you should take that up with him. I did notice in reading John's hypothesis, however, that he identifies Policarpo as a second patsy in a plot to blame Castro for the JFK hit. There is evidence for this, whereas the evidence for your contention that he was a conspirator is far thinner gruel, indeed.

Gee I guess there is a paucity of evidence if you ASSUME all evidence indicating there were Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza was manufactured by the CIA. Kind of reminds me of the O. J. Simpson defense: ignore all the evidence, I've been framed by the Los Angeles Police Department!

If there is a parallel between OJ and LHO it is this: a mountain of evidence is only of import if each piece can withstand critical scrutiny. If no single detail can withstand that scrutiny, you do not have a mountain of evidence, but evidence that somebody's bias [or worse] led them to create a false mountain.

So what do you say about Mr. Policarpo? We know he existed. He lived in Key West for several years. What part, if any, of the record of his suspicious movements around the time of the assassination do you contend were scripted by the CIA?

Without any type of confirmation or verfication of single-sourced, anonymous documents, one believes such papers at their own peril. HSCA and AARB investigation into the more provocative elements of CIA's fairy-tale only lead to the suspicion that it was a fairy tale. If you have something more convincing to offer, have at it, mate...

It is interesting that the House Select Committee on Assassinations apparently had no doubts re Policarpo's travel itinerary.

Nor any reason to believe it, aside from CIA's own weak assertions.

And as you know Win Scott put Fabian Escalante in Dealey Plaza as well.

You may wish to re-read your sources on this. Those who knew Scott best over the years make no such claim. Nothing in the extant CIA cable traffic from Scott reports this as fact. Nowhere in Scott's own manuscript - which diverges wildly from CIA's offical recounting of events in key respects - does he mention Escalante, if memory serves. Seems like a rather curious omission.

What we have instead are hand written notes from Underwood describing a conversation that took place a quarter century earlier. Per Underwood, Escalante arrived in Mexico City via plane and flew from there to Dallas. On the day of the event! If getting Escalante into Dallas was important, why would it be left to the last minute, and rely so heavily upon US authorities to be asleep?

How did Scott learn this fact, and when? Why did he fail to disclose this to anyone he knew, yet reveal it to someone he'd just met, who then failed to disclose this fact himself for a further quarter century? Seems like an odd way to handle such incendiary "evidence."

If Escalante was there, Castro did it, my friend. So it comes down to your assumption that Scott was lying. But of course Scott had nothing to do with the reports of Policarpo so I guess everyone was just lying about these Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza. And your evidence that everyone was lying is. . .?

This final graf is a straw man of your own invention. You explain it.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert Charles-Dunne · May 27, 2005

Again quoting Mr. Dunne:
That said, however, your scenario is very neat and tidy.

I do not take that as a complement

Nor should you, since the scenario is not something you invented. The script originated within the bowels of Langley; your are only its most recent adherent. And you're selling it about as well as your predecessors.

just as an ackowledgement of the cogency of the evidence.

To summarize some (not all) of the salient points:

I think the evidence points quite clearly from Ruby to Trafficante.

What points to Castro is (without necessarily limiting myself):

1. The presence of Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza (unless each report

was made up.)

Which "reports?" Please post one. Please cite a single book, magazine article, internet site that reproduces an original copy of such a report. Feel free to place it right here: ______________________ Failing that, please acknowledge you militate daily on behalf of evidence you have yourself never even seen.

2. Trafficante's ties to Cubela. This information comes in part from Escalante.

3. Cubela's association with Kostikov.

Again, please cite any original documents we can peruse that even suggest this as fact. If not, please acknowledge that you are, again, advocating on behalf of "evidence" you've never actually seen.

4. The widely reported deal between Trafficante and Castro.

5. Nosenko flunking his polygraph test.

6. Castro's statement warning the US of reprisals against our leaders if US

attempts to kill Cuban leaders continued coupled with the coincidence of

Cubela contacting the CIA and offering to kill Castro on the very same day.

I also credit the assessment of people such as Califano and Haig who were intimately involved in the Kennedys' campaign against Castro. And Haig claims to have seen a document indicating foreign involvement.

But you, apparently, have not. Why is this a recurring pattern among your ilk? You are so full of assurances that your position is correct, but cannot provide a single document, let alone confirmation or verification of whatever such a document may contain.

Now I should say that just as there is no "smoking gun" to prove JFK was witting of the plots to kill Castro, so I, of course, have no evidence that Castro personally authorized the assassination.

Or that anyone serving Castro was involved in killing Kennendy. If you did, you'd have cited it a long time ago. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, bluster and repetition - in the absence of actual evidence - don't carry the day. If they did, we'd all believe Oswald acted alone and could have spared ourselves 40 years of effort.

It is theoretically possible it was done for his benefit but without his express authorization. That is unlikely, however.

Now perhaps you can tell me what EVIDENCE (based on years of research) counters this? As I see it, the primary "evidence" that could point in a different direction are the statements made by Morales and Martino. I have seen no real evidence of anyone else being involved, other than those statements.

Along with Trento, Blakey and others of your ilk, you have stated without equivocation: "I cannot believe that CIA personnel would lie/fabricate/kill their own President." [or words to that effect] So long as your investigation is so fatally skewed by what you "cannot believe," nothing will dissuade you.

As you put it "all that being said" could I be wrong? Certainly. It is my assessment that the evidence is "clear and convincing" but it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Whereas we merely wait for you to cite the first piece of evidence. Still....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Larry Hancock · May 27, 2005

Tim, your Castro did it scenario seems to be going on across a number of threads and I think I have to enter a couple of things into the mix.

First, we have at least half a dozen consistent and reinforcing instances of gossip/leaks prior to the assassination in regard to something being planned against JFK. All these leaks can be directly tied back to a mix of anti-Castro individuals, all of whom were peripherally involved with individuals on the periphery of the old Havana gambling crowd. There are no apparent connections in any of this to Castro or Castro agents. Your only option for involving Castro or the Soviets would be one that Hemming has put forth over time and that is that the Cuban/Soviet intel orgainization was so good and had so infiltrated exile and CIA organizations that they could insert orders and pull strings to actually organize a conspirace from outside.

Second, we do have remarks from Morales, Phillips and Martino which indicate the conspiracy involved US intelligence officers - and its a matter of record that all three of those individuals were associated. Having Morales say "we took care of that SOB" is far more significant than a random remark or even a public confession. The same thing goes for Phillips making a statement about US intel officers being involved - only a short while before his death and after years of fighting any such assertion. Of course that does not imply the CIA as an organization had anything to do with it, it does suggest individuals CIA officers were involved in some fashion.

Third, and in line with the title of this thread, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest Ruby was involved in some minimal fashion with the conspiracy and then used to eliminate Oswald when things went bad. Only the WC and those fanatically attached to Oswald being a LN are able to avoid the Ruby associations and strange behaviors (not to mention his sudden cash infusion days before and his LA visitors). Not to mention his legal defense being organized out of Vegas. For your Castro scenario to work you will have to somehow tie the Ruby involvement in with a Castro plot - and that will be a real challenge.

Tim Gratz · May 27, 2005

Several people have asked how Ruby ties into the "Fidel" scenario.

It is easy. The link is Trafficante. We know that Trafficante was high enough in the Mafia power structure to order, either directly or through his friend Marcello, Ruby to whack Oswald. And we know (most of us would agree) that Ruby visited Trafficante while Trafficante was imprisoned in Trescornia Detention Center outside Havana. Many believe Ruby helped negotiate Trafficante's release. So Ruby and Trafficante were personally related.

Two questions need to be answered then. First, what information ties Trafficante to the assassination? Second, what information ties Trafficante to Castro?

Re the first point, I would fall off my chair if any one of you were not aware of Trafficante's 1962 prediction of Kennedy's assassination to Jose Aleman, and his "confession" years later to Frank Ragano that he and Marcello were involved. We couple that with Marcello's own admissions of HIS involvement.

The second question then is: was Trafficante working for Castro? Well, many believe that Trafficante made a deal with Castro to supply intelligence for Castro in exchange for a protected drug route from Marseiiles into Cuba then to South Florida. Reportedly, Trafficante was even using rigged bolita games to pay Castro's agents in South Florida. On Gordon Winslow's web-site there is reprinted a 1961 report from the Bureau of Narcotics that discusses these reports.

If Trafficante was working for Castro, that explains, of course, why none of the Mafia-connected plots against Castro succeeded. The failure of those plots in and of itself suggests Castro had inside information.

I also believe Rosselli told Joe Shimon that Rosselli had concluded Trafficante was working for Fidel.

Finally, we link Trafficante to Castro through his association with Cubela. Escalante confirmed that Trafficante knew Cubela as far back as 1959.

Of course, if Trafficante was indeed acting on Castro's behalf, he probably did not share that information with his mafioso friends. As you know, Ragano says he asked Trafficante and Marcello to kill Kennedy on behalf of Jimmy Hoffa. So the possibility exists, perhaps not as incredible as it first sounds, that Trafficante was indeed serving two masters: Hoffa and Castro.

Tim Gratz · May 27, 2005

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

"The script originated within the bowels of Langley; your are only its most recent adherent. And you're selling it about as well as your predecessors."

My complements to Robert for not putting an apostrophe into "its" (one of the most common graphical errors). I think his comment that I am "selling it about as well as my predecessors" is damning with faint praise since none of the intelligent members of this Forum have jumped on the bandwagon.

However, if we can obscure that little fact, perhaps I can use Robert's "endorsement" to become a member of the CIA's most recent version of Operation Mockingbird. Wonder what the current pay structure is?

Edited May 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz · May 27, 2005

To Larry:

Appreciated your thoughts. I will comment on them a few hours from now. I already addressed the Ruby issue two posts above.

Thanks!

Tim Gratz · May 27, 2005

Robert wrote:

"If there is a parallel between OJ and LHO it is this: a mountain of evidence is only of import if each piece can withstand critical scrutiny. If no single detail can withstand that scrutiny, you do not have a mountain of evidence, but evidence that somebody's bias [or worse] led them to create a false mountain."

Robert, do you believe Simpson was framed?

My perspective is different. If there is only proof that ONE agent of Cuban intelligence was in Dealey Plaza that fateful Friday, that fact in and of itself is sufficient to prove, conclusively I suggest, Cuban complicity. It would matter not if the other reports were in error or even fabricated. And we know there were reports of three different pro-Castro Cubans in Dealey Plaza who fled to Cuba immediately after the assassination.

Again, to analogize to the Simpson case, if Simpson's DNA was on the murder weapon, that fact by itself proves he did it. It matters not then whether Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove.

Let's use a JFK analogy. There were several people who reported seeing Ruby and Oswald together. Some were, if you will excuse the expression, "low-lifes" (does not necessarily prove they were liars); others were not. Many of these reports could be fabrications or mistaken identity. But if only ONE of the reports was credible (I'll go with Faraldo from Key West) it matters not if ALL the other reports were wrong. The single true report establishes a pre-assassination association between Oswald and ruby.

I do not need to prove that three, or even two, Cuban intelligence agents were in Dealey Plaza. Unless you demonstrate that all three reports were fabricated or unintentional errors, then my case is made. The presence of any one DGI agent in Dealey Plaza is, I submit, a "smoking gun".

Larry Hancock · May 27, 2005

Thought you might take that route Tim...grin.

A few problems though:

1) Any negotiations Castro and Trafficante did in 1959 are a far cry

from a relationship in which Trafficante would take a Castro contract

in 1963. It's interesting that you bring up the drug connection

though - actually at the time the Federal drug folks had a major

campaign going to blame the drug flow on Castro providing

a route for the Chicoms. But when you take a close look into

all the carriers that kept getting arrested, they had nothing

to do with Castro and didn't reveal any trail to Cuba, just the fact

that Cuban Americans were doing drug business. If you take a

good look at Strenth of the Wolf and The Herion Trail it becomes

pretty clear that the drug routes involved the French processing

material from Turkey and shifting supply to SE Asia and then

bringing it in through Canada, then NYC and later Miami, New

Oreleans and eventually via an expanded route in Texas. The

Bureau of Narcotics and others were pointing the finger at Castro

based on politics and an excuse to divert attention from the new

drug trails which were being supplied out of the Golden Triangle

by the CIA's allies and warlords in training.

The point being that Trafficante was a very conservative business

man, had been hurt badly by Castro once and surely did not

need him in 1963. Plus Castro's intel operations were quite good

enough to defeat all types of operations against him, most of

which were totally unknown to Trafficante. To cite a Trafficante

deal on assassination info ignores that plus it ignores that Trafficante

himself was ousted from the plots once Harvey took over.

2) Linking Roselli and even Ruby to the assassination certainly

does not corroborate a link to Trafficante any more than it would

finger Marcello or Giancana as the sponser. In fact Roselli did far

more business with both of the others than Trafficante. And of

course as evidence of that just take a look at all the communications

with Ruby in the weeks and months before the assassinationa as

well as immediately after. They don't track to Trafficante.

3) And given Roselli's rather fanatic patriotism (regardless of his

other activities), if he did belive Trafficante was working for Castro

it's hard to see him working on the assassination with him....and a lot

harder to see him move down to Florida into Trafficante's home

ground for retirement. And not even be worried when his best friend

called him to tell him that a contract was out on him - oh, let me

see, does you scenario suggest Castro was behind that one too...

or did Trafficante think Roselli had finally figured he had been had

and was going to turn him over to the Feds as a Castro agent?

.....I think many of us might hold open the option that Trafficante

or some of his associates were aware of the plot against Kennedy

however I think you would be underestimating the real plotters to think

they would have been waiting around until Castro showed up with an

offer....and probably insulting them by suggesting they would do business

with him.

Several people have asked how Ruby ties into the "Fidel" scenario.
It is easy. The link is Trafficante. We know that Trafficante was high enough in the Mafia power structure to order, either directly or through his friend Marcello, Ruby to whack Oswald. And we know (most of us would agree) that Ruby visited Trafficante while Trafficante was imprisoned in Trescornia Detention Center outside Havana. Many believe Ruby helped negotiate Trafficante's release. So Ruby and Trafficante were personally related.

Two questions need to be answered then. First, what information ties Trafficante to the assassination? Second, what information ties Trafficante to Castro?

Re the first point, I would fall off my chair if any one of you were not aware of Trafficante's 1962 prediction of Kennedy's assassination to Jose Aleman, and his "confession" years later to Frank Ragano that he and Marcello were involved. We couple that with Marcello's own admissions of HIS involvement.

The second question then is: was Trafficante working for Castro? Well, many believe that Trafficante made a deal with Castro to supply intelligence for Castro in exchange for a protected drug route from Marseiiles into Cuba then to South Florida. Reportedly, Trafficante was even using rigged bolita games to pay Castro's agents in South Florida. On Gordon Winslow's web-site there is reprinted a 1961 report from the Bureau of Narcotics that discusses these reports.

If Trafficante was working for Castro, that explains, of course, why none of the Mafia-connected plots against Castro succeeded. The failure of those plots in and of itself suggests Castro had inside information.

I also believe Rosselli told Joe Shimon that Rosselli had concluded Trafficante was working for Fidel.

Finally, we link Trafficante to Castro through his association with Cubela. Escalante confirmed that Trafficante knew Cubela as far back as 1959.

Of course, if Trafficante was indeed acting on Castro's behalf, he probably did not share that information with his mafioso friends. As you know, Ragano says he asked Trafficante and Marcello to kill Kennedy on behalf of Jimmy Hoffa. So the possibility exists, perhaps not as incredible as it first sounds, that Trafficante was indeed serving two masters: Hoffa and Castro.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert Charles-Dunne · May 27, 2005

Robert wrote:
"If there is a parallel between OJ and LHO it is this: a mountain of evidence is only of import if each piece can withstand critical scrutiny. If no single detail can withstand that scrutiny, you do not have a mountain of evidence, but evidence that somebody's bias [or worse] led them to create a false mountain."

Robert, do you believe Simpson was framed?

What I may "believe" is wholly irrelevant, since jurisprudence is not a religion. What I know is that a mountain of putative evidence against Simpson turned out to be insufficient to sway a jury to accept the prosecution's case. That's the only litmus test that counts.

My perspective is different. If there is only proof that ONE agent of Cuban intelligence was in Dealey Plaza that fateful Friday, that fact in and of itself is sufficient to prove, conclusively I suggest, Cuban complicity.

And when you can prove that "only one" Cuban agent was in Dallas, I'll still be here awaiting it, as I have for some months now. In the meantime, perhaps you could illustrate for us how the presence of a purported OAS assassin in Dallas is not "proof" of French complicity in the crime. Perhaps you could illustrate for us why the presence of a dozen or so US military intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza is not "proof" of US military involvement in the murder. Proximity to a crime does not, in and of itself, demonstrate one's participation in the crime. If you can prove otherwise vis a vis Cuba, please do so. Waiting for you to provide something - anything - tangible to bolster your assertions is getting stale and tedious.

It would matter not if the other reports were in error or even fabricated. And we know there were reports of three different pro-Castro Cubans in Dealey Plaza who fled to Cuba immediately after the assassination.

Well, I've asked you a number of times, in a number of different ways, to supply us with such "reports," but thus far to no avail. Does that mean these "reports" don't exist? Or that you don't have them? Or that you've never seen them?

Again, to analogize to the Simpson case, if Simpson's DNA was on the murder weapon, that fact by itself proves he did it. It matters not then whether Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove.

Interesting analogy. Oswald's print was purportedly found upon the weapon to which the assassination was attributed. But there is clear evidence - courtesy of the FBI - that this was a fraudulently planted print. And the fraud was committed, you might recall, by police. So, Simpson is different because.....?

Let's use a JFK analogy. There were several people who reported seeing Ruby and Oswald together. Some were, if you will excuse the expression, "low-lifes" (does not necessarily prove they were liars); others were not. Many of these reports could be fabrications or mistaken identity. But if only ONE of the reports was credible (I'll go with Faraldo from Key West) it matters not if ALL the other reports were wrong. The single true report establishes a pre-assassination association between Oswald and ruby.

I do not need to prove that three, or even two, Cuban intelligence agents were in Dealey Plaza. Unless you demonstrate that all three reports were fabricated or unintentional errors, then my case is made. The presence of any one DGI agent in Dealey Plaza is, I submit, a "smoking gun".

We'll address what such a report means, and whether it reaches the level of "smoking gun," when you can actually provide us with one. If you're just going to cite some other book or magazine article which doesn't actually provide the reader with the pertinent documents, don't bother. If you wish to have your ludicrous second-hand, Agency-minted hypothesis taken seriously at all, you'll have to finally break down and offer some actual proof, not merely 38-year old anecdotes from Marty Underwood and your assurance that documents unseen by you actually do exist, and actually mean something.

One notices that when hard questions are put to you, rather than provide the citations you assure us exist, we are treated instead to analogies, metaphors and philosophical musings. While these may be an entertaining way for you to while away your time, they not only fall far short of the level of proof, they diminish your credibility here daily. As that is undoubtedly not your intent, please answer the questions in my two prior posts, and let's see if we can't get to the bottom of whatever burr is under your saddle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert Charles-Dunne · May 27, 2005

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
However, if we can obscure that little fact, perhaps I can use Robert's "endorsement" to become a member of the CIA's most recent version of Operation Mockingbird. Wonder what the current pay structure is?

Ask Gerry Hemming. Chances are, he might know...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark Stapleton · May 28, 2005

Tim.
If as you belive, Castro was behind the assassination,in what way does Ruby tie in

to your scenario? I think we both agree, that somebody forced Mr Ruby's hand, as

LHO had to be silenced. whoever this was must have had something BIG on old

Jack. Who do you think put his feet to the fire, and how do they tie in to Castro?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

McWillie had Ruby knock off Oswald because Lansky and Fidel were such good buddies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stan,

Very nice. Yes, it won't be long before Tim provides us with "very cogent evidence" that Lansky and Fidel collaborated to kill JFK and that often after 18 holes on the testing Royal Havana course, they would meet up with Trafficante and Marcello and the four of them would dine and drink the Havana nights away, telling stories of times past and playfully ribbing their host about how things were much better before he lobbed.

Tim Gratz · May 28, 2005

Robert wrote:

[Quoting me]: Funny, Robert, John's most recent scenario factors in Gilberto Policarpo Lopez in Dallas but assumes (without evidence) that he was a double agent working for both the CIA and Castro's intelligence.

Then perhaps you should take that up with him. I did notice in reading John's hypothesis, however, that he identifies Policarpo as a second patsy in a plot to blame Castro for the JFK hit. There is evidence for this, whereas the evidence for your contention that he was a conspirator is far thinner gruel, indeed.

Well, Robert, what is your evidence that Policarpo was a "second patsy"? At least you now seem to admit he was in Dallas, so we have made a little progress anyway! Seems to me that unless you can demonstrate he was a second patsy, we now have Fidel nailed!

So I now await YOUR evidence!

Tim Gratz · May 28, 2005

Larry wrote:

Second, we do have remarks from Morales, Phillips and Martino which indicate the conspiracy involved US intelligence officers - and its a matter of record that all three of those individuals were associated. Having Morales say "we took care of that SOB" is far more significant than a random remark or even a public confession. The same thing goes for Phillips making a statement about US intel officers being involved - only a short while before his death and after years of fighting any such assertion. Of course that does not imply the CIA as an organization had anything to do with it, it does suggest individuals CIA officers were involved in some fashion.

Larry, as you know, while I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests Cuban complicity, I do not rule out the possibility of "rogue CIA agents", the old "rogue elephant scenario". But re the statements by Morales and Phillips:

Morales' statement could be considered drunken "braggadocia". He might have been claiming participation in the assassination to merely to rile his friend who was a JFK supporter. Nonetheless it does of course need to be considered.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Phillips (whose statement you corrected in your 2004 supplement) expressed an OPINION there was US intelligence involvement but he did not claim any personal knowledge thereof. I guess everyone is entitled to his opinion and Phillips' opinion can be countered with the opinions of Angleton and Marchetti.

The most salient statement seems to be that of Martino because he was not drunk at the time, made some statements prior to the assassination, and offered certain SPECIFICS re the plot (as discussed in your book).

Tim Gratz · May 28, 2005

Larry wrote:

Linking Roselli and even Ruby to the assassination certainly does not corroborate a link to Trafficante any more than it would finger Marcello or Giancana as the sponser. In fact Roselli did far more business with both of the others than Trafficante. And of course as evidence of that just take a look at all the communications with Ruby in the weeks and months before the assassinationa as well as immediately after. They don't track to Trafficante.

Larry, as you know:

1) Trafficante claimed knowledge of a hit in 1962.

2) On a FBI wiretap, after the murder of Giancana, Trafficante remarked "now only two people know who killed Kennedy and they aren't talkinmg:.

3) Per Frank Ragano, Trafficante admitted his participation in the assassination (with Marcello). His statement is "corroborated" by statements Marcello made while hospitalized and being guarded by federal agents.

4) There is strong evidence that Trafficante's goons whacked Rosselli. In fact, the identity of one of his assailants is known (the man admitted his participation to two different sources.

5) As you write in your book, when the Church Committee started, Trafficante fled the country and he clearly perjured himself before the House Committee.

I submit Trafficante's participation in the assassination is fairly clear.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz · May 28, 2005

lARRY WROTE:

And given Roselli's rather fanatic patriotism (regardless of his