Ruby's strange motivation

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

[quoting me]. 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.

Robert, that Cubela met with Kostikov in Mexico City but Fitzgerald failed to report this to the branch of the CIA that was investigating Kostikov's contacts in the wake of the assassination is reported in both Evan Thomas' "The Very Best Men" and Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked".

I trust the integrity of both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Hancock.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

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.

Robert, I have stated that I consider as a possibility the involvement of "rogue" CIA agents. So please give a reference when I have EVER said anything close to the above.

Ditto for Trento.

Ditto for Blakely.

Ditto for any other members of our ilk club.

I await your documentationm sir.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Larry, in "Someone Would Have Talked" , page 243, you write that: Felipe Vidal Santiago spent a great deal of time and effort in 1963 informing Cuban exiles that the Kennedy administration was opening a dialogue with Cuba." (Page 243.) These talks were very confidential, as you know. Do you have any support for the fact that Vidal was aware of the plots and was talking to anti-Castro exiles about them, other than from Fabian Escalante?

[Larry Hancock]

Tim, the context of Morales remark tends to support that he simply let the truth slip out...it followed an extended tirade against JFK which had already made his feelings quite clear, no need to add that remark (plus Morales was not known as a "kidder"). About the best I can say is that one of only a couple of his life long friends heard it and was of the opinion it was true - I can tell you that virtually everything that friend has said has continued to check out and much more of that will be illustrated in the second edition of my book.

Another key point is that Morales was not just some yocal who needed to brag about such things to impress people, his reputation was legendary within the true covert CIA circles (and he had already fully impressed his lawyer and Ruben with introductions in D.C - not to mention his job as advisor to the Joint Chiefs and his parking spot designated for a General). So far we have not found a single thing that Morales claimed or that Ruben related that has not proven to be true. And Morales slip may well not be independent of Phillips remark; Phillips never disclosed knowing Morales by name in his biography - although he slips in a clue ( Martino had actually used Morales true name in his book). However in his fiction work he clearly describes Morales and states that El Indo was the best black/back street covert actions pro he had known during his CIA career.

As to Phillips "opinion" - that's correct, however you must take into account that his opinion was given after many years of proactively fighting every assertion of conspiracy and denying anything like that in his book. His expression of a counter opinion shortly before his death carries more weight because of his history on the subject. And clearly his career including his long term personal working relationship with Marales give far more weight to his potential personal knowledge on the subject than Angleton or Marchetti (and if you trust Angleton's statements on anything...well enough said). Phillips is a key element in the Mexico City Oswald incidents, if Phillips finally broke down and admitted that intel folks were involved it would be foolish not to take his remarks seriously.

Martino's statements (made privately with no expectation of ever being disclosed) are also not independent of this total thread since it can be shown that he had direct knowledge of Morales circa 1963...and knowledge of a special sort given that he used Morales true name in his book rather than Morales operational cover name.

P.S. I think I suggested this before but you really should obtain the actual CIA reports that refer to Castro agents and dig out the detail of what the source was for each report and who the information was filtered through within CIA. Without doing that you have no way of evaluating whether or not the information may have been planted by someone in Cuban ops (say someone like Phillips or Morales for example). The documents are available among the CIA segregated files so its a very doable project.

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).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Larry Hancock]

Tim, there is no independent confirmation by name of Vidal circulating

those remarks. However Gaeton Fonzi developed a source during his

investigation that described exactly the same remarks being passed

among the most radical and operationally active members of exile community at this same time as Escalante reports that Vidal described. This informant is covered in some detail in Fonzi's book (I name him and reference that in my book, just not sure where off the top of my head). The informant in question was the same one who led him to the remainging clique in Miami that was still engaged in active anti-Castro, anti-Communist operations. The group at that time

was apparently largely led in Miami by de Torres. Clearly Fonzi's informant did know what was going on in these circles.

Of course other persons connected to those same circles can be demonstrated to have had knowledge of the Kennedy dialogs and of the alternative approaches being considered at the time by RFK and the SGA....one of them would be David Morales.

Larry, in "Someone Would Have Talked" , page 243, you write that: Felipe Vidal Santiago spent a great deal of time and effort in 1963 informing Cuban exiles that the Kennedy administration was opening a dialogue with Cuba."  (Page 243.)  These talks were very confidential, as you know.  Do you have any support for the fact that Vidal was aware of the plots and was talking to anti-Castro exiles about them, other than from Fabian Escalante?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ron Ecker]

That Vidal was telling anti-Castro exiles in 1963 that JFK was opening a dialogue with Cuba seems to be corroborated by Artime going to Fort Benning in June and trying to recruit Cubans out of the officer training program by telling them that the U.S. government wasn't going to do anything about Castro.

While the U.S. intelligence report on this doesn't specify the reasons Artime gave for his argument, it must have been based on something that was going on, and what Vidal was saying is a clue. If Artime was simply lying to get recruits, the question becomes why did he do it, the effect being to create dissension if not destroy the Cuban Officer Training Program that was intended to eventually help liberate Cuba.

Ron

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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"? 

If Policarpo was being implicated in the assassination as a Castro proxy by CIA, for which there is to date NO PROOF, that seems prima facie evidence that CIA was trying to tie an innocent man to a crime he didn't commit.  That ring any bells vis a vis CIA's treatment of a guy named Oswald?

I know that you have no requirement for proof, which is a good thing, since none has ever been offered.  But rational, reasonable minds - who might be persuaded of Castro's complicity were there such evidence - do require evidence, not merely the fantasy-world speculation you continue to peddle here.

I've all but begged you to toss us a single morsel that qualifies as evidence.  In the past five months, you've provided nothing but theorizing based on unconfirmed, unverified, unseen "reports" of unknown veracity and provenance.  All we can safely assume as a result is that they were generated by CIA for a reason, and I would suggest one needn't be terribly bright to venture a reasonable guess.  The "reports" were designed to do just what they stated: blame a purported Castro agent for the President's assassination.  That ring any bells vis a vis CIA's treatment of a guy named Oswald?

At least you now seem to admit he was in Dallas, so we have made a little progress anyway! 

You're dreaming in technicolour.  Acknowledging that CIA claimed he was in Dallas doesn't mean he was there.  Based upon CIA's record for veracity, I'd be inclined to believe the opposite.

Seems to me that unless you can demonstrate he was a second patsy, we now have Fidel nailed!

So I now await YOUR evidence!

Aside from a hundred other questions I've asked you in the past five months, all of which you've ignored, in three prior posts in this very thread, I asked a number of highly specific questions, which required only the shortest answer.  Yet you have the cheek to ignore each and every one, invent my "admission" that Policarpo was in Dallas, and then demand anything....?  Do you really think Forum members somehow fail to detect your weak feints, where robust and potent replies should be?   

Five months and counting for your song and dance.  It's not playing in Peoria, Tim, or Australia, England, or anywhere else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

[quoting me].  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.

Robert, that Cubela met with Kostikov in Mexico City but Fitzgerald failed to report this to the branch of the CIA that was investigating Kostikov's contacts in the wake of the assassination is reported in both Evan Thomas' "The Very Best Men" and Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked".

So the answer is clear:  you insist that we take CIA's ludicrous prefab Castro-did-it crock seriously, because ... well, because there are documents you've never even seen????  Well, I guess that cinches it.  You've now moved from the sublime to the ridiculous, for all to see.

I trust the integrity of both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Hancock.

Well, since you don't seem to trouble yourself with bothering to find actual evidence for what you "believe," you must resign yourself to trusting the integrity of others.  Hey, if it's in a book, it must be true.  That your uncritical, blithely cavalier trust stretches far enough to include CIA, a possible suspect on any reasonable person's list, explains how you can have the nerve to militate on behalf of a CIA sham, without even knowing the basis for it.  Well done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

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.

Robert, I have stated that I consider as a possibility the involvement of "rogue" CIA agents.  So please give a reference when I have EVER said anything close to the above.

“I have said it before but I'll say it again. I do not believe any CIA official participated in the assassination.”          Tim Gratz – January 15, 2005 – posted on this Forum

Ditto for Trento.

“As to the notion the CIA was capable of killing the President - I just don't believe it.”  Joseph Trento in an e-mail to John Simkin – posted on this Forum May 19, 2005

Ditto for Blakely.

"You don’t think they’d lie to me do you? I’ve been working with these people for twenty years."  G. Robert Blakey, expressing astonishment that CIA’s professional liars would lie to him!

Ditto for any other members of our ilk club.

I await your documentationm sir.

No, Tim, we await your "documentation."  Claims require proof; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  On what date can we expect to see some, finally.....?  Please, no more semantical slipperiness; no more bombastic philosophical musing; no more mighta-coulda-maybes; at this point, I'd settle for any evidence whatsoever that you've even seen the "reports" on which you claim to base your "case."  Could you do that little, at least?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

The above interchange with Robert Charles-Dunne:

[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"?

And Robert's answer was:

If Policarpo was being implicated in the assassination as a Castro proxy by CIA, for which there is to date NO PROOF, that seems prima facie evidence that CIA was trying to tie an innocent man to a crime he didn't commit. That ring any bells vis a vis CIA's treatment of a guy named Oswald?

Robert's answer seems to boil down to if a Cuban was in Dallas and fled to Havana after the assassination, never to return to the United States, raising suspicions obvious to anyone, including the CIA, then he must have been a CIA set-up patsy. But then he goes on to argue that maybe he wasn't even in Dallas anyway. What a non-sequitur. How did the CIA persuade Policarpo to go to Dallas for the assassination, and then flee to Havana? Robert offers no explanation whatsoever. Nor does John offer any proof whatsoever that Policarpo was a CIA double agent.

If Fidel had walked up to the presidential limousine, pulled a pistol, and shot JFK in the face in front of hundreds of spectators in Dealey Plaza, and was caught with the smoking gun, Robert would no doubt claim it was all a CIA frame-up.

I agree that if anti-Castro forces were framing LHO to blame it on Fidel, it would be a good plan to make it LOOK like he had escaped to Havana. Had Oswald IN FACT escaped to Cuba, however, then, my conclusion would be that he had been part of a Castro plot. Well, that is what happened with Policarpo. He moved from Key West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination, about the time the assassination plans were in progress, then got a VISA to VISIT Mexico for two weeks, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination, then fled to Havana never to return to the US. To any reasonable person, those activities raise obvious suspicions. So John has to (without a scintilla of evidence) argue he was a CIA double agent while Robert argues he was a CIA-designated patsy.

Then Robert goes on to argue that perhaps Policarpo had not been in Dallas whatsoever. For all Robert suggests, the guy is still in Key West. Well, Robert, I've seen his photo and let me tell you he's not here anymore. So when do you think he moved to Havana? What proof do you have that the documentary evidence that he arrived in Mexico on November 23, 1963 was fabricated?

It's easy to deny any evidence linking Castro to the assassination by simply asserting the CIA made it up. But somehow that does not cut it.

Policarpo's presence in Dallas and escape to Havana is not conclusive proof of Cuban complicity in the assassination but any reasonable person will agree it points in that direction.

[Tim Gratz]

Larry wrote:

P.S. I think I suggested this before but you really should obtain the actual CIA reports that refer to Castro agents and dig out the detail of what the source was for each report and who the information was filtered through within CIA. Without doing that you have no way of evaluating whether or not the information may have been planted by someone in Cuban ops (say someone like Phillips or Morales for example). The documents are available among the CIA segregated files so its a very doable project.

Larry I agree this is a very reasonable suggestion.

In my opinion, if the presence of even one of the three Cuban intelligence agents said to be in Dealey Plaza can be reasonably established, that fact is highly suggestive of Cuban complicity.

One reason why I tend to discredit Morales' statement as mere braggadocia is because I have seen CIA documentation that he was a party to the early planning of the AMTRUNK operation. If he wanted Communism eradicated from Cuba, it would have been foolhardy of him to "rock the boat" by getting rid of the Administration that was supporting that operation. And Morales does not seem like a stupid man. And we know that the anti-Castro activities petered out under LBJ. So if Morales did it he shot himself in the foot and lost what was REALLY important to him. If it was more important to him to avenge what he saw as JFK's trachery at the BOP than it was to remove Castro, then his idiocy cannot be exaggerated.

I reiterate that Phillips' statements do not sound like he was saying he KNEW it was an American intelligence operation, only that he SUSPECTED it was. So it does not sound like he was making the statement out of any personal knowledge. It baffles me why he would make such a statement in the first place. Since he was by all accounts a patriotic, pro-establishment fellow why would he offer an opinion like that? And if he had facts, why would he not come forward with the facts? It makes very little sense to me. Almost enough to make me doubt he even made the statement.

The question is how to reconcile the reports of the Cubans in Dealey Plaza with the statements of Martino and Morales. One explanation, of course, is if there were no Cubans there: all the reports were deliberately false or mistakenly erroneous. A second explanation would be if pro-Castro forces secretly caused anti-Castro forces to do it (for instance by telling the anti-Castro forces of the peace initiatiuves).

Larry, do you know why the House Select Committee did not place any greater weight on Martino's statements?

[David G. Healy]

Tim Gratz wrote:

... interchange with Robert Charles-Dunne:

[...]

If Fidel had walked up to the presidential limousine, pulled a pistol, and shot JFK in the face in front of hundreds of spectators in Dealey Plaza, and was caught with the smoking gun, Robert would no doubt claim it was all a CIA frame-up.

[...]

You really think that, don't yah?

There are few researcher-investigator working this debacle, RCDunne is one of them. You haven't earned your stripes yet...

[James Richards]

One reason why I tend to discredit Morales' statement as mere braggadocia is because I have seen CIA documentation that he was a party to the early planning of the AMTRUNK operation. If he wanted Communism eradicated from Cuba, it would have been foolhardy of him to "rock the boat" by getting rid of the Administration that was supporting that operation. And Morales does not seem like a stupid man. And we know that the anti-Castro activities petered out under LBJ. So if Morales did it he shot himself in the foot and lost what was REALLY important to him. If it was more important to him to avenge what he saw as JFK's trachery at the BOP than it was to remove Castro, then his idiocy cannot be exaggerated. (Tim Gratz)

Hi Tim,

David Morales was not a man who needed to brag as his real life exploits was the stuff of legends anyway. He was held in such esteem that CIA people either feared him or respected him, most likely a bit of both.

I think Morales went at the assassination with no motive other than to brutally kill John Kennedy. I think Morales cared not one iota for any invasion of Cuba as I believe that element was a result of political opportunism as the plot started to take shape.

I have come to this conclusion as a result of my discussions with several Arizona folk who knew Morales and a man who served under him in Vietnam.

We all love grand conspiracies but I believe the assassination of JFK started out as one man's vendetta against a leader who he loathed with a passion. If that is an act of idiocy then that can be a topic for debate. Most murders are a crime of passion and in the broader sense, I don't think this one was any different.

The reality is that the plot did develop with political agendas in mind but the spark that got the ball rolling, I submit was nothing more than blind hatred.

This is just my opinion of course.

James

Edited May 29, 2005 by James Richards

[Larry Hancock]

Comments for Tim:

1) In regard to Morales, you have to remember that the plot described by Martino would have resulted not only in an assured elimination of Castro but also the death of JFK ....both things personally desirable to Morales. Any ouster of Castro (Track 1) by JFK or ouster of the Russians in a negotiation with Castro (Track 2) would have left JFK as a hero and in office for a second term (not a happy prospect for Morales given that he felt JFK to be a coward and traitor). It would be a mistake to factor out the power of hate in the murder of JFK.

2) As to Phillips remark, well you could check with the source for verification and you could also attempt to contact Phillips family - who belived him to be involved.

You can verify that on Shawn Phillips web site. As to why he would make such a comment only shortly before his death....that sort of behavior isn't all that uncommon is it?

I do not offer either individuals remarks as any sort of stand alone proof - but rather as only two elements of corroboration for the scenario outlined by Martino. And of course, there is the point that these two individuals can be actually demonstrated to have been in the position to have known what they were talking about (or in Phillips case, to hold a credible "opinion").

As to Martino and the HSCA. Well first off the HSCA only had one informant on Martino and when the investigators showed up at his wife's door it threw the family into a panic. His wife offered no support for the informant and other than collecting a few assorted documents the HSCA did no real background investigation formation on Martino. Of course in doing so they simply repeated the miserable job done by the FBI on his initial statements in 1964. The FBI stated that Martino had no credible associations within the Cuban exile community. Now given that both the FBI and HSCA missed Operation Tilt and Martino's association with Morales (oops, well the CIA certainly didn't disclose who Morales was or the key position he occupied any more than it helped Fonzi with his investigation of Phillips) its not hard to see how the HSCA simply dropped the lead. It was not until Summers revisited the lead and interviewed Martino's wife and family shortly before the wife's death that other details and corroboration began to emerge. Its a shame that the HSCA didn't have some of the TILT photos James has posted.

-- Larry

Larry wrote:

P.S. I think I suggested this before but you really should obtain the actual CIA reports that refer to Castro agents and dig out the detail of what the source was for each report and who the information was filtered through within CIA. Without doing that you have no way of evaluating whether or not the information may have been planted by someone in Cuban ops (say someone like Phillips or Morales for example). The documents are available among the CIA segregated files so its a very doable project.

Larry I agree this is a very reasonable suggestion. 

In my opinion, if the presence of even one of the three Cuban intelligence agents said to be in Dealey Plaza can be reasonably established, that fact is highly suggestive of Cuban complicity.

One reason why I tend to discredit Morales' statement as mere braggadocia is because I have seen CIA documentation that he was a party to the early planning of the AMTRUNK operation.  If he wanted Communism eradicated from Cuba, it would have been foolhardy of him to "rock the boat" by getting rid of the Administration that was supporting that operation.  And Morales does not seem like a stupid man.  And we know that the anti-Castro activities petered out under LBJ.  So if Morales did it he shot himself in the foot and lost what was REALLY important to him.  If it was more important to him to avenge what he saw as JFK's trachery at the BOP than it was to remove Castro, then his idiocy cannot be exaggerated.

I reiterate that Phillips' statements do not sound like he was saying he KNEW it was an American intelligence operation, only that he SUSPECTED it was.  So it does not sound like he was making the statement out of any personal knowledge.  It baffles me why he would make such a statement in the first place.  Since he was by all accounts a patriotic, pro-establishment fellow why would he offer an opinion like that?  And if he had facts, why would he not come forward with the facts?  It makes very little sense to me.  Almost enough to make me doubt he even made the statement.

The question is how to reconcile the reports of the Cubans in Dealey Plaza with  the statements of Martino and Morales.  One explanation, of course, is if there were no Cubans there: all the reports were deliberately false or mistakenly erroneous.  A second explanation would be if pro-Castro forces secretly caused anti-Castro forces to do it (for instance by telling the anti-Castro forces of the peace initiatiuves).

Larry, do you know why the House Select Committee did not place any greater weight on Martino's statements?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks Larry for the interesting reply.

So the HSCA did not know how well-connected Martino was? Wasn't he living with Rosselli for a time?

Re Morales, the plot described by Morales that would have "resulted in the assured ouster of Castro" certainly did not. In fact, it resulted in the exact OPPOSITE.

Do you agree Morales was part of the planning team for AMTRUNK, by the way?