Robert Maheu

[Pat Speer]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Had the concurrent assassination of Castro transpired as planned [and in direct violation of Kennedy's prohibition of same], it surely would have bolstered the invasion's chances for success.

Now it's my turn, Robert.  What is the basis for the assertion that Kennedy had directly prohibited assassination?

And of course your theory that the CIA anticipated a failure but counted on forcing Kennedy's hand is speculation.  We do not know for a fact whether the CIA was clever (as you suggest) or dumb.

Re the Maheur issue, as I am sure you and Pat know,  Maheu told Rosselli at their initial meeting that his real sponsor was the CIA but he also told Rosselli he would deny it and call Rosselli a xxxx if Rosselli ever tried to quote him to that effect.  And when Rosselli started to talk, that is exactly what Maheu did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, too, am curious about Robert's statement. I wasn't aware Kennedy had ever expressly forbade assassination. In 1962, Robert Kennedy expressly forbade the CIA's use of the mob, without checking with him first. But they just ignored him.

I do think he's correct about the CIA's attitude towards the invasion. I think it's the IG report that gets into this. As I recall it never occurred to Bissell, Barnes and the boys that Kennedy wouldn't send in the Navy if the invasion started to falter. Kennedy, at Rusk's urging, had asked that the landing site be changed. And the CIA agreed to the change, never telling Kennedy that the new location was a trap for the invading force should the U.S. not back them up. Hawkins, the military planner of the invasion, asked Bissell that it be called off, but was shot down. It seems Bissell and Barnes just rolled the dice

And Tim, there's no record of Rosselli talking prior to 67. It was Maheu who told the FBI in 61, which led to the meetings between Kennedy and the CIA, and Kennedy and Hoover, and it was Maheu who told Morgan in 67, which led to the Drew Pearson article. According to Morgan's Church Committee testimony, Rosselli only talked after Maheu had already told Morgan the story. Maheu was trying to weasel out of testifying before a congressional committtee on wire-tapping and used the story for leverage. It worked.

[Mark Stapleton]

John wrote:

Were you really trained as a lawyer?

John, I respectfully submit I could use all the mistakes at the BOP and the crazy schemes the CIA was considering to do in Castro (remember the exploding sea shell and "elimination by illumination") to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the incompetence of the CIA.

Reading about many of these schemes it is difficult to believe that the men considering them were well-educated.

And then look at Watergate.  McCord was a CIA man.  Unless his placement of the tape was deliberate, that was a rather stupid mistake as well.

As someone once commented about the CIA in this period, it resembled the Keystone Cops.

I know you do not like this because it supports Trento's theory, but, in my opinion, the facts do support his theory.  Had there been CIA operatives in Dealey Plaza they probably would have shot themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

That's very nice but would you mind answering John's question.

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Mark, FYI, I scored the highest possible score on the LSAT and graduated at about ten percent level in my law school, where I was selected to teach legal writing for two years.

I also had an article published in the Wisconsin Law Review.

And I once argued successfully a case against Kirkland and Ellis in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although I was not accepted, I interviewed for a job at Nixon's firm in Manhattan (this was post-Watergate so as you can imagine its association with Nixon was no longer a "badge of honor").

Since you asked.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Well, Mark, FYI, I scored the highest possible score on the LSAT and graduated at about ten percent level in my law school, where I was selected to teach legal writing for two years.

I also had an article published in the Wisconsin Law Review.

And I once argued successfully a case against Kirkland and Ellis in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although I was not accepted, I interviewed for a job at Nixon's firm in Manhattan (this was post-Watergate so as you can imagine its association with Nixon was no longer a "badge of honor").

Since you asked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Nice answer. Yes or no would have been OK. Your legal training may explain some of the tactics you employ. Anyhow, I've a very important question for you on the "Communication Breakdown" thread, concerning C. Douglas Dillon for which I respecfully request your urgent attention. Thank you.

[John Simkin]

Joseph Trento says the CIA could not have organized the JFK assassination because it lacked the competence to do so.  Pat's point about the one hand of the CIA not knowing what the other hand was doing proves Trento's point, I submit.

Let’s analyse in detail what you are saying here.

“Joseph Trento says the CIA could not have organized the JFK assassination because it lacked the competence to do so.”

I assume you are referring to Trento’s comments in his email to me. It is in itself not a very logical statement. To make any sense it would have to be possible to argue that every CIA agent is incompetent. That is clearly not the case. There are numerous examples of the CIA carrying out successful operations.

Another problem with Trento’s statement concerns the way the CIA works. Most of what it does is kept highly secret. Therefore, it is possible, that the CIA is a very competent organization. In fact, the more competent it is, the more likely it is we will never find out about it.

Trento’s argument is not new. Every time the CIA is caught out doing unpleasant things, its defenders claim that the organization is only guilty of incompetence. The latest example of this was over WMD in Iraq. The alternative is more disquieting. If it is not incompetence it is a conspiracy. Understandably, the CIA would rather admit to incompetence.

“Pat's point about the one hand of the CIA not knowing what the other hand was doing proves Trento's point, I submit.”

This illustrates the illogical way you argue your case. Pat points out an example of CIA incompetence. You then use this to support Trento’s argument that the CIA is an incompetent organization. It does nothing of the sort. It does what it says it does. It points out that the CIA is sometimes capable of acting in an incompetent way. That is true of any organization.

[Tim Gratz]

I also interviewed at Dewey's old firm in Manhattan.

It is somewhat similar to Sullivan and Cromwell.

The atmosphere at a firm of that prestige and caliber is quite something, by the way.

Just the experience at interviewing at a firm like the "Dewey firm" was enlightening.

Dewey, as you may know, played an important role in getting Nixon on as Ike's running mate in 1952 but he then was involved in the effort to get rid of him after the fund scandal emerged. Nixon, of course, outsmarted him with his famous "Checkers" speech.

In order to get his place on the ticket, Nixon manuevered to undercut the California governor (his own governor) who was running for the presidential nomination himself. Nixon's machinations helped Eisenhower secure the nomination.

But Eisenhower made it up to the governor by appointing him to the Supreme Court. His name, of course, was Earl Warren.

[Don Roberdeau]

Good Day.... Surely, ROSSELLI, was not the only person whom MAHUE initially considered approaching/enlisting to help within the CIA operations for assassinating CASTRO.

I am interested in who else MAHUE considered approaching for enlisting to help within the CIA operations?

Additionally, to help with the CASTRO assassination CIA operations, who else did MAHUE actually approach, arrange to meet, and actually meet and speak with? (albeit before, or, after contacting ROSSELLI; if so, when, where, through who else's help to arrange a meeting, did more person(s) than just MAHUE meet with a prospective enlistee, etc?)

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

"There's other things involved that are that are detrimental to other things."

- REGIS BLAHUT, ex-C.I.A. Office of Security officer and liaison to the H.S.C.A., after he was fired from the C.I.A. in 1978, after he was caught having removed the autopsy photos of President KENNEDY from an HSCA safe even though he was never given authorization to access the autopsy photos.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Don Roberdeau

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Had the concurrent assassination of Castro transpired as planned [and in direct violation of Kennedy's prohibition of same], it surely would have bolstered the invasion's chances for success.

Now it's my turn, Robert.  What is the basis for the assertion that Kennedy had directly prohibited assassination?

Each and every member of the Kennedy White House inner circle who has been asked about this topic has answered uniformly that JFK eschewed the murder of Castro, which had been a prior part of the invasion plan, as directed and supervised by Richard Nixon as Eisenhower's White House action officer.  The first demonstrable instance of this being considered was the December 1959 memo from CIA's JC King, which called for the removal of both Castro brothers and Che Guevara as a "package" deal.

However, the first instance when we can demonstrate somebody was apprehended while trying to kill Castro came in February 1959, barely a month after Castro's triumph over Batista.  His name was Allen Mayer, a US pilot.  Though it is not demonstrable that Mayer acted at CIA's behest in this, it is demonstable that Mayer was part of the anti-Castro milieu, and was known by various CIA personnel who would participate in the Bay of Pigs invasion.  In any event, both Mayer's attempt [if sponsored by CIA], and JC King's memo predate Kennedy's election, as does the date on which CIA first recruited Mafiosi to carry out the plan.

As for Kennedy's purported approval of killing Castro, a few points should be considered.  Those who seek to assassinate Kennedy's character insist that his inner circle of advisers refuse to admit the truth about his authorizing the murder of Castro because they are Kennedy loyalists.  This is demonstably untrue, as a passage from Thomas Powers' "Man Who Kept The Secrets" about Richard Helms confirms:

On August 10, 1962, during the earliest stages of what would shortly become the Cuban missile crisis, a meeting was held in the office of Secretary of State Dean Rusk to discuss Operation Mongoose, the Kennedy Administration's post-Bay of Pigs plan to get rid of Castro, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a man convinced there is a rational solution to every problem, was probably astonished at the instantaneous reaction to his entirely hypothetical suggestion that perhaps they ought to consider solving the Castro problem by killing him.

Edward R. Murrow, the director of the United States Information Agency, protested that this was entirely out of order. CIA Director John McCone immediately backed him up. The secretary at the meeting, Thomas Parrott, did not so much as include the matter in the minutes. To seal the point, McCone personally phoned McNamara later in the day and protested that talk of assassination was entirely out of order in such a meeting, that he didn't want to hear any more of it, and that he, McCone, a devout Catholic who attended mass every morning, might be faced with nothing short of excommunication if word of such things ever got out.

From the foregoing, we see an example of murdering Castro being openly discussed, albeit without either Kennedy being present, by one of JFK's very own "loyalists," only to be shut down by other insiders present.  Surely, if Kennedy has already authorized this executive action against Castro prior to the Bay of Pigs, or any time in the interim, McNamara's suggestion would have been superfluous, and the response of other Kennedy appointees would have been more muted.  Why would they so vehemently denounce something the President had already authorized?

Unless cognitively impaired, readers will also note that McCone, Kennedy's appointee to the DCI's chair, didn't seem to know during this meeting that plans to murder Castro were being actively pursued at that very time.  Subsequently, McCone insisted that he knew nothing about such plots being undertaken [as opposed to "discussed"], and this contention was confirmed by William Harvey, who testified that McCone was deliberately kept out of the loop by CIA itself.  How is it possible that McCone didn't know about such plots, when he ran the very agency that claimed Kennedy insisted Castro be murdered?  And why would CIA sequester this secret from McCone, if the President had already authorized it?

Similarly, we know that Kennedy asked for advice on this same matter of journalist Tad Szulc and Senator George Smathers, in November 1961 and the summer of 1962 respectively.  In either instance, we know that Kennedy was being advised [pressured?] to authorize such action by others in his government.  But why in God's name would that advice have been sought, or the suggestions been made by his advisers, if he had already authorized it?

In short, with minimal analysis and common sense, we see that the extant record bears out the Kennedy cabinet members who have denied JFK issued an order to kill Castro, and not those who insist - without evidence, but with a CYA self-serving agenda, it should be noted - that he had given such an order. 

And of course your theory that the CIA anticipated a failure but counted on forcing Kennedy's hand is speculation.  We do not know for a fact whether the CIA was clever (as you suggest) or dumb.

No reasonable critique or analysis of the issue can be complete without giving this notion consideration.  [Much as I'd like to take credit for it, Tim, this is not "my theory."]  You may profit much from reading the Taylor report on this topic, for history has demolished completely any idea that each of CIA's manifold errors were merely the "mistakes" of the incompetent.  The Agency was so gung-ho to remove Castro, and so certain it could intimidate the young President into acquiescence, that the success or failure of the mission was immaterial.  They needed only to succeed in landing the exile Brigade on the beachheads and then insist it could only be salvaged by executive action. 

Re the Maheur issue, as I am sure you and Pat know,  Maheu told Rosselli at their initial meeting that his real sponsor was the CIA but he also told Rosselli he would deny it and call Rosselli a xxxx if Rosselli ever tried to quote him to that effect.  And when Rosselli started to talk, that is exactly what Maheu did.

From which we can only conclude, as I did in my prior post, that CIA didn't think it imperative to keep secret from the recruited Mobsters its own role in sponsoring the hit.  But, clearly, it wished to keep this recruitment secret from the Kennedys, for it remained undisclosed until 1962.  Again, why bother keeping such information secret from the very President who had purportedly ordered the hit? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, too, am curious about Robert's statement. I wasn't aware Kennedy had ever expressly forbade assassination. In 1962, Robert Kennedy expressly forbade the CIA's use of the mob, without checking with him first. But they just ignored him.

Thank you, Pat, for this again confirms that CIA didn't give a tinker's cuss about Presidential authorization, or lack thereof. It set its own course, and simply kept in the dark any of the potentates - including their own DCI - who might have had the power to steer US policy in any direction contrary to CIA's wishes.

Tim has asserted that LBJ ordered CIA to cease all attempts against Castro - which may or may not be the whole truth of the matter - but this certainly didn't prevent CIA from continuing its dalliance with Cubela for several more years into Johnson's term. They paid no more attention to Johnson's wishes than they had to Kennedy's, and failed to share information with Johnson, just as they had done with Kennedy.

This is nowhere near so difficult to parse as some people would have us believe.

I do think he's correct about the CIA's attitude towards the invasion. I think it's the IG report that gets into this. As I recall it never occurred to Bissell, Barnes and the boys that Kennedy wouldn't send in the Navy if the invasion started to falter. Kennedy, at Rusk's urging, had asked that the landing site be changed. And the CIA agreed to the change, never telling Kennedy that the new location was a trap for the invading force should the U.S. not back them up. Hawkins, the military planner of the invasion, asked Bissell that it be called off, but was shot down. It seems Bissell and Barnes just rolled the dice

And Tim, there's no record of Rosselli talking prior to 67. It was Maheu who told the FBI in 61, which led to the meetings between Kennedy and the CIA, and Kennedy and Hoover, and it was Maheu who told Morgan in 67, which led to the Drew Pearson article. According to Morgan's Church Committee testimony, Rosselli only talked after Maheu had already told Morgan the story. Maheu was trying to weasel out of testifying before a congressional committtee on wire-tapping and used the story for leverage. It worked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Pat Speer]

Good Day.... Surely, ROSSELLI, was not the only person whom MAHUE initially considered approaching/enlisting to help within the CIA operations for assassinating CASTRO.

"There's other things involved that are that are detrimental to other things."

- REGIS BLAHUT, ex-C.I.A. Office of Security officer and liaison to the H.S.C.A., after he was fired from the C.I.A. in 1978, after he was caught having removed the autopsy photos of President KENNEDY from an HSCA safe even though he was never given authorization to access the autopsy photos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don , the official story as I remember it is that Bissell got the idea of using the mob, approached Edwards, who in turn approached Maheu, knowing that Maheu was tight with Rosselli. I think there's some dispute whether or not Edwards first approached Bissell or Bissell Edwards. Anyhow, I suspect the former. For one, Maheu admits in his book that O'Connell, who was Maheu's case officer, and who had hands-on dealings with Rosselli, had already met Rosselli at a party at his house. For two, Charles Siragusa, America's top narc, who was the number one thorn in the mob's side, was later to testify that he was approached by one of Edwards' men to arrange the hits, but that he declined. (My memory of this story is a little fuzzy.) Anyhow, this makes me suspect that Edwards came up with the idea, and put feelers out among his men. When O'Connell piped in with "Maheu's got mobsters over at his house for dinner every Sunday!"or some such thing, Edwards pegged Maheu, and went to Bissell to push it through.

I also suspect, however, that the mob was already trying to kill Castro (Lansky had reportedly put a million dollar bounty on his head), and that they leapt at the chance to make it official, and have the FEDs owe them a favor. They'd been in the favor business for years, going back to Luciano's WW2-era deals to protect the docks in New York and keep the reds out of Marseilles. Please correct me if you think I've got it wrong or that there's more to the story.

[Tim Gratz]

Someone (Pat or Robert) wrote:

And Tim, there's no record of Rosselli talking prior to 67. It was Maheu who told the FBI in 61, which led to the meetings between Kennedy and the CIA, and Kennedy and Hoover, and it was Maheu who told Morgan in 67, which led to the Drew Pearson article. According to Morgan's Church Committee testimony, Rosselli only talked after Maheu had already told Morgan the story. Maheu was trying to weasel out of testifying before a congressional committtee on wire-tapping and used the story for leverage. It worked.

As I understand it, when the FBI and DOJ was pressing to prosecute Maheu for bugging Dan Rowan's suite, Maheu claimed it was a CIA operation.

So in early 1962 the FBI pressed the CIA re whether there was any reason it should not prosecute Maheu. It was as a response to those pressures that on May 7, 1962 Col. Edwards and Laurence Houston met with RFK and spelled out the CIA/Mafia plots.

Re Robert's points that the Kennedys never authorized the assassination of Castro, I'd lke to respond at greater length later but in the context of the foregoing this comment is appropriate: after the meeting with RFK, Edwards pointedly commented that RFK never forbade the CIA murdering Castro; what angered him was the CIA's employment in the plot of the very Mafia principals he was trying to prosecute.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

what angered him was the CIA's employment in the plot of the very Mafia preincipals he was trying to prosecute.

Tim, I believe the correct word is "principals."

[Tim Gratz]

You're right (proper use of "you're). I have now corrected it.

Mark, you had a very good post on the "Fidel Did It" scenario thread. I wrote what I thought was a good reply and it disappeared! Frustrating!

[Mark Knight]

Mark, you had a very good post on the "Fidel Did It" scenario thread.

Hmmm...and a few days ago you were questioning my intelligence, were you not? For reasons such as this, I figure the above quote must be either sarcastic or facetious in nature, or it's another case in which Tim compliments [yes, that's the correct spelling and usage] the post, and then questions the sanity of the poster. And frankly, I'm sick of that method of argument.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, how sick do you suppose I am of being called names merely because someone disagrees with my scenarios? (e.g., "rodent").

I understand it is not you but it is disturbing nonetheless.

I think I am fairly well-read on the assassination and believe me I read just about everything I can, including references that do not support my own theory.

But I am also disheartened by some of the postings on this forum. I know at least one very well-respected researcher who will not join this form for the very reason that some of the theories posted here are just "nutty". Like I said before, to suspect C. Douglas Dillon, and to do so without any knowledge of his close friendship with the Kennedys, is ridiculous. (I understand it was not you who was propogating the "Dillon did it" theory.)

It is also a phernomenal waste of time.

Unless someone has some solid evidence of something, to speculate about Douglas Dillon, Maxwell Taylor, Curtis LeMay, H. L. Hunt, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, does nothing to move toward a resolution of the case. And it distracts from more productive research.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

There is a story by a Tampa area investigative reporter thsat involves a man by the name of George White in the selection of Rosselli. I'll try to find it and post a link.

Apparently White and Col Edwards were both involved in the "clean up" re the death of Frank Olson.