Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dillon Vs. Castro


Recommended Posts

The case against Dillon:

A Republican, with a background in intelligence

Wall Street connections. Would have reason to believe that JFK's death would be good for business, good for the Republican party, and good for the fight against communism.

Headed Secret Service, which was deficient in protecting Kennedy, unresponsive during the assassination itself, and negligent in the assassination's aftermath. (They cleaned up the limousine outside Parkland, destroying evidence, and improperly removed the limousine from Dallas shortly therafter. When a magazine article appeared claiming they'd found a bullet hole through the floor pan, they cut the FBI off without actually investigating.) Then there's the suspicious circumstance of a number of SS agents going out the night before the motorcade and gettiing drunk in a bar run by one of Jack Ruby's friends.

Would have reason to believe he'd get away with it, particularly if LBJ was involved.

Showed grief in the aftermath.

The case against Castro;

A communist, with a history of sponsoring violent activity, albeit none towards Americans on American soil.

Some purported connections with mobster Santos Trafficante, even though the facts seem to indicate he was anti-mafia and not corrupt in the manner of most dictators. Might believe that killing Kennedy would cut-down on the assassination attempts upon himself. Would probably fear that Johnson would be just as bad or worse than Kennedy. Would probably fear Kennedy's death would cause explosive anti-Cuban feelings.

Headed Cuban military and intelligence, which may have had a few individuals in the U.S. at the time fo the assassination, who fled immediately thereafter.

Would have no reason to believe he'd get away with it, particularly since the patsy chosen was a man who publicly supported Castro.

Expressed immediate disappointment. Has never said killing of Kennedy was divine retribution, a la LBJ, or any other such thing indicating he was struggling with any guilt.

In my viewpoint, it's about a draw. I really don't suspect either. While Castro was less friendly with JFK and had the better motive, there is less supicious activity involving him in the assassination and cover-up itself, and he would have had less reason to believe he'd get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pat I can hardly believe you believe this.

Your grounds for making Dillon a suspect include, inter alia, that a bunch of Secret Service agents stayed out drinking the night before the assassination? I assume they did this upon the express order of the Secretary of the Treasury?

Almost every reputable author who examines conspiracy theories considers Castro among the suspects (as you know he had the strongest motive of any); some consider Castro the prime suspect (while, admittedly, many do not).

The only people I know who have mentioned Dillon are Shanet and Mark.

I think the disease affecting some members of this forum must be contagious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

The SS not only "improperly removed the limousine from Dallas," they improperly removed the body.

I just obtained a copy of Bishop's The Day Kennedy Was Shot, and was struck by this passage, which depicts the folks on AF1, still on the ground with the body, as criminals desperately trying to make their getaway:

"O'Donnell was certain that official Dallas would protest the kidnaping of the President's body. If they rammed through an order forbidding AF-1 to take off, the authorities could besiege the plane in their zeal to adhere to a local law. They could show up any moment and demand an autopsy. . . . The only way to forestall it, he was sure, was to get the plane the hell out of Dallas before anyone realized what had happened."

If only the authorities had done that, upholding the law, there would never have been a "single bullet theory" or lone nut scenario, and today we might know the whole story.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha!

So JFK's friend Kenny O'Donnell was a part of the vast conspiracy also.

Dillon and O'Donnell, two of JFK's close friends.

(Ron, I know you were not implying O'Donnell but we know have more to link O'Donnell than we do Dillon!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat I can hardly believe you believe this.

Your grounds for making Dillon a suspect include, inter alia, that a bunch of Secret Service agents stayed out drinking the night before the assassination?  I assume they did this upon the express order of the Secretary of the Treasury?

Almost every reputable author who examines conspiracy theories considers Castro among the suspects (as you know he had the strongest motive of any); some consider Castro the prime suspect (while, admittedly, many do not). 

The only people I know who have mentioned Dillon are Shanet and Mark.

I think the disease affecting some members of this forum must be contagious!

The key word is "reputable." How does one become "reputable," Tim? By saying what is palatable to those who make "reputations." The whole point of my little exercise was to break down the case against each man. As I said, I don't believe that either of them were directly involved. I do think automatically disregarding Castro the way some do and automatically disregarding Dillon, and any other member of the American elite, the way you do, is a mistake. If I wanted to be "reputable" I'd go to work for CBS, Disney, or the Discovery Channel, or attempt something along the lines of the "reputable" Gerald Posner. I've spent years re-reading every report put out by the government, relying upon "reputable" testimony by "reputable" experts. And, guess what, these "reputable" men write reports about JFK which disagree with everything they've ever written and published to earn their reputation. I've also read hundreds of books and articles by "reputable" journalists and "reputable" historians, and, guess what? Not one in ten of them knows half as much about this case as yourself.

When it comes to the JFK assassination, being "reputable" just means you get paid a little more when it's your turn to lie.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, it is, of course, one thing not to automatically exclude anyone as a suspect.

I agree I cannot know for certain that under some set of facts Dillon, or O'Donnell for that matter, did not participate in a conspiracy. What I can say is that, given their personal relationship with JFK, they would be at the very bottom of my list of suspects.

It is another thing altogether to claim, as some members of this Forum have, that Dillon did it--with absolutely no evidence with which to support such a claim. I think that is as bad, worse, indeed, than McCarthyism (for as much as I detest communism not every communist is a murderer so it is even more vile to unjustly accuse someone of being a murderer than it is to unjustly accuse a person of being a communist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, getting back to your "case" against Dillon, I can tell you with some certainty that no court in the land would allow as evidence against C. Douglas:

(1) that he was a Republican

(2) that he had a background in intelligence

(3) that there were lapses in JFK's security (as I have, I think, demonstrated

there was no "security stripping" in Dallas; the only stripping in the case

was in Ruby's club)

(4) Dillon had Wall Street connections

(5) that JFK's death would be good for Republicans (an arguable proposition

in any case; JFK's re-election was not a foregone conclusion).

None of the above facts are relevant to any murder case that might have been brought against Dillon. Of course, Dillon's party affiliation and background would have come out but not as proof of guilt. [Pat: not all intelligence officers are murderers.]

* * * *

There is an old saying that a good prosecutor can cause a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But with what you have presented the prosecutor would not be able to convince a grand jury to indict Dillon. Dillon is not even a suspect.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, I was obviously making a circumstantial "case" against him and was by no means stating he should have or could have been indicted. Are you playing? By singling out Dillon, you imply that Castro could have been indicted on the evidence you've supplied. Yeah, arrest this man...some guy who we know was trying to kill him may have secretly been working for him, and, oh yeah, this guy also might have known some Russian guy who may or may not have had something do with it, but we have no proof or evidence. And let's not forget that according to some guy some other guy said thirty years before that some guy who might not even have been working for Castro was reportedly seen near the scene of the crime. And then there's all those guys who probably were working for Castro who took off for Cuba as soon as they heard about the assassination and the arrest of a pro-Castro activist. They couldn't possibly have been running to save their skin, coluld they, I mean they must have been part of the assassination, right? And, oh yeah, here's the clincher, someone said that the head of an American mafia family who'd previously been humiliated by Castro had made a secret deal with him, even though this might incur the wrath of the rest of the mafia, and that therefore all the signs that point to the mob really point to Castro. Indict this man.

The case against Dillon is paper-thin, but so's your case against Castro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an old saying that a good prosecutor can cause a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. 

But not Fidel Castro, despite our self-appointed "prosecutor"'s best efforts. 

There's an old saying in legal circles:  "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.  If the law is on your side, pound the law.  If you have neither, pound the table."

I've seen a tremendous amount of table-pounding coming out of Key West, just nothing with which to back it up, despite me - and others here - repeatedly asking, begging and demanding. 

It is apparent to even the least perceptive among us that a double-standard is at work here.  It is permissible to make baseless accusations against Castro, Madame Nhu, the Kremlin [KGB or GRU, take your pick], the Mafia, and anyone else who wasn't: a] a US citizen, and; b] a person in a position of power.

Hence, suspects such as CIA personnel, FBI personnel, Secret Service personnel, the US military, et al, are automatically deemed above suspicions or reproach, irrespective of their manifold failures, at best, or contributions to the crime, at worst.

With so occluded a vision, it is little wonder that our Key West prosecutor cannot distinguish Pat Speer's clear intent in starting this thread. 

Or perhaps our Key West prosecutor feels that making baseless and unsubstantiated claims against others is his exclusive domain, an inalienable right he seeks to deny others, even if they do offer supporting evidence far stronger than the prosecutor himself has managed to date.  Either way, the charade grows increasingly tedious and tiresome when it devolves into a tit-for-tat equating O'Donnell and Dillon. 

It wasn't O'Donnell who allowed White House detail Secret Service agents to get loaded numerous times prior to 11/22/63 [yes, numerous times: re-read your Abraham Bolden; the Kirkwood incident wasn't the first.]  It wasn't O'Donnel who pressed fraudulent charges against Bolden, thereby squelching his credibility and negating his chance to testify for the WC.  It wasn't O'Donnell who failed to investigate or reprimand the shortcomings of those who failed to act on 11/22/63.  It wasn't O'Donnell who seized the corpse at gunpoint.  It wasn't O'Donnell who collaborated with CIA - thus making it aware of SS protocols - for security arrangements in Florida just prior to the murder.  It wasn't O'Donnell who handled the Magic Bullet, which turns out not to be the missile found and seen by Tomlinson and Wright.

Whomever created, or allowed, all of the above was somebody within the Secret Service itself.  Presumably somebody high enough in the food chain to effect those changes in protocol, and offer protection for the negligent afterward.  I'm not certain who that was, but to insist that Dillon's name cannot be considered as a candidate is to disregard all of the above as trivial.

Moreover, to insist that some type of purported, but undemonstrated, familiarity between the victim and Dillon trumps all other considerations - such as Dillon's active role as partial architect of the Bay of Pigs - is neither evidence of Dillon's innocence, nor particularly persuasive.  To suggest that because Dillon went from hawkish to moderate on the Cuban blockade issue absolves him of suspicion is equally fatuous.  [Dillon may have reasoned, with justification, that a military strike could always follow closely, had the blockade not been sufficient.] 

The level of evidence offered here by our Key West prosecutor to date is insufficient to indict even a ham sandwich.

But with what you have presented the prosecutor would not be able to convince a grand jury to indict Dillon.  Dillon is not even a suspect.

You couldn't convict him even if your took your blinkers off.  Or anyone else, for that matter, since it requires "evidence," something in which you have no interest, as you've made very clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

It is permissible to make baseless accusations against Castro, Madame Nhu, the Kremlin [KGB or GRU, take your pick], the Mafia, and anyone else who wasn't: a] a US citizen, and; b] a person in a position of power.

Well, sir, I respectfully submit that it is a heck of a lot more reasonable to believe that the Mafia, which the Kennedys were trying to stamp out, and which was in fact in the business of murdering (it's how it makes its money) killed JFK than did a friend of his with no known arguments or policy differences with JFK.

The fact that you find this diificult to understand makes me question not your intelligence (which is obviously extremely high) but your common sense. Ask anyone who has not spent years in the fever swamps of wild conspiracy theories if it is more likely Castro or the mob killed JFK rather than C. Douglas Dillon and they will simply laugh at the utter stupidity of the question.

I mean, if you want to argue it is a close case between Fidel Castro and William K. Harvey, both of whom hated JFK, that is one thing. But to compare Dillon, of all people, to Castro, is utter nonsense.

It is a LOT more likely that someone with a motive (e.g. Fidel, Giancana) or someone who hated Kennedy (e.g. Harvey) killed Kennedy than a party with no motive whatsoever.

As the saying goes, it does not take a NASA engineer . . .

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam Giancana had committed or ordered over 200 murders in the course of his criminal career.

C. Douglas Dillon had never even been arresteor jaywalking, let alone a crime of violence.

And Robert would assert both are as likely suspects in an assassination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a LOT more likely that someone with a motive (e.g. Fidel, Giancana) or someone who hated Kennedy (e.g. Harvey) killed Kennedy than a party with no motive whatsoever. 

As the saying goes, it does not take a NASA engineer . . .

You're right, obviously, that the mob in general, and Giancana in particular, is a better suspect than Dillon. I feel it's just as obvious the mob is a better suspect than Castro.

And to finish your saying, "it does not take a NASA engineer to create a fraudulent and deliberately

deceptive trajectory analysis in order to help frame a dead man for the murder of a U.S. President, but it sure helps sell it to the people!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I agree with you, the mafia was involved to a certainty.

It seems clear to me that Trafficante was a player and probbly even a sponsor. I also believe he had the intelligence to plan the whole thing.

I am sure you are aware that Trafficante had an office in the Teamsters office in Miami, where Dave Yaras hung out--and that Barker (the mafioso whom Ruby had called) called Yaras on November 21st.

It is just that if the reports of which I have read are correct, Castro was PROBABLY involved with Trafficante in the assassination.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add a bit to the last post.

(1) IF Castro knew of the CIA's negotiations with Cubela to kill Castro, either because Cubelas was a double agent, or otherwise.

This is suggested by:

(A) The "coincidental" timing of Cubela approaching the CIA in 1963 and

Castro's warning to the US.

(:unsure: The "coincidental" place where Castro made his warning (the Brazilian

Embassy) and the location of Cubela when he approached the CIA (in

Brazil.

(2) The FACT that Cubela knew Trafficante and was reportedly involved in

the negotiation for Trafficante's release from Trescornia.

(3) The probability that Cubela was involved in the plot is suggested by

Trafficante's lying to the HSCA about his relationship with Cubela.

(4) If there was an ongoing relationship between Castro and Trafficante.

(5) If there were indeed one or more Cuban intelligence agents in

Dealey Plaza.

I believe in a different thread Robert Charles-Dunne even admitted that if #4 was indeed true, the suggestions were sinister. Robert has challenged me to try to obtain a copy of the reports indicating #4 and I shall try to do so.

On a very simple level, Castro, in a speech in which he enunciated his hatred for JFK, warned the US that our leaders would not be safe if we continued our US efforts to kill hin (in one sense who could blame him?). Despite this warning, we took up the offer of a supposed Cuban dissident to kill Castro for us. If Castro was aware of the Cubela operation, it is rather difficult to avoid the conclusion that he made good his warning on November 22nd.

As I put it before, for four years the US shot bullets at Castro. The more logical question, it seems to me, is not "Did He Shoot Back?" but rather "What Took Him So Long?"

That stupid face is supposed to b a b!!!

NOW, there is no question of Castro's threat, its timing and place. Nor is there a question of the Cubela operation. The question is whether Castro was aware of it.

Nor is there any question of a relationship between Trafficante and Cubela and that Trafficante lied about it.

Those facts are undisputeable and in themselves strongly suggest Cuban complicity.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...