Jump to content
The Education Forum

Familiar DGI Faces In Dealey Plaza


Recommended Posts

I actually believe that Robert Charles-Dunne admitted it would be highly suggestive of Cuban involvement in the assassination if there were reliable reports of Cuban agents in Dealey Plaza. He challenged me to track down the actual reports so we could attempt to evaluate the reliability of each report.

Fair enough. I shall try to do so.

I can now report the identity of one person who reported seeing a Cuban spy in a photograph of Dealey Plaza. The man identified the spy as Raul Diaz.

This report came from a man whose other reports (eg his involvement with the CIA) are usually credited by the assassination research committee.

The man who made this report (to the Church Committee) was Antonio Veciana.

Does anyone have any updated or additional information on Veciana's report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner
I can now report the identity of one person who reported seeing a Cuban spy in a photograph of Dealey Plaza.  The man identified the spy as Raul Diaz.

This report came from a man whose other reports (eg his involvement with the CIA) are usually credited by the assassination research committee.

The man who made this report (to the Church Committee) was Antonio Veciana.

Does anyone have any updated or additional information on Veciana's report?

Tim which photograph of the plaza might this be,and where did you find this in the Church report,I've looked and cant locate it. I am reminded of the saying, "One swallow does not a summer make." Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I got the info from a document on Veciana (summarizing his testimony) on the cuban-exile website. I'll try to post it tomorrow.

One swallow may not make a summer make, but one Cuban spy in Dealey Plaza may very well make Castro the "big fish" and it certainly makes him a "big suspect".

Kind of similar to OJ's blood at the murder scene. Unless one could prove it was planted, even one drop of his blood, where it should not be, is incriminating. Similarly, one Cuban spy in Dealey Plaza (where he should not be) certainly is highly suggestive of Cuban complicity.

Therefore, I think your analogy to swallows is inapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a copy of "The Last Investigation" who can find the passage re a Cuban (physician, if I recall right) who told Fonzi he was sure he had seen a Cuban intelligence agent in Dealey Plaza in one of the published assassination photographs?

As I recall he and Fonzi spent some time at the Miami library trying to find the photograph in a magazine.

As I recall Fonzi did not believe the man to be a disinformation agent. They were just unable to find the photo the Cuban remembered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Steve, I got the info from a document on Veciana (summarizing his testimony) on the cuban-exile website.  I'll try to post it tomorrow.

One swallow may not make a summer make, but one Cuban spy in Dealey Plaza may very well make Castro the "big fish" and it certainly makes him a "big suspect".

Kind of similar to OJ's blood at the murder scene.  Unless one could prove it was planted, even one drop of his blood, where it should not be, is incriminating.  Similarly, one Cuban spy in Dealey Plaza (where he should not be) certainly is highly suggestive of Cuban complicity.

Therefore, I think your analogy to swallows is inapt.

Yes Tim, I understand all that, but before we get to carried away you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fellow in the photo is Diaz. and that the whole thing is not just more disinfo spread by anti-Castro groups.And if it comes to that, why should'nt a Cuban spy be in Dealey Plaza?After all he is a spy, and thats what spies tend to do,SPY,So even if he was there you then need to tie him to the actual assassination, beyond reasonable doubt. otherwise its just speculation. I look foward to your post on Mr Veciana. Regards Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, this is a forum, not a court of law. It is necessary to prove some matter "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law to obtain a criminal conviction and jail someone.

Here we are trying to establish what PROBABLY happened that awful day in November. I will be content to demonstrate Cuban complicity PROBABLY happened.

If Veciana was a truth-teller, then (1) Diaz was a Cuban spy; and (2) he was in Dealey Plaza when JFK died. In my opinion, that information standing by itself demonstrates that there was PROBABLY Cuban complicity.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Stephen, this is a forum, not a court of law. It is necessary to prove some matter "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law to obtain a criminal conviction and jail someone.

But Tim, this is exactly what you ask of others, Im simply asking you for the same standards you require others to bring to the table. "If Veciana is truthful, if its Diaz in the photo's,if his being there has no other explaination, if it can be proven he was a cuban agent" How is any of this above mere speculation, As I say, you may be able to provide evidence that persuades me of Castro's involvement, I assure you I have no axe to grind one way or the other. BTW, is it possible to establish that something probably happened?

Regards, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, you are incorrect.

I never chastised anyone for branding someone an assassin if there was evidence that demonstrated the charge was probably true--even if there was an indication the charge was POSSIBLY true.

If someone sued you in a court of libel for calling him a murderer, I am quite confident to beat the charge you would only have to show that the person was PROBABLY a killer. In other words, you would not have to prove the plaintiff a killer by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard necessary to convict the person of murder in a criminal proceeding.

What I find highly offensive and immoral is when a member of this forum labels someone an assassin and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the charge. And that is often true.

I do not believe LBJ did it. But there is at least SOME evidence to suggest he did. (E.g the Wallace fingerprint and his association with Wallace).

But to call someone like Dillon or O'Donnell, or some of the other people whose memories have been sullied here, an assassin, with not one scintilla of evidence to support the charge, is the equivalent of the final product of an equestrian's digestive system. And it smells the same.

And by the way I believe most assassin researchers do believe that Veciana was a truth-teller, except when he refused to positively identify Phillips as Bishop.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a copy of "The Last Investigation" who can find the passage re a Cuban (physician, if I recall right) who told Fonzi he was sure he had seen a Cuban intelligence agent in Dealey Plaza in one of the published assassination photographs?

As I recall he and Fonzi spent some time at the Miami library trying to find the photograph in a magazine.

As I recall Fonzi did not believe the man to be a disinformation agent.  They were just unable to find the photo the Cuban remembered.

Tim,

I don't find such a passage in the book. I wonder if you're thinking of the source who told Fonzi that "Carlos" posed as a photographer in DP, and had photos in a bank vault.

On a Cuban spy being in DP, as I've said before I think that Castro would have known through his spies of any JFK plot involving anti-Castro Cuban exiles. It would therefore not be surprising if a Cuban spy turned up in DP to watch. It does not necessarily mean complicity except in the sense of not warning anybody of what was going to happen.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to call someone like Dillon or O'Donnell...an assassin, with not one scintilla of evidence to support the charge, is the equivalent of the final product of an equestrian's digestive system.

Tim, do you even know what an equestrian is?

It is one who rides a horse; a horseman, or a horsewoman. From the context of your post, it is apparent that you MUST have meant "an equine digestive system."

If you are going to chide others about their usage of the language, perhaps you should first master the language yourself. And if you are going to challenge people on THEIR inconsistencies, you should first master your own.

And that is the principal principle of my post. :):lol::lol::lol:

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliment, Tim...I will, of course, take it in the spirit of one whose level of intelligence you questioned a scant few days ago.

Tim, I really hate performing as the language police on your posts, but since you are so quick to take others to task for crimes against the Mother Tongue, my integrity insists that I not allow you to escape the criticisms that you heap upon the others.

But I'm willing to call a truce here: I will allow your felonies and misdemeanors against the English language pass, on the condition that you grant the same consideration to others here. Not all researchers can type as fast--or as well--as they think, and as doctors and Secret Service agents err without malice, so do researchers. Unless the error causes a fatal flaw in the argument, my position is that it would be quite fair to let it pass unchallenged...and that, out of respect for our fellow researchers, we should let it pass in order that the exchange of ideas and information should continue unimpeded by the examination of matters that are factually insignificant.

Fair enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point to be made here is that this match of Diaz is unlikely to be as good as some of the matches James has come up with, particularly Robertson, and for you to decide that this match of a Cuban is concrete evidence while this match of a CIA officer is not reveals your basic bias. Admit it, Tim, you WANT to believe Castro did it, and are looking for evidence to prove your suspicion to yourself. While there are many here and elsewhere who WANT to believe the CIA or the MIC did it, and are looking for evidence that proves what they already believe, you could aim higher.

Another point that can be made is that if the CIA did it, that this is in keeping with the post WW2 tradition of lies, more lies, and damned lies, coming out of our government, when if Castro did it, it would be something novel. That is, unless you have evidence of Cuban intelligence conducting other assassinations in other countries. (I know they've lined up more than a few and shot them inside Cuba, but killing your own is not the same.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat wrote:

I think the point to be made here is that this match of Diaz is unlikely to be as good as some of the matches James has come up with, particularly Robertson, and for you to decide that this match of a Cuban is concrete evidence while this match of a CIA officer is not reveals your basic bias.

Pat, I respectfully differ.

Diaz, whoever that might be, was supposedly identified by Antonio Veciana, a man who presumably knew Diaz personally.

The man in Dealey Plaza certainly looks like the photo of Rip Robertson but that is the judgment of you, I and others who never met the gentleman. Attempting to identify someone you do not know based on photographic images can be tricky. Think I posted that a few weeks ago the "Key West Citizen" published a photo of Ernest Hemingway standing next to a huge marlin, on a fishing dock we think was in Cuba. Standing on the other side of the marlin was a man who looked the spittin' image of Joe Kennedy, and an article accompanying the photo identified him as Joe Kennedy. Only problem is we are quite certain from the absence of evidence in any biography of Joe Kennedy or Ernest Hemingway that the two had never met.

Do I think Castro did it? Well, I was thinking about that today, and the best way to look at it might be to put yourself in his shoes.

As early as 1959 there were attempts made on your life. You are certain that at least some of the attempts were sponsored or encouraged by the US government.

Then, after the failure of the US to topple your regime at the BOP, the US government starts a program of systematic sabotage against your country.

Fearing a second US invasion, you permit the Soviet Union to install nuclear missiles in your country. But when the US discovers the presence of the missiles, the Soviets negotiate the removal of the missiles without even consulting you. Supposedly, a deal is made that the US will not again invade your country. But your spies tell you that the Kennedy Administration is breaking the spirit if not the letter of the agreement by financing a group of Cuban exiles planning an invasion from a Central American government.

And in the spring of 1963 your security forces prevent yet another attempt on your life.

It is clear the Soviets are unable or unwilling to protect you.

So you decide to give the US government a warning that the lives of its leaders will not be safe if it continues to plot your murder. To test whether this warning has stopped the US plots, you dangle an agent provocateur who offers to murder you for the US. Incredibly, despite your warning, the CIA embraces this man. Moreover, a man meets your agent in Paris, stating he is a "personal emissary" of the President's brother, and endorsing the plot to murder you.

Even while this caper is unfolding in Paris, in late October of 1963 your security forces capture another group of exiles attempting to infiltrate Cuba to kill you. They admit they were trained by the CIA for their deadly mission.

You know you can dodge the US bullets only so long. Sooner or later your security forces will slip and you will either be poisoned or die in a blaze of gunfire. And you know the US is still planning another invasion of your country.

Killing the head of the government that has plotted your murder may or may not change the policies of that government but you know that without such change the plots against your life will continue and you will surely die. You have no one to protect you. You cannot even count on your Russian "friends" who now seem intent on making a deal with President Kennedy, a man you consider to be a "cretin".

So what do you do? Sit back and wait to die at the hands of US trained and sponsored assassins? You know if you do nothing that will surely be your fate.

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...