Veciana & Diaz.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

On June 21st, Forum member Tim Gratz wrote in support of his Castro did it theory.

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

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

Now Tim, I for one would like your irrefutable proof for the above claim. Or perhaps a retraction. Or better yet,removal of this theory to the pure speculation thread you are so fond of...

Regards, Steve.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, look up the document on the Cuban-exile website. I will believe that site is accurate until someone proves it otherwise. The document includes the NARA number so you can order that document if you want to verify it.

Do I know for a fact that Veciana was telling the truth about seeing Diaz in Dealey Plaza? Of course not. Nor does anyone know whether he was telling the truth about Maurice Bishop. He really had no documents to verify his claim about a mysterious man named Bishop being his controller. I will grant that there were certain CIA operatives or officers who seemed to recall that Phillips sometimes used the name Bishop. But did he really see Bishop with Oswald in Dallas? All we have is Veciana's word for that.

Of course, Hemming says Esterline told him that it was he that Veciana saw with Oswald in Dallas.

There is no record of which I am aware that Fonzi ever asked Veciana to look for photos of Diaz. I have suggested that Fonzi was more interested in pinning the assassination on the CIA than on Cuba. Which is not to say I do not respect Fonzi's research and the many discoveries he made.

There is no question in my mind that Veciana reported to the Church Committee that he saw Diaz in Dealey Plaza. If you want to try to prove that someone in Winslow's organization made up something that can be easily verified or refuted, go order the actual document. Whether Veciana was lying or mistaken in his identification, that we do not know.

What we do know is that there were independent reports of five different Castro agents in Dealey Plaza. If even one of those reports was correct, the case against Castro is strong.

It should also be remembered that Veciana did not offer his information about Diaz in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. You are familiar, I am sure, with how Fonzi discovered him (in investigating the Odio story). It was only when he was giving testimony to the Church Committee that he brought up Diaz. So it was not one of the early reports pointing to Cuba that some claim certain CIA agents orchestrated to blame Castro.

And of course assassination researchers who do blame the CIA have long used Veciana as an important witness in their case. Although he was clearly an opponent of Castro, it is also clear he did not have an agenda to pin the Kennedy assassination on Castro.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

No Tim, I wont go trolling round Cuban exile web sites looking for evidence that you should provide,its your theory, you provide the provinence.

Quote on. "I can now report the identity of one person" (who saw a photo of Raul Diaz in Dealy Plaza.) Quote off. You then claim that this was part of Veciana's testimony to the Church Committee, but when asked to provide the original testimony, to support your claims guess what, you cant do it. When asked to provide some, any, evidence that this photo actually exists, guess what, you cant do it. Quote on, "There is no question in my mind that Veciana reported to the Church Committee that he saw Veciana in Dealy Plaza"Well good for you Tim, just a shame that you dont require the same standard of evidence of your theory's that you do of others. Oh and by the way which is it, did Veciana SEE Diaz first hand as your reply suggest's, or the elusive photo. As to the other reports of Cuban agents present in Dealy,are these all reports of Diaz, or other agents, just how many DGI were there that day, and why doesnt photographic evidence back up this claim. You see my real problem Tim is that your post has no more supporting evidence than most, its mainly hearsay and supposition, But your the person that suggested that all such be removed to the "Pure Speculation" thread.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, one has the right to rely on secondary sources from reliable sources, particulary when the primary source is referenced.

Historians do this all the time.

When someone writes a commentary, for instance, about what JFK said during the Cuban missile crisis, one is entitled, for instance, to rely on what Robert Kennedy wrote in "Thirteen Days" rather than listening to the actual transcripts of the meeting.

Half the stuff posted here has no reference at all. Let me give just one example. Sprague claims Turner discovered something about the funding of Bremer but nowhere does Sprague even cite a secondary source for this. Yet look at all the time-wasting and acrimony that has caused.

Stephen, do you honestly believe that Gordon Winslow or a member of his research group intentionally (for it would have to be intentional) inserted into the summary a statement that Veciana never made? When it would be easily verifiable or refutable? This makes no sense at all.

I have the right to rely on what I consider to be a reliable source.

And if you do not know the names of the other reported DGI agents in Dealey Plaza, then you have not been reading my posts, Stephen.

[Tim Gratz]

Perhaps I should tell you a little more about Mr. Winslow.

He is the official historian of Dade County (Miami).

He is a very well-respected member of the assassination research community.

He participated in the conference in Nassau with the Cuban officials.

He hosted one of the Lancer conferences in Dallas.

Stephen, do you really think a person of Mr. Winslow's reputation and integrity made up that statement about Veciana's testimony to the Church Committee?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Tim, historians only rely on secondary sources when they cant produce original material, which in this case should not be beyond your ample capabilities.Simply go to the Church Committee report, find the relevant quote and post it here. If this cannot be located in the original C/C report then secondary sources, I submit, mean next to nothing,where ever they arise from.

It matters not one jot whether I believe in Mr Wimslow's bona fides, post the original report containing Veciana's testimony on this point, and no speculation on mine ,or anyone's part is needed. Tim I am shocked, I always read your posts with avid interest, must have missed this one though, I shall commence a search at once. Steve.

[Mark Knight]

Tim, I realize I don't "have a dog in this fight," so-to-speak. But as an observer, I must say that answering a question of proof with a "do-you-really-think..." question doesn't provide ANY documentation; it merely calls for a conclusion that the recipient of the question may not have enough information to answer...a lack of information which, most likely, prompted his request for documentation to begin with.

While this technique might be considered appropriate for a courtroom, it does nothing to disseminate information; it only encourages speculation, be it pure or impure.

If this was a courtroom--which it's not--and you were the witness being examined, I believe that it would be within reason for the judge to direct you to "just answer the question."

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, his statement is not in the Church Committee Report. The statement was made in a deposition taken by an attorney for the Church Committee. Apparently a staff member of the Church Committee prepared a summary of the deposition. It is that summary that Gordon posted on his web-site.

Respectfully, you are incorrect that historians only rely on secondary sources if primary sources are unavailable. Pick up any respected biography. Then look at the bibliography. The bibliography is a list of all the secondary sources relied on by the author. Then look at the footnotes. You will find that most of hem are to secondary sources. You will find that for most well-researched texts the secondary sources are greter than the primary.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, here is the link you requested.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_326-350/doc0329.html

It looks like the document is a summary of interviews rather than of a deposition. I would love to see the document itself but cannot afford to order it now.

You satisfied now, buddy?

Edited July 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen, here is the link you requested.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_326-350/doc0329.html

It looks like the document is a summary of interviews rather than of a deposition.  I would love to see the document itself but cannot afford to order it now.

You satisfied now, buddy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, thank you for posting the link, now we can all make our minds up as to what this is worth. Just a few questions.

1,You say his statement does not form part of the C/C report, do you know why such an important observation was left out?

2,Do you know what his actual words were?

3,Do you know the name of the Attorney who took his deposition?

4,Do you know which photo he is refering to?

5,Do you believe that more than one DGI agent was present in Dealy Plaza at the time of the shooting? What do you believe their operational roles were? Why does photographic evidence not support this scenario?

Tim, I am a long, long way from being satisfied.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Perhaps I should tell you a little more about Mr. Winslow.

He is the official historian of Dade County (Miami).

He is a very well-respected member of the assassination research community.

He participated in the conference in Nassau with the Cuban officials.

He hosted one of the Lancer conferences in Dallas.

Stephen, do you really think a person of Mr. Winslow's reputation and integrity made up that statement about Veciana's testimony to the Church Committee?

Perhaps not, Tim.  But as I've already pointed out several times, Winslow did mischaracterize the document as "Veciana's Church Committee Testimony," when the actual title of the document, immediately beneath that false heading, stipulates: "SUMMARY OF VECIANA INTERVIEWS." 

You have argued repeatedly that this was the record of a deposition.  When I pointed out that it didn't have the required data and format to qualify, you asserted it was a summary of a deposition, a crib sheet written for CC concumption.  It's not, as I pointed out and as you now seem to grudgingly admit.  Perhaps you can be forgiven being a tad rusty on the legalistics involved, as it seems you've not been a practicing lawyer for quite some time now.

So, to recap, what we've witnessed is:

Tim Gratz asserting something was testimony [and only then trying to locate that testimony.] 

Unable to do so when called upon for a citation, he referred us to something that Gordon Winslow had blatantly misrepresented as "testimony," when the document itself makes it clear it was no such thing. 

Then we had Tim repeatedly arguing it was a deposition, and then the summary of a deposition, before now finally admitting the document is what its writer said it was - a summary of interviews - rather than what both Winslow and Gratz falsely asserted, and in Winslow's case, continues to falsely assert by leaving his misleading header above the document on his website.  In fact, the document in question was plucked from the Church Committee's "Miscellaneous" catchall dump-bin.  That's how important they thought it was.

As the "official historian" of Dade County, Winslow demonstrates a peculiar lack of impartiality.  But then he and Tim Gratz are fast friends precisely because they share a rabidly pathological obsession with Castro, which impeaches their value as "researchers."

Isn't it interesting that these two men - consistently urging the rest of us to take our eye off the ball in order to focus on something misleading to do with Castro - bolster each other's utility in that game of distraction.  Tim Gratz outlines for us here Gordon Winslow's impeccable credentials, while Winslow's website disseminates Tim Gratz's literary fairy-tales from the Key West Coupon-Clipper.  And they both pump nonsense up our kilts, all the while insisting that they are noble and courageous researchers.

Apparently you think we're quite stupid, Tim.

We're not.  You're about to discover that, if you haven't already.

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Quote from the cuban exile website.

"Bishop paid Veciana only expences, but when they broke off their relationship in 1973 Bishop paid Veciana $253,000"..WOW, that must be at least a cool half million by todays rates, WHAT WAS THIS MONEY FOR...

Quote from the Cuban exile website.

" Veciana first worked with Bishop on plans to assassinate Castro in 1961"

And again from the same source.

"The last attempt on Castro's life that Veciana was involved in occured in Chile in 1973."

So obviously you would plan on several occasions to murder a man in cold blood.

But would not stoop to making false allegations against him, even through a third party,possibly for a HUGE sum of money. Tim, your evidence is as thin as the seat of a tramps pants.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Larry Hancock]

Stephen, a couple of comments. First, I have to say that most of us who have seriously wrestled with the conspiracy make use of the type of source material which is being discussed here - in this particular case Veciana's remarks about Phillips and Veciana's cousin in the MC embassy has some real potential value.

The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deepley involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK. The first is to cast suspicion on Castro for JFK's murder, that is so consistent as to be almost universal and its pretty easy to understand why. The second is to disclaim that they really had nothing against JFK and he was OK - that's not quite as universal but its frequently said by individuals who are on record saying the exact opposite when not talking to an interviewer.

I've seen more than one interview including approaches to the FBI by exiles with stories about Castro agents in DP, in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness. Reminds me of Roselli telling his media friends he could name the Castro agents involved in the hit on JFK and the only individual he eventually was forced to cite was found be found was a long term inmate in a mental hospital.

Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.

....OK, so that's my estimate of the data... Larry

Stephen, here is the link you requested.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_326-350/doc0329.html

It looks like the document is a summary of interviews rather than of a deposition.  I would love to see the document itself but cannot afford to order it now.

You satisfied now, buddy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, thank you for posting the link, now we can all make our minds up as to what this is worth. Just a few questions.

1,You say his statement does not form part of the C/C report, do you know why such an important observation was left out?

2,Do you know what his actual words were?

3,Do you know the name of the Attorney who took his deposition?

4,Do you know which photo he is refering to?

5,Do you believe that more than one DGI agent was present in Dealy Plaza at the time of the shooting? What do you believe their operational roles were? Why does photographic evidence not support this scenario?

Tim, I am a long, long way from being satisfied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Could'nt agree more Larry,speculation in some degree or other is what we all deal in. But only Tim suggest's that all speculative deduction be contained on a single thread, and labled as such. My point here was to show that Tim's theory's are just as "speculative" as any one else's( If not more so because of their background.)

Regards, Steve.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Bumped, I dont want this thread to get lost until Tim has had a chance to answer the interesting questions raised by Robert Charles-Dunne,and Larry Hancock.