Jump to content
The Education Forum

G. Robert Blakey


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is possible that George Robert Blakey knows more about the assassination of JFK than anyone left alive. However, he is not talking.

Blakey served as chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979. In this role he led the investigation into the assassination.

Blakey is also the co-author with Richard Billings of The Plot to Kill the President (1981). In the book Blakey and Billings argue that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. He believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved but believes that there was at least one gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll. Blakey came to the conclusion that the Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. The book was reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.

Carl Oglesby summarized Blakey and Billings theory as follows:

(1) Oswald alone did shoot and kill J.F.K., as the Warren Commission deduced.

(2) An unknown confederate of Oswald's, however, also shot at the President, firing from the celebrated "grassy knoll." This shot missed.

(3) Apart from the question of the number of assailants in the attack, Oswald acted as the tool of a much larger conspiracy.

(4) The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by J.F.K. s anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill J.F.K.

I tried to interview him by email him in 2004. He did answer a couple of questions. This included the following exchange:

John Simkin: Would you be interested in providing a statement that summarizes your current thoughts on the assassination?

G. Robert Blakey: I have seen nothing to change my mind, though I am less confident of the acoustical result today in light of other analyses of it. The other evidence in the plaza, however, still points to two shooters no matter how valid the acoustical study comes out in the end.

When I asked him some follow-up questions he replied that he was unwilling to discuss the matter further.

What do you make of Blakey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is possible that George Robert Blakey knows more about the assassination of JFK than anyone left alive. However, he is not talking.

Blakey served as chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979. In this role he led the investigation into the assassination.

Blakey is also the co-author with Richard Billings of The Plot to Kill the President (1981). In the book Blakey and Billings argue that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. He believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved but believes that there was at least one gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll. Blakey came to the conclusion that the Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. The book was reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.

Carl Oglesby summarized Blakey and Billings theory as follows:

(1) Oswald alone did shoot and kill J.F.K., as the Warren Commission deduced.

(2) An unknown confederate of Oswald's, however, also shot at the President, firing from the celebrated "grassy knoll." This shot missed.

(3) Apart from the question of the number of assailants in the attack, Oswald acted as the tool of a much larger conspiracy.

(4) The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by J.F.K. s anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill J.F.K.

I tried to interview him by email him in 2004. He did answer a couple of questions. This included the following exchange:

John Simkin: Would you be interested in providing a statement that summarizes your current thoughts on the assassination?

G. Robert Blakey: I have seen nothing to change my mind, though I am less confident of the acoustical result today in light of other analyses of it. The other evidence in the plaza, however, still points to two shooters no matter how valid the acoustical study comes out in the end.

When I asked him some follow-up questions he replied that he was unwilling to discuss the matter further.

What do you make of Blakey?

Either:

A. Led down the merry path himself.

B. Designated to lead others down the merry path to nowhere land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible that George Robert Blakey knows more about the assassination of JFK than anyone left alive...

What do you make of Blakey?

John, with all due respect to Professor Blakey, I'm not sure he knows any more about the asassination than the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Blakey chose Gary Cornwell to run the JFK assassination while he himself controlled the MLK case (no man can serve two masters) . Cornwell has never made any secret that he knew nothing about the JFK case when he was appointed (C.F. "Real Answers"), and Blakey himself knew little more. The HSCA might be called A Confederancy of Dunces, (with apologies to the drowned city of New Orleans). I am a fan of Cornwell, because he had the humility to admit at the Wecht (40th anniversary)conference that the only thing we know for sure is that JFK was murdered.

I had some occasion to communicate with Blakey in connection with a legal malpractice case we were both involved in. We share an abiding passion for the Notre Dame football team. and I have to leave now because 5.07 PM on Sunday 10/15 /05 ND is leading USC by 7 points in the socond quarter. If ND wins theycould move to 5th or 6th position in the National Rankings

IMHO The HSCA disgraced the legal profession (just as the Warren Commission did) by denying legal representation to Lee Oswald, and that is a good subject to begin with Gary Cornwell.

When the process has no validity, then the conclusions have none either.

"When Blakey wrote that "(d) The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by J.F.K. s anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill J.F.K."

As I have indicated in other threads, I think the Mafia/Italian theories are just racist nonsense (and I want to make clear that my wife is not Italian) , without a shred of credible evidence in support.

But I do think it would be a feather in your cap if you could get Gary Cornwell to join the forum. He lives in the Austin area of Texas, and imho is one of the the most honest officials of the HSCA.

I would continue this thread but Notre Dame has just taken a 21-14 lead over USC in the second quarter, and a win for the FIGHTING IRISH of Notre Dame gives them a shot at the national title so long overdue since 1988.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible that George Robert Blakey knows more about the assassination of JFK than anyone left alive. However, he is not talking.

Blakey served as chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979. In this role he led the investigation into the assassination.

Blakey is also the co-author with Richard Billings of The Plot to Kill the President (1981). In the book Blakey and Billings argue that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. He believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved but believes that there was at least one gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll. Blakey came to the conclusion that the Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. The book was reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.

Carl Oglesby summarized Blakey and Billings theory as follows:

(1) Oswald alone did shoot and kill J.F.K., as the Warren Commission deduced.

(2) An unknown confederate of Oswald's, however, also shot at the President, firing from the celebrated "grassy knoll." This shot missed.

(3) Apart from the question of the number of assailants in the attack, Oswald acted as the tool of a much larger conspiracy.

(4) The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by J.F.K. s anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill J.F.K.

I tried to interview him by email him in 2004. He did answer a couple of questions. This included the following exchange:

John Simkin: Would you be interested in providing a statement that summarizes your current thoughts on the assassination?

G. Robert Blakey: I have seen nothing to change my mind, though I am less confident of the acoustical result today in light of other analyses of it. The other evidence in the plaza, however, still points to two shooters no matter how valid the acoustical study comes out in the end.

When I asked him some follow-up questions he replied that he was unwilling to discuss the matter further.

What do you make of Blakey?

Either:

A. Led down the merry path himself.

B. Designated to lead others down the merry path to nowhere land.

After having had some 26 years transpire since the HSCA finished its famous or infamous conculsions regarding the JFK and MLK assassination's, the only conclusion that I can reach regarding G. Robert Blakey and more so, his pointing the finger at organized crime as the likely culprit in the "probable conspiracy" that killed JFK, is that I have little respect for him. One must read Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" to get a real idea as to what depths the Committee would eventually sink to. At the time of the HSCA's investigation into JFK's assassination, I was sympathetic towards Blakey due to the fact that there had already been turnover at the position he was named to; He was put into a situation that was far from the ideal job description, in other words. But even though the HSCA did do some very good work, beneath the surface there was a continual tug of war between certain organizations that were under suspicion and paradoxically being relied on to provide information essential to the HSCA producing results. No investigating committeee on a national level want's to be percieved as being a "waste of taxpayer money," in light of their finished results, certainly there was some degree of a a serious investigation, but many JFK researchers have the impression that between congressional cuts in the HSCA's budget thru its brief lifetime to CIA interference and conversations that have remained shall we say "off the record" that it was a given that nothing concrete was going to be resolved, as far as the bottom line goes. I think if you read the comments made by Robert Tannenbaum on the HSCA you get a good indication that it was doomed to failure before it got off the ground. When Richard Sprague headed the Committee and the investigation first started things appeared very good, Sprague wanted an investigation into JFK's death in the same vein as a murder investigation would be conducted concerning anyone else, i.e. an investigation with teeth, no grants of immunity in return for cooperation, indictments against any living persons no matter who that may have been, etc...From the beginning, the CIA "turned the screws against the HSCA" in a manner that outdid the injustices done towards Jim Garrison during the Clay Shaw trial, albeit in a much more subdued manner. The feud between Henry Gonzalez and Sprague appears to have been a CIA job, that ultimately took both of them out, and in the end G. Robert Blakey was the guy in charge of running an investigation that saw the number of investigators investigating dwindle to abysmal levels, I believe Fonzi and maybe one other investigator were all that was left at the end, an end that saw George deMohrenschildt die the very day that Gaeton Fonzi came to interview him. Several events that occurred with Blakey at the helm leave one's stomach turning if you thought there was a modicum of sincerity in the premise that a valid investigation was being conducted.

One, when Bernardo de Torres came to be deposed the CIA instructed the Committee that there would be no questions asked of Torres that pertained to events prior to the assassination of JFK.*

Two, when the persons responsible for perusing "relevant CIA documents pertaining to the assassination" complained to Blakey about CIA stonewalling, he contacted the agency informed them of the problem (as if they didn't know) and asked for assurances that this would not be an ongoing problem. The CIA promptly placed George Joannides as the "liason" between the HSCA and the CIA. Ironically at least some of the documents that the CIA had been recalcitrant to give the Committee pertained to the DRE/CIA connection responsible for the "Oswald/Castro did it" stories that had appeared in Miami in the aftermath of 11/22/63, Joannides, as we now know RAN the DRE on behalf of the CIA during the same time frame; Talk about hiring the fox to guard the hen house.

One can give Blakey the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of Joannides' background; but this took place on his watch, so to speak and ultimately responsible even if not facilitating the arrrangement.

Three, if the Warren Commission's misadventures with the truth were the result of taking Nicholas Katzenbach's exhortation that John Q. Public must be convinced tht Oswald did it as being the First Commandment of the Decalogue given on Mt. Sinai, the HSCA's lack of credibility took critical mass when the "mob did it" stories began to be the new sacrificial lamb on the altar of the American conciousness; it was clear that the national obsession wasn't dying anytime soon. The "mob did it" belonged to G. Robert Blakey just as assuredly as the single bullet theory was the baby of the infamous Arlen Specter. My guess as to the sea that Blakey was swimming in during that so-called investigation was called "just following orders."

Four, and maybe most important, Prof. Joan Mellen spent seven years, conducting 1,000 interviews and at this juncture, appears to have uncovered more critical information regarding the execution of John F. Kennedy, than either the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations, although this is my not so humble opinion, if I am right what does that say about the "work" produced by the aforementioned? As the ignominous David Belin once said "You Be the Jury."

* Joan Mellen interview on WBAI - Taking Aim on Pacifica Radio Network 10/11/05

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, given the fact that Ruby was used to silence the patsy, it would seem the mob's involvement in the assassination is as clear as the nose on one's face. The question is whether the mob had assistance.

To imply that anyone asserting that the mob did it is throwing up a smokescreen would be like a CIA defender denying the CIA did it had David Morales been caught sneaking out of the TSBD with a dissassembled rifle hidden in his trousers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, given the fact that Ruby was used to silence the patsy, it would seem the mob's involvement in the assassination is as clear as the nose on one's face. The question is whether the mob had assistance.

To imply that anyone asserting that the mob did it is throwing up a smokescreen would be like a CIA defender denying the CIA did it had David Morales been caught sneaking out of the TSBD with a dissassembled rifle hidden in his trousers.

Sometime's I percieve your sole purpose on this forum is to rattle peoples cages, I usually ignore you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Robert, I fail to understand how that responds to my argument that the only clear sponsor of the assassination was organized crime. I just do not understand how people can argue that OC was a "false sponsor". The only question, as I stated above, is whether OC was the sole sponsor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Robert, I fail to understand how that responds to my argument that the only clear sponsor of the assassination was organized crime. I just do not understand how people can argue that OC was a "false sponsor". The only question, as I stated above, is whether OC was the sole sponsor.

Your "post" involves distorting what I said, which I, as anyone else take exception to. You are implying that my post stated that organized crime was a "false sponsor," which I did not state as a factual preposition. The two sentences you threw together in response to my post are so asinine that I do not feel compelled to respond to them. If you want to throw some more stones or make caustic comments please email me instead of wasting space on this thread, and wasting the rest of the forum members time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Robert, I fail to understand how that responds to my argument that the only clear sponsor of the assassination was organized crime. I just do not understand how people can argue that OC was a "false sponsor". The only question, as I stated above, is whether OC was the sole sponsor.

Mr. Gratz, since I began studying the JFK/Tippit/Oswald murders in 1986 I have heard many naive pontifications (and have probably pronounced a few myself) but the most naive I have ever heard is the one that goes "I do not understand how people can argue that OC (Organized crime) was a "false sponsor."

I cannot today name them, but I can state categorically that the assassins of JFK were very smart people, very much smarter than intellectuals like Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell, and much smrter than the bunch of young nobodies (as they then were) appointed to the staff of the Warren Commission. If you accept that, then it should go without saying that they were a million times smarter than a bunch of idiots like Marcello and Trafficante. (As my dear departed father often said, a professional criminal is an idiot by definition, since there is much more money to be made by lawful means).

To the naive mind, Jack Ruby spells Trafficante, Marcello, etc. That is one of the reasons the assassins chose him to "close the case". He was even instructed to make a bunch of wild goose phone calls in the weeks before the assassination. To the mind that is prepared to do a little of the hard work known as thinking, OC was an ideal false sponsor, and Jack Ruby was the perfect man to draw attention to OC.

G. Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell were both experts on OC when appointed to the HSCA and this profoundly biased their thinking. But I believe I know one reason Blakey does not like to talk about the case today: Although Blakey approached the case as a mafia crime, the HSCA discovered that it was not someone in the mafia who smuggled Ruby into the basement of City Hall. In the final report of the HSCA Blakey and Cornwell recommended that the Justice Department should investigate just who it was who DID smuggle Ruby in.

It must be a very sad thing for Robert Blakey, ostensibly a respected Proffessor from Cornell and now Notre Dame law schools, to acknowledge that the Justice Department completely ignored his recommendation. So all Blakey can say today is yes, we know who shot lee, and we know he had some powerful assistance in setting up the crime, but we can't honestly say that we know who the real murderers were, because the HSCA ran out of money and the Justice Department didn't give a damn.

Think about it: The HSCA ran out of money after the richest country in history had spent $2.8 Million (thats million, not billion). That is less money than the pentagon wastes in a week on overpriced screwdrivers.

I also sympathise with Blakey today because Notre Dame had yesterdays game won at full time,

but the officials for some mysterious reason (OC involvement?) added 7 seconds to the clock and "we wuz robbed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Robert, I fail to understand how that responds to my argument that the only clear sponsor of the assassination was organized crime. I just do not understand how people can argue that OC was a "false sponsor". The only question, as I stated above, is whether OC was the sole sponsor.

Mr. Gratz, since I began studying the JFK/Tippit/Oswald murders in 1986 I have heard many naive pontifications (and have probably pronounced a few myself) but the most naive I have ever heard is the one that goes "I do not understand how people can argue that OC (Organized crime) was a "false sponsor."

I cannot today name them, but I can state categorically that the assassins of JFK were very smart people, very much smarter than intellectuals like Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell, and much smrter than the bunch of young nobodies (as they then were) appointed to the staff of the Warren Commission. If you accept that, then it should go without saying that they were a million times smarter than a bunch of idiots like Marcello and Trafficante. (As my dear departed father often said, a professional criminal is an idiot by definition, since there is much more money to be made by lawful means).

To the naive mind, Jack Ruby spells Trafficante, Marcello, etc. That is one of the reasons the assassins chose him to "close the case". He was even instructed to make a bunch of wild goose phone calls in the weeks before the assassination. To the mind that is prepared to do a little of the hard work known as thinking, OC was an ideal false sponsor, and Jack Ruby was the perfect man to draw attention to OC.

G. Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell were both experts on OC when appointed to the HSCA and this profoundly biased their thinking. But I believe I know one reason Blakey does not like to talk about the case today: Although Blakey approached the case as a mafia crime, the HSCA discovered that it was not someone in the mafia who smuggled Ruby into the basement of City Hall. In the final report of the HSCA Blakey and Cornwell recommended that the Justice Department should investigate just who it was who DID smuggle Ruby in.

It must be a very sad thing for Robert Blakey, ostensibly a respected Proffessor from Cornell and now Notre Dame law schools, to acknowledge that the Justice Department completely ignored his recommendation. So all Blakey can say today is yes, we know who shot lee, and we know he had some powerful assistance in setting up the crime, but we can't honestly say that we know who the real murderers were, because the HSCA ran out of money and the Justice Department didn't give a damn.

Think about it: The HSCA ran out of money after the richest country in history had spent $2.8 Million (thats million, not billion). That is less money than the pentagon wastes in a week on overpriced screwdrivers.

I also sympathise with Blakey today because Notre Dame had yesterdays game won at full time,

but the officials for some mysterious reason (OC involvement?) added 7 seconds to the clock and "we wuz robbed."

Great posting on Blakey. I think he went in totally predisposed to- (and probably talked to) -OC, but keep it small. xxxx they were totally stonewalled by the CIA, so they tell Justice to follow up on these leads. Justice under REAGAN?? I used to call the JD atty allegedly assigned to this area of the case every November to see what progress, if any , was being made in this area. His name was Cubbage, don't recall a first name and have no notes any longer. But the response was always the same: Nothing coming out... or words to that effect. In other words "cover-up". "Langley's got nothing to hide that's why we're not letting you see it."

When I saw that Gary Cornwell was posted as being here in Austin, I looked him up but he has no listed phone number. Anyone know how to reach him?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could ask Blakey another question it would be about this manuscript I'm dragging over from other thread, that had bickered itself to death.

Manuscript I forgot to mention also called: "Castro's Red Hot Hell." Gist is: Marina used by intel, LHO used, but importantly, indicates another forewarning to assassination. One year prior to JFK murder the source warned, later manuscript was seemingly to me rebuffed by the HSCA without an interview of subj apparently. I understand the fellow was complicated (certainly Intel for someone, a non-Cuban, USArmy perhaps a bit of an odd fellow). His lawyer (who is this?) circulated story first. Whether or not lead was good or bad fits our theory or not is insignificant.

The point is, source was easy to get a depo from. He was in Leavenworth, yet the HSCA seems to fly off elsewhere for a long shot, yes, spending tax dollars and making the hill people nervous, while something like this (I don't know the whole story I'm sure) goes without action. Like those employed/spying on Garrison sucking up funds with no return while there are great leads in one's own backyard, Garrison and others may have missed. That said, I'm not sure if HSCA is entirely the fault of a few when the whole system broke down, kind of like the bickering on forums, a waste of time and talent that is more internal. To canonize Garrison while demonizing Blakey seems silly exercise when the task is much larger. I believe both men would agree on this.

To yammer further IMHO there are two kinds of people in this stuff: readers and researchers. The researchers are the guys hunched over decoding, learning the names of the reference librarians, depressed and knocking on doors while the readers wait at Barnes and Noble for the book to come out. The researchers take the heat and readers chose sides. There are many more readers among us than reseachers. Garrison and others that followed up IMO may have become vulnerable from restless nights as researchers--it happens. Garrison was a good writer and good foundation but he was flawed as well. The HSCA was hugely flawed in this same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depo indicated here on AARC site

Deposition of Antulio Ramirez Ortiz, Nov. 15, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations, pp. 14-16 (JFK Document 013095).

Id. at 16-29.

Antulio Ramirez Ortiz, Castro's Red Hot Hell (unpublished) (JFK Document 005134).

Executive session testimony, Antulio Ramirez Ortiz, Apr. 11, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document 014674).

Id. at 26-27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From history matters site:

"The committee, in executive session, questioned Ramirez, ...The committee sought from the FBI and CIA independent evidence

of the accuracy of Ramirez' allegations, but there was no corroboration

of the existence of an "Osvaldo-Kennedy" file to be found. On the

other hand, in every instance where there was independent evidence

of allegations made by Ramirez (the identities of Cuban officials

named by him, for example) Ramirez' statements were found to be

accurate. (151)In the end, however, the committee was forced to dismiss Ramirez'

story about the "Osvaldo-Kennedy" file. The decisive factor was the

committee's belief that the Cuban intelligence system in the 1961-63

period was too sophisticated to have been infiltrated by Ramirez in

the manner he had described. While some details of his story could

be corroborated, the essential aspects of his allegation were incredible."

IMHO, you couldn't have read this manuscript (in Holmes collection) "incredible" is right, and have come to this conclusion without some add'l chking around. Maybe a case of running out of money but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible that George Robert Blakey knows more about the assassination of JFK than anyone left alive. However, he is not talking.""

According to a recent post by Gary Aguilar on Alt. Assassination, Blakey will be presenting a paper entitled "second Thoughts" at the Washington DC conference in November. I predict that his "second thoughts will not extend to admitting that he was wrong about who killed JFK or who killed J.D. Tippit, so I would not recommend that anyone cancel their Lancer reservations on the assumption that Blakey will have anything important to say.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...f12a820d6f275de

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From history matters site:

"The committee, in executive session, questioned Ramirez, ...The committee sought from the FBI and CIA independent evidence

of the accuracy of Ramirez' allegations, but there was no corroboration

of the existence of an "Osvaldo-Kennedy" file to be found. On the

other hand, in every instance where there was independent evidence

of allegations made by Ramirez (the identities of Cuban officials

named by him, for example) Ramirez' statements were found to be

accurate. (151)In the end, however, the committee was forced to dismiss Ramirez'

story about the "Osvaldo-Kennedy" file. The decisive factor was the

committee's belief that the Cuban intelligence system in the 1961-63

period was too sophisticated to have been infiltrated by Ramirez in

the manner he had described. While some details of his story could

be corroborated, the essential aspects of his allegation were incredible."

IMHO, you couldn't have read this manuscript (in Holmes collection) "incredible" is right, and have come to this conclusion without some add'l chking around. Maybe a case of running out of money but I doubt it.

----------------------------------

Christy:

Maybe some of these folks forget that: not only was your Father Paul a colleague in the Cuban Rebel Army,

and despite you and your sister being very young while lodged in Habana -- you have kept abreast of most things "Cubano" !!

The first time that I was arrested by Fidel's D.I.E.R./G-2 and incarcerated at their headquarters [in the garages/stables] located in the "Villa Marista" -- more commonly styled as "Quinta y Catorce" [5th Street & 14th Avenue in Miramar]; I walked out of their using the name of a prisoner who had been released days before [by the name of Castillo]. [G-2 HQ is now the MININT Museum]

Their "Files ??!!" were crap, and I almost laughed when, upon subjected to a pretend "booking photo" [mug-shot]; not only was there no flash attachment in a totally dark upstairs room; but no name & number board around my neck for I.D. File purposes !!

The head "Cop" at the "Seminary/Convent" was a Batista/thug holdover who went only by the name "Camilo" -- more than likely to prevent his recent past from surfacing.

Now, as far as names go: My ID had "Gerald Patrick Hemming" typed on it [Rebel Army ID]; and that is why, ever since then, they always call me "Gerry (Yetti) Patrick" -- thinking that my middle name was my father's surname, and that "Hemming" was my mother's maiden name.

Moreover, I guess that everybody has forgotten that your dad (Capitan Paul Hughes, 2nd-Front-Escambray) had a boss called "Menoyo" -- not Cmdte. Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo !! In fact, his brother Carlos, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War; and later martyred during the D.R. [later under Cubela -- The 13th of March Organization] attack on Batista's palace on the 13th of March, 1957 -- was also known as "El Gallego (The Galician) Menoyo".

Cmdte. [later General] Raul Menendez Tomassevich, who later commanded the D.S.E./L.C.B. ["Lucha Contra Bandidos"] forces against Duque, Ramirez, Thorndyke, et al. in the Escambray Campaign -- was always only called Tomassevich. In Angola, he once again commanded the MPLA/Cuban "LCB" teams against Zavimbi's "Contras", and even today is remembered as "Toma" or Tomassevich.

I know hundreds of Cubans [and other nationalities] who prefer to be called by their mother's maiden names.

This brings to mind the 1st chorus of the popular Cuban song [written immediately after the anti-Trujillo double-cross]; which was heard on every radio station in Cuba, and which pissed off Fidel & Raul: "Menoyo, Menoyo, Lo que tu tienes is corazon..."

More efficient files were kept by the "Confidential Section" of D.I.F.A.R. [offices in Vedado near the CMQ/TV building & "La Rampa"]. The Investigations Dept. of the Revolutionary Armed Forces [DIFAR] was slightly more competent, but nevertheless, remained "Keystone Cops" for years afterward. DIFAR always doubled its filing system with cross-checks of both surnames !!

That doesn't mean that anyone should give an ounce of importance to said statements by this "Ortiz", as to Havana having a purported file. More importantly, they had the wrong "Ortiz", and I advised Joe Gonzalez and Fonzi of same -- and explained that I had shared a Marshal's holding cell with the dude just a year previous !!

Cheers,

Gerry

--------------------------

"Que -- Yo me voy a Preoccuparme ??" -- Alfredo E. Neumann, 1953.

__________________________________

"Armas..para que ??" -- Pa'lante, pa'lante..Los que no le gusten, que toman Purgante !!"

__________________________________

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...