Ultimate Sacrifice: Salon Review

[Lynne Foster]

Tim,

This is a key fact:

"Since the disclosures of the Church Committee, the distinction between the Mafia and the CIA has been blurred, and should be understood to be blurred in fact. "

You have to look at it on an individual basis.

For example, Howard Hunt is former CIA and Robert Maheau is former FBI. I think former agents were typically used, to keep everything out of government records.

[Thomas Graves]

Having not yet read the book, I'm curious as to what if anything it says about the handling of the patsy. If three Mafia dons cleverly pulled off this assassination, it amazes me that they could screw up on something so fundamental as eliminating the patsy or successfully getting him away (for eventual elimination).... It's hard to believe that the Mafia couldn't remove or if necessary take out a patsy or anyone else in that length of time when they generally know where to find him, even if an initial effort to deal with him using a corrupt cop fails.

The way the book deals with Oswald is that he was the intended patsy (or future hero) for the planned assassination of Castro. Although the authors don't make this point, as it relates to Ron's observation about the time lag for silencing him, if Oswald was the C-Day plot's patsy, the actual assassins would have had no need to eliminate him. If all he knew was about the C-Day planning, the real threat was to that operation, and not to the piggyback artists who killed Kennedy. In that sense, the Mafia could have had the same sense of being set up as a patsy, organizationally, as Oswald. This would explain why Oswald wasn't killed immediately.

P. 90: "If the Cuban people were told by the coup leader that Fidel had been murdered by a Russian or a Russian sympathizer - for example, someone who had spent a couple of years in Russia and had recently met with a KGB agent at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City - the Soviet troops would have to 'remain in their compounds' to keep from being attacked by the Cuban people."

PP. 656-658: "Oswald was anxious because all his years of undercover work were about to pay off.... He must have been told he would be going to Cuba soon, via Mexico City, but that his assignment would be over relatively quickly. That's consistent with Oswald being an asset for C-Day, which was planned to happen in a month or less. Oswald would not have been told much about C-Day, only that he was going into Cuba in support of some very important, US-backed action against Castro.... If the person blamed for Castro's death were seen as a Russian sympathizer, it would be believable in the eyes of the world, given the recent strains between Castro and Russia. Blaming Castro's death on a Russian sympathizer was the only way to instantly neutralize the thousands of Russians - and all their equipment - that remained in Cuba."

Regarding the idea that some incident other than an assassination was piggybacked in Dallas, on pp. 701-702: "There is one unconfirmed report from a mob associate that some type of demonstration or incident relating to Cuba was planned for Dealey Plaza that day. Oswald may have been told that some sign would be unfurled from a window, or otherwise displayed, that would embarrass JFK with a pro-Castro message, and that this would create news stories like he'd had in New Orleans - supposedly causing the Cubans to welcome him this time when he tried to get into Cuba."

I don't understand the mention of "one unconfirmed report from a mob associate" when there is more corroboration, and from areas not traditionally considered related to the Mafia. We know that H. L. Hunt's security chief wrote him in a memo dated November 4, 1963: "There is another report from a left-wing group that an incident will occur with the knowledge of the President whereby the left-wingers will start the incident in hopes of dragging in any of the right side groups or individuals nearby and then withdrawing."

T.C.

__________________________________________

I wonder if LHO had an inkling that he was being/had been set up as a patsy in either the planned (?) assassination of Castro or the "hit"/assassination of Kennedy. Perhaps he did and said inkling was reflected in his(?) note to "Mr. Hunt" concerding (sic) his role.......?

FWIW, Thomas

__________________________________________

Edited December 5, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Tim Carroll]

If all he knew was about the C-Day planning, the real threat was to that operation, and not to the piggyback artists who killed Kennedy. In that sense, the Mafia could have had the same sense of being set up as a patsy, organizationally, as Oswald.

I wonder if LHO had any inkling that he was being/had been set up as a patsy in either the planned (?) assassination of Castro or the "hit"/assassination of Kennedy. Perhaps he did and they were reflected in his(?) note to "Mr. Hunt" concerning (sic) his role(s).......

Although the "Mr. Hunt" letter has been largely discredited, we still are left with the issue of the "Mr. Hosty" note that was flushed. On p. 656:

"We believe the note may have been an attempt by Oswald to keep Hosty from 'blowing' Oswald's carefully crafted image and his role in the upcoming Cuban operation. Oswald's willingness to go into the FBI office shows that he had been pefectly willing to talk to Hosty directly, if Hosty had been in the office - hardly the act of a lone assassin who had kept the FBI from finding out where he lived. But it is consistent with a frustrated Naval Intelligence and CIA asset who knows that his upcoming 'mission' to Cuba might be jeopardized by Hosty's actions. Because the FBI had no official role in C-Day, or any of the other CIA anti-Castro plots, Agent Hosty had no way of knowing that he might be interfering. Oswald was anxious because all his years of undercover work were about to pay off."

T.C.

[Lamar Waldron]

We appreciate the serious coverage of "Ultimate Sacrifice" in Salon.com, but there are several assertions and omissions in the review written by David Talbot that we'd like to address.

"Ultimate Sacrifice" presents evidence from thousands of pages of declassified documents that John and Robert Kennedy planned to stage a coup against Castro on Dec. 1, 1963, and that the plan was infiltrated by three Mafia bosses (from the mob families that controlled Chicago, Tampa and Dallas). The Mafia chiefs then used parts of the coup plan, including some U.S. intelligence assets, in their plot to kill JFK - first trying in Chicago, then Tampa, and finally Dallas - in a way that forced a coverup to protect national security, and the coup plan. The documentary evidence is backed up by accounts from almost two dozen Kennedy associates involved in aspects of those events, and their aftermath.

The most glaring omission in Talbot's review was not addressing or even mentioning AMWORLD, the CIA's code name for their supporting role in the Kennedy coup plan in 1963. AMWORLD is a major focus of the book. "Ultimate Sacrifice" not only reveals this recently declassified operation for the first time, but documents that it was withheld from the Warren Commission and later congressional investigating committees.

AMWORLD, which began on June 28, 1963, was an integral part of the Kennedys' plan for a coup in Cuba and it's impossible to consider one without the other. Coup planning began in January 1963 as a slow-moving, bureaucratic exercise, and the plan was only in its fourth draft by June 1963. But that month, planning began in earnest after the real opportunity for a high-level coup arose. After the CIA created AMWORLD, millions of dollars began to be devoted to the coup plan. From that point forward, coup planning proceeded rapidly, demonstrating that it had become a live operation. By September 1963 the "Plan for a Coup in Cuba" was in its 13th draft, and the rapid pace accelerated further, continuing through November of 1963. (After JFK's death, the CIA kept the AMWORLD code name, but without the involvement of Robert Kennedy and other key figures, the plan changed radically.)

The most important of our five sources who actively worked on the coup plan was the Kennedys' top Cuban exile aide, Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams (who asked us to always call him "Harry"). Talbot acknowledged in his review that Harry was close to RFK, but says that Harry's "belief that a Kennedy-backed assault on the Castro regime was imminent might be a case of wishful thinking." That's not what the evidence demonstrates. Harry's account - and that of the others - is backed up by many declassified coup plan and AMWORLD documents that talk about them and the operation. High-level AMWORLD documents from November 1963 say that "all US plans (were) being coordinated through" Harry and he had been "so named by Robert Kennedy."

By Nov. 22, 1963, millions of dollars had been spent on the coup plan, hundreds of Cuban-American troops had been trained, U.S. assets were going into Cuba, and everything was ready. As noted in the book, a long-overlooked Washington Post article confirms that Harry's work "had reached an important point" by November 22, when Harry "participated in the most crucial of a series of secret meetings with top-level CIA and government people about Cuba." Harry and other Kennedy associates told us he was going into Cuba the following day, to await the Dec. 1, 1963, coup - a date consistent with what we were told by others who worked with RFK on the coup plan and which is contained in an AMWORLD memo from JFK's CIA director.

Talbot seems skeptical of the coup plan because JFK's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told him he didn't know about a "major Cuban intervention" in late 1963. Talbot also questions the credibility of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who first told us about the coup plan in 1990. However, Talbot didn't mention that Rusk gave an on-the-record confirmation of the coup plan to Anthony Summers for Vanity Fair in 1994, three years before the first "Plan for a Coup in Cuba" documents were declassified. Rusk even explained to Summers why the Kennedys pursued the coup plan and secret peace negotiations with Castro at the same time, saying, "It was just an either/or situation. That went on frequently," though Rusk told Summers that in doing so, "the Kennedys 'were playing with fire.'"

As the book explains, we have only identified a dozen people so far who were fully informed about the coup plan prior to JFK's death, and McNamara wasn't one of them. Evidence indicates the only military figures who were fully informed include Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Defense Intelligence Agency chief Gen. Joseph Carroll, and Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance. Rusk told us he only learned about the coup plan after JFK's death. Still, Rusk and his subordinates - and other officials - had helped to shape the coup plan while JFK was alive, having been told it was being developed in case the CIA found a powerful Cuban official willing to stage a coup against Castro. That's why Talbot was in error when he wrote we must "have confused what were contingency plans for a coup in Cuba for the real deal."

The coup plan was so serious that in the days and weeks before Dallas, Robert Kennedy had a secret committee making plans for dealing with the possible "assassination of American officials" if Castro found out and tried to retaliate. The same people working on those plans were also working on the coup plan and AMWORLD. While Talbot didn't mention those plans in his review, we did include a Nov. 12, 1963, document from that committee in our excerpt, which Salon was kind enough to run.

Our book cites documents totaling thousands of pages from the National Archives, which we encourage people to view for themselves. A reader of Talbot's review might get the impression that we pieced together our story of AMWORLD and the "Plan for a Coup in Cuba" from the documents released in the mid- to late 1990s, but that is not correct. Starting in 1990, we were told about the coup plan and the CIA by Dean Rusk and other Kennedy associates, long before any of the documents were released. We made public presentations about the coup plan and the CIA's role in it beginning in 1993, at historical conferences, on the History Channel, and in Vanity Fair, to draw attention to the documents that remained unreleased. When the coup plan documents finally started being declassified in 1997, they included the same people and phrases ("Plan for a Coup in Cuba") we'd been using for years.

Talbot says we "take pains to (repeatedly) exonerate the CIA in the killing of Kennedy," but we present evidence against several CIA personnel that implicates them to some degree in JFK's assassination. "Ultimate Sacrifice" details how AMWORLD was one way three Mafia bosses - Carlos Marcello of Louisiana (who controlled the rackets in Dallas), Tampa's Santo Trafficante, and Johnny Rosselli of the Chicago mob - infiltrated the Kennedy coup plan. For example, we quote CIA documents showing that Rosselli's mob paid $200,000 in August 1963 to one of the Cuban exile leaders for the coup plan and AMWORLD, Tony Varona.

Using the CIA's own declassified documents, our book exposes Mafia-compromised CIA assets, extensive CIA intelligence failures, unauthorized operations, and the stonewalling of Robert Kennedy and government committees by certain CIA officials - all under the veil of secrecy covering AMWORLD.

The CIA personnel and CIA exile assets whom Talbot himself fingers at the end of his review - Morales, Phillips, Harvey, Varona, Artime - were all the subjects of incriminating new evidence presented in "Ultimate Sacrifice," and most had major roles in AMWORLD in 1963. Though we also present exculpatory facts where they exist, we present serious evidence against people like David Morales - operations chief of Miami's huge CIA station in 1963 and close to Rosselli - as well as exile leaders such as Varona and Manuel Artime.

Our focus on Marcello and his allies being behind JFK's death didn't originate with us - it came from Robert Kennedy and his associates. It's well documented that after Robert F. Kennedy learned all he could from several private investigations, RFK told close associates such as Richard Goodwin and Hoffa prosecutor Walter Sheridan that New Orleans godfather Marcello was behind his brother's death. In 1979, the House Select Committee on assassinations - whose director was a former Mafia prosecutor for RFK - concluded that both Marcello and Trafficante had the motive, means and opportunity to kill JFK. However, since so much was withheld from the committee (including AMWORLD, the "Plan for a Coup in Cuba," the Tampa assassination attempt four days before Dallas, etc.), they weren't able to find conclusive proof.

After spending several years reviewing all the theories about the assassination, we were pointed toward a conspiracy led by Marcello, Trafficante, and Rosselli by a knowledgeable Kennedy associate in 1992, and quickly found a huge amount of supporting evidence. In addition to all the documentary evidence, we talked with five attorneys who worked under RFK at the Justice Department, as well as Pierre Salinger, who worked for the Kennedys in the 1950s as a Senate Mafia investigator targeting Marcello. Typical is Ronald Goldfarb, who concluded in his own book about those years "the likelihood [was] that our organized crime program" caused "Marcello and Trafficante to plot an audacious assassination."

Our book documents the godfathers' infiltration of the coup plan, and how they linked it to JFK's assassination in over a dozen ways, from the bullet found in Oswald's rifle to exile leaders like Varona. Talbot says RFK could have simply explained "the national security concerns in the judge's chambers" and proceeded with his prosecutions, but it would have been impossible to prosecute - or even extensively investigate - the godfathers' role without completely exposing the coup and invasion plan. In those tense Cold War times, just a year after the nuclear standoff during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that could have triggered a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets.

RFK tried to prosecute Marcello for other offenses even after JFK's death, to no avail. The attorney general kept the pressure on Jimmy Hoffa, a close ally of Marcello and Trafficante, and on Rosselli's Chicago Mafia. But if it had been publicly reported that the attorney general of the United States even suspected the Mafia of his brother's death, defense attorneys in those cases and many more would have had a field day. Talbot also failed to mention that Marcello, Trafficante and Rosselli all eventually confessed their involvement in JFK's assassination to associates. Two men who worked with Trafficante and Rosselli - and who documents confirm knew about AMWORLD - also confessed to friends, later in life.

Talbot says we "assert that Bobby blamed only the Mafia (and New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello in particular) for the death of his brother," but we also detail RFK's initial suspicions directed at the CIA. This includes not only RFK asking CIA director John McCone if the CIA killed his brother, but RFK's statement to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Haynes Johnson that "one of your guys did it," just hours after JFK's murder. As the book explains, Johnson was working at the time on a book with Manuel Artime, and CIA files now show Artime was not only involved in AMWORLD but working on the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro (which involved Rosselli, Trafficante and Marcello) and that the CIA had considered using the Mafia as a cover to provide weapons to Artime as part of AMWORLD.

Talbot says he can't understand "why in the world would organized crime bosses knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro?" As the book explains, the Kennedys tried to exclude the Mafia from any involvement in the coup plan, and any involvement in Cuba after the coup. As our sources told us and documents confirm, the Kennedys' goal for Cuba was a democracy with "free elections." Helping to ensure that would be the presence of U.S. troops, so even if the Kennedy coup plan were successful, it would do the Mafia no good.

The Mafia bosses had to kill JFK before the Dec. 1, 1963, coup, because only the top-secret coup plan/AMWORLD could provide the secrecy the Mafia needed to prevent a thorough, public investigation of JFK's assassination. Plus, Marcello was already on trial by RFK's men and Rosselli's Chicago mafia was under attack from RFK and the attorney general had just announced a massive crackdown on Las Vegas, where Rosselli represented the Chicago mob. Rosselli and Marcello weren't even U.S. citizens, and feared deportation even if they were only convicted of a relatively minor offense. Trafficante's criminal empire, and his close ally Hoffa, were under constant assault by RFK, so eliminating JFK to end RFK's war against them had to be the first order of business for the mob bosses. If the Mafia chiefs later wanted to eliminate Castro (which some experts feel Trafficante didn't want to do), they always had the CIA-Mafia plots to use against Castro, plots they played a major role in, unlike the Kennedys' coup plan.

By the end of Talbot's review we don't seem that far apart in our conclusions, of a conspiracy involving mob godfathers, some CIA personnel, and a few Cuban exiles. Our hope is that all authors, historians and researchers can work to get the remaining million-plus files that we talk about in our book released, and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2005/12...e/index_np.html

[Tim Gratz]

To Mr. Waldron,

Obviously people's opinions can change over time, particularly with the discovery of new information.

I am sure you realize, however, that Mr. Talbot wrote an article a few years ago praising G. Robert Blakey for "solving the assassination" when he pinned it on the same Mafia leaders you do. I concur that Blakey deserves that praise--and then some. As I am sure you know, the criminal RICO statutes he helped develop have been very successful against the Mafia. One can make a persuasive case, I believe, that the genus of Blakey's efforts was in the RFK Justice Department. Therefore, I think you can also make a good case that one of the long-lasting and most important legacies of John F. Kennedy was the war against the Mafia carried on by RFK's protege Mr. Blakey. I consider it a shame and disgrace that his reputation has been besmirched by those who would make him part of a sinister CIA conspiracy.

I certainly do not think it was moral or right for Joe Kennedy to make a deal with the Mafia to help elect his son to the Presidency. Somewhat in his defense, I believe he never intended to keep the bargain he made with the Mafia. Unfortunately, his "doublecross" may have contributed to his son's fate.

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Waldron wrote:

By the end of Talbot's review we don't seem that far apart in our conclusions, of a conspiracy involving mob godfathers, some CIA personnel, and a few Cuban exiles.

Your conclusions also seem very close to those of Professor Michael Kurtz except that Kurtz adds, as would I, the likelihood of Cuban involvement. The AMBLOOD scenario you have developed through so much diligent research would seem to add support in Kurtz's conclusions, IMO.

[John Simkin]

Mr. Waldron wrote:

By the end of Talbot's review we don't seem that far apart in our conclusions, of a conspiracy involving mob godfathers, some CIA personnel, and a few Cuban exiles.

Your conclusions also seem very close to those of Professor Michael Kurtz except that Kurtz adds, as would I, the likelihood of Cuban involvement. The AMBLOOD scenario you have developed through so much diligent research would seem to add support in Kurtz's conclusions, IMO.

You have said this several times on the Forum. However, if you read the book, The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian's Perspective, you would realize that Kurtz includes this as one possible theory concerning the assassination. It also has to be remembered that Kurtz published this book in 1982. This was a time when several researchers were taken in by the disinformation being spread by James Angleton. I doubt very much if Kurtz still believes this theory.

[Dawn Meredith]

Now a book comes along to explain this phenomenon with a body of evidence that says Kennedy bros. Planned an attack that backfired (I will read book to be fair) . Have yet more researchers taken some bait?

Chris, it is intriguing to me that Waldron's scenario has seemed to light so many fires. I'm wondering if the attraction isn't that it clears LBJ and the CIA of any malevolence. The one piece that is an ABSOLUTE CROCK, as far as I'm concerned, is that Bobby Kennedy went along with the cover-up of his brother's death in order to protect the proposed coup. Anyone who's been around grieving people should understand that Bobby and Jackie were in deep shock, the kind of shock that takes months if not years to get over (if ever). If I'm reading Waldron right in that he proposes RFK went along with the Warren Commission cover-up in the name of national security, I must admit I'm skeptical.

Pat and Chris:

Thank you for these probative posts. Having just read all about the alleged Bobby cover-up in Mellen's book I have been quite saddened by such a prospect: something I always considered disinformation in prior books. Indeed, in 1986, when I read that Bobby and JFk were trying to kill Castro in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt" I was so incensed that I called "411", got his phone number and we had quite the debate, which continued by mail for months. I have read the closing chapters in "AFTJ" twice now. The first time I did not buy the story Angelo gave to Mellen. But yesterday, after reading at length about Sheridan being sent, allegedly by Bobby, to destroy Garrison-to cover for the get Castro allegations, again attributed to Bobby (and presumably JFK) I jumped ahead to see if Bobby was still portrayed this way in Melen's book. This required reading the last chapter again, and this time the story seemed more compelling. BUT: So what? Does this make it so? One poster here writes that this is "old news" called by a new name, but I find the above two posts more pursuasive.

We know that JFK was planning to meet with Castro. We know that the CIA likely overheard this, via wiretaps and it was at total odds with the Agency's plans. We know that JFK and CIA were at war. We know that The Company has produced a number of "authors" to really muddy the waters. It's really back to that old LBJ quote : "Kennedy was trying to get Castro; only Castro got him first" (paraphrased).

Now we are to believe this stuff, this time, on the basis of a few interviews? We do have Dick Goodwin, quoting how angry Bobby was to hear that he was "trying to kill Castro". That RFK was in reality the one trying to keep Castro alive. Is Goodwin fabricating? Is his view not instructive here?

Dawn

[Gerry Hemming]

Now a book comes along to explain this phenomenon with a body of evidence that says Kennedy bros. Planned an attack that backfired (I will read book to be fair) . Have yet more researchers taken some bait?

Chris, it is intriguing to me that Waldron's scenario has seemed to light so many fires. I'm wondering if the attraction isn't that it clears LBJ and the CIA of any malevolence. The one piece that is an ABSOLUTE CROCK, as far as I'm concerned, is that Bobby Kennedy went along with the cover-up of his brother's death in order to protect the proposed coup. Anyone who's been around grieving people should understand that Bobby and Jackie were in deep shock, the kind of shock that takes months if not years to get over (if ever). If I'm reading Waldron right in that he proposes RFK went along with the Warren Commission cover-up in the name of national security, I must admit I'm skeptical.

Pat and Chris:

Thank you for these probative posts. Having just read all about the alleged Bobby cover-up in Mellen's book I have been quite saddened by such a prospect: something I always considered disinformation in prior books. Indeed, in 1986, when I read that Bobby and JFk were trying to kill Castro in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt" I was so incensed that I called "411", got his phone number and we had quite the debate, which continued by mail for months. I have read the closing chapters in "AFTJ" twice now. The first time I did not buy the story Angelo gave to Mellen. But yesterday, after reading at length about Sheridan being sent, allegedly by Bobby, to destroy Garrison-to cover for the get Castro allegations, again attributed to Bobby (and presumably JFK) I jumped ahead to see if Bobby was still portrayed this way in Melen's book. This required reading the last chapter again, and this time the story seemed more compelling. BUT: So what? Does this make it so? One poster here writes that this is "old news" called by a new name, but I find the above two posts more pursuasive.

We know that JFK was planning to meet with Castro. We know that the CIA likely overheard this, via wiretaps and it was at total odds with the Agency's plans. We know that JFK and CIA were at war. We know that The Company has produced a number of "authors" to really muddy the waters. It's really back to that old LBJ quote : "Kennedy was trying to get Castro; only Castro got him first" (paraphrased).

Now we are to believe this stuff, this time, on the basis of a few interviews? We do have Dick Goodwin, quoting how angry Bobby was to hear that he was "trying to kill Castro". That RFK was in reality the one trying to keep Castro alive. Is Goodwin fabricating? Is his view not instructive here?

Dawn

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

The ONLY time that Bobby & Company "backed-off" from hitting Fidel & Company was: When even "non-ex-Fidelista" Manolo Reboso aligned himself with "Harry" in the CONTINOUS ARGUMENTS [by others than just myself] -- and explained that: WITHOUT Fidel & Company, the Soviet Brigade would pull a coup d'etat and thenceforth we would be dealing with a SOLID Soviet satellite !!

Too bad you have been fooled by the REAL experts for so long, but you are only one of thousands who have swallowed the tabloid trash about this matter for years. However, don't burn your books yet -- more is yet to come (FORTH) !!

Chairs,

GPH

______________________

[John Simkin]

Talbot says we "take pains to (repeatedly) exonerate the CIA in the killing of Kennedy," but we present evidence against several CIA personnel that implicates them to some degree in JFK's assassination. "Ultimate Sacrifice" details how AMWORLD was one way three Mafia bosses - Carlos Marcello of Louisiana (who controlled the rackets in Dallas), Tampa's Santo Trafficante, and Johnny Rosselli of the Chicago mob - infiltrated the Kennedy coup plan. For example, we quote CIA documents showing that Rosselli's mob paid $200,000 in August 1963 to one of the Cuban exile leaders for the coup plan and AMWORLD, Tony Varona.

I thought this passage from Anne Buttimer's report on her meeting with Gene Wheaton on 11th July, 1995 (dated 12th July, 1995) could be relevant to your point about Marcello.

Over the course of a year or a year and one-half his friend told him about his activities with training Cuban insurgency groups. Wheaton said he also got to know many of the Cubans who had been his friend's soldiers/operatives when the Cubans visited in Virginia from their homes in Miami. His friend and the Cubans confirmed to Wheaton they assassinated JFK. Wheaton's friend said he trained the Cubans who pulled the triggers. Wheaton said the street level Cubans felt JFK was a traitor after the Bay of Pigs and wanted to kill him. People "above the Cubans" wanted JFK killed for other reasons.

Wheaton said we must look at his friend and his associates in order to know what really happened to JFK. One of those associates was I. Irving Davidson who was/is "the bag man for the intelligence community." Davidson runs a group called the Timber Center which handles payoffs and payments for the CIA, the NSA and the Pentagon. He is a friend of Jack Anderson's and was indicted with Carlos Marcello in the 1980's on a Teamster's kick-back charge. Davidson is a non-practicing attorney in Washington D.C. He is now about 70 years old.

Have you come across the name Irving Davidson in your research?

[Larry Hancock]

John, I have a couple of documents that show from time to time Davidson did provide information

to the FBI and CIA.

In 1959 he reported that Howard Davis had contacted him about needing 24 50 cal

machine guns. Davidson offered to get Munitions Control authority for the guns

if Davis would give him a letter....apparently it was not unusual for Davidson to help

people obtain weapons.

A CIA report describes Davidson as a registered agent of Nicaragua and describes

Davidson as being in contact with Cuban exile leaders in 1959 ....relating to arms

purchases. Names mentioned included Francisco Rodrguez, Diaz Lanz and Jose Fujol.

Davidson was reporting these contacts to CIA. This report also contained remarks

about a Government in Exile.

Seems like Davidson had been involved in these sorts of affairs for some time.

-- Larry

Talbot says we "take pains to (repeatedly) exonerate the CIA in the killing of Kennedy," but we present evidence against several CIA personnel that implicates them to some degree in JFK's assassination. "Ultimate Sacrifice" details how AMWORLD was one way three Mafia bosses - Carlos Marcello of Louisiana (who controlled the rackets in Dallas), Tampa's Santo Trafficante, and Johnny Rosselli of the Chicago mob - infiltrated the Kennedy coup plan. For example, we quote CIA documents showing that Rosselli's mob paid $200,000 in August 1963 to one of the Cuban exile leaders for the coup plan and AMWORLD, Tony Varona.

I thought this passage from Anne Buttimer's report on her meeting with Gene Wheaton on 11th July, 1995 (dated 12th July, 1995) could be relevant to your point about Marcello.

Over the course of a year or a year and one-half his friend told him about his activities with training Cuban insurgency groups. Wheaton said he also got to know many of the Cubans who had been his friend's soldiers/operatives when the Cubans visited in Virginia from their homes in Miami. His friend and the Cubans confirmed to Wheaton they assassinated JFK. Wheaton's friend said he trained the Cubans who pulled the triggers. Wheaton said the street level Cubans felt JFK was a traitor after the Bay of Pigs and wanted to kill him. People "above the Cubans" wanted JFK killed for other reasons.

Wheaton said we must look at his friend and his associates in order to know what really happened to JFK. One of those associates was I. Irving Davidson who was/is "the bag man for the intelligence community." Davidson runs a group called the Timber Center which handles payoffs and payments for the CIA, the NSA and the Pentagon. He is a friend of Jack Anderson's and was indicted with Carlos Marcello in the 1980's on a Teamster's kick-back charge. Davidson is a non-practicing attorney in Washington D.C. He is now about 70 years old.

Have you come across the name Irving Davidson in your research?

[Ron Ecker]

Have you come across the name Irving Davidson in your research?

John,

Aside from what information Mr. Waldron may have on him, Davidson is discussed in HSCA v. 12, pp. 57-59, regarding his dealings with Haiti and George de Mohrenschildt.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0031a.htm

Ron

[Mark Stapleton]

While I have not yet read Lamar's book, I have to admit I am skeptical of any so-called invasion. I've read enough about the Kennedys to have a feel for how they thought about things, and an invasion of Cuba was not at the top of their agenda in November, 1963. While it's possible they might have given someone, even Guevara, the U.S.' blessing to overthrow Castro, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they have authorized the landing of U.S. troops in Cuba as part of the plan. This would have given the Russians the green light to move on Berlin.

Having not read the exact plans for AMWORLD myself, however, I remain open-minded.

If there's anyone here who thinks the case remains where it was after JFK and Case Closed, by the way, they need to read Larry Hancock's book and my own presentation, among other sources. While my presentation uses the medical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a conspiracy, Larry's book draws a circle around the likely culprits. Does anyone have Liz Smith's phone number?

Pat,

The plan involves stunning the Soviets from action (by framing someone with obvious Soviet ties... someone like Oswald ... for the murder of Castro) and the *Cubans* insisting on U.S. intervention. If someone like Che Guevera openly ASKED for U.S. intervention following a coup, that would have been an entirely different situation than if the U.S. invaded on its own accord.

-Stu

Stuart,

Although I haven't read the book either, this really sounds like a scheme more in keeping with Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney rather than something JFK would approve. And why assume the Russians would believe in the guilt of a hand delivered (and undoubtedly dead) patsy? They weren't as dumb as Gerald Posner.

As Pat stated, JFK was not about to risk his growing dialogue with the Russians and risk an invasion in Berlin, just to whack the beard. He got his fingers burned badly with the first attempt, so why risk it again, less than 12 months from the election, when he knew Tim's Party was going to nominate a looney right winger who he could beat with two hands tied behind his back? It's ridiculous.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm always willing to change my mind, but until I have read this book (which will take some time, since I can't even finish Harvey and Lee), I will believe the following, which I have believed for some time. The Mafia was involved, the Mafia was happy to be involved, but this was a coup d'etat of which the Mafia was not in charge and in which the Mafia did not call the shots.

Whether or not the Mafia wanted to see JFK dead by December 1, 1963, there is no doubt in my mind that LBJ wanted to see JFK dead before the end of Don Reynolds's Capitol Hill testimony on November 22, 1963. Talk about good timing!

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm always willing to change my mind, but until I have read this book (which will take some time, since I can't even finish Harvey and Lee), I will believe the following, which I have believed for some time. The Mafia was involved, the Mafia was happy to be involved, but this was a coup d'etat of which the Mafia was not in charge and in which the Mafia did not call the shots.

Whether or not the Mafia wanted to see JFK dead by December 1, 1963, there is no doubt in my mind that LBJ wanted to see JFK dead before the end of Don Reynolds's Capitol Hill testimony on November 22, 1963. Talk about good timing!

Ron,

Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history.

I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never?

Edited December 8, 2005 by Mark Stapleton