Castro Did Not Do It, If...

[Tim Gratz]

It seems to me that to subscribe to the theory that there was no Castro involvement in the assassination one must conclude that each of the following were mere happenstance:

1. That Cubela re-initiated his contact with the CIA and offered to kill Castro on the very same day (September 7th) that Castro issued his warning to the U.S. about possible danger to US political leaders if US efforts to kill him continued.

2. That Cubela approached the CIA in Brazil and Castro made his warning speech in the Brazilian Embassy.

3. That the final meeting between Jean Daniel and Castro was set (by Castro) for the very hour of Kennedy's death.

4. That Castro scheduled the meeting with Daniel for the very place that RFK had planned Castro's assassination on December 1st.

I submit that a reasonable person can infer that in both instances Castro was sending the US a "message" in both the timing and the place of first the warning and then the Daniel meeting. By the timing and place of the Daniel luncheon, Castro was asking the US: "Now do you get it?"

If as reported LBJ suspected Castro involvement in the assassination, is it any wonder that in a short period LBJ (a man not noted for his physical courage) instructed Califano to wind down all efforts against Castro? As LBJ said: "Kennedy was trying to get Castro. Castro got him first." (Castro acted through Trafficante, with whom his brother Raul had made a deal in 1959. Interestingly, Jack Ruby may have been involved in the deal that freed Trafficante from Trescornia.)

[Tim Gratz]

At the risk of emulating Lynne Foster . . .

IF indeed there was an AMWORLD coup scheduled to take place on December 1, 1963; and,

IF indeed Castro knew about it (because, per Fabian Escalante to Bill Turner, DGI had an intelligence agent in Manuel Artime's camp in Nicaurauga,

THEN,

Castro did NOT do it--but ONLY if you believe that, with his knowledge of the imminent coup scheduled for December 1st, he did nothing about it.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Tim, I call this type of logic "Jack the Ripper thinking" it goes like this,Well I think (insert name of suspect) did it because 1, he had a sharpe knife, 2, he was in London at the time of the murders 3, he didn't like women (give example of mysogony) 4, He was known to be out late at night 5, he was questioned by the Police. There, now prove he wasn't Jack.. Of course as the perpetrator of these awful crimes remains unknown, you can't prove it wasn't their suspect.

So lets try it with someone else,Oh say Richard Nixon. (and no I dont believe Nixon had any thing to do with the assassination, just playing devils ad) 1, Nixon, with good reason believes JFK stole the 1960 election, compounded by his recent defeat to Gov Brown Nixon feels the only way to prevent a Kennedy dynasty, and thus an end to his presidential hopes, is to remove the head.

2, Where was Dick on the day in question? to my knowledge at least three versions have been given over the years, as my recent thread "So where were you" proved people of a certain age remember that day, You would have thought Nixon would remember better than most..

3, His Bay of Pigs references, WHAT is that all about. Makes it sound like he's using insider knowledge to threaten certain parties. All that said your points about Cubela are well made.. Steve.

[John Simkin]

Stephen, it is not really worth replying to him. Tim Gratz has shown time and time again that he is incapable of taking part in a logical debate. However, it is interesting that he is posting so much on the “Castro did it theme”. It sounds like a man whistling in the dark.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

If as reported LBJ suspected Castro involvement in the assassination, is it any wonder that in a short period LBJ (a man not noted for his physical courage) instructed Califano to wind down all efforts against Castro? As LBJ said: "Kennedy was trying to get Castro. Castro got him first." (Castro acted through Trafficante, with whom his brother Raul had made a deal in 1959. Interestingly, Jack Ruby may have been involved in the deal that freed Trafficante from Trescornia.)

This of course is the weakest link, in a pretty weak chain, I understand why its needed, its the only way you can explain away the massive cover up, that demonstrably could not have been Castro's doing. To buy this particular farm we have to swallow several camels, The first being that America would not have jumped at the chance to use the assassination to invade Cuba, something your country has been itching to do, on the slightest pretext for over 40 years. The second being that Johnson felt safer with Castro in power, there's a real good reason why Johnson signed the papers on Vietnam, but not Cuba and, I suspect,the answer to that conundrum is the main reason for the coup, VIETNAM, NOT CUBA.

[Robert Howard]

Tim, I call this type of logic "Jack the Ripper thinking" it goes like this,Well I think (insert name of suspect) did it because 1, he had a sharpe knife, 2, he was in London at the time of the murders 3, he didn't like women (give example of mysogony) 4, He was known to be out late at night 5, he was questioned by the Police. There, now prove he wasn't Jack.. Of course as the perpetrator of these awful crimes remains unknown, you can't prove it wasn't their suspect.

So lets try it with someone else,Oh say Richard Nixon. (and no I dont believe Nixon had any thing to do with the assassination, just playing devils ad) 1, Nixon, with good reason believes JFK stole the 1960 election, compounded by his recent defeat to Gov Brown Nixon feels the only way to prevent a Kennedy dynasty, and thus an end to his presidential hopes, is to remove the head.

2, Where was Dick on the day in question? to my knowledge at least three versions have been given over the years, as my recent thread "So where were you" proved people of a certain age remember that day, You would have thought Nixon would remember better than most..

3, His Bay of Pigs references, WHAT is that all about. Makes it sound like he's using insider knowledge to threaten certain parties. All that said your points about Cubela are well made.. Steve.

Tim, I believe you make some very valid points, what would you say if I told you that during the critical day's after Nov. 22 when ostensibly LBJ and Hoover were trying to 'nail down' just what did happen in Dealey Plaza, that Richard Helms intentionally neglected to tell Johnson about the AMLASH project specifically that Cubela and Castro's so-called assassination were on the table. One can infer two different things that Helms was trying to obstruct justice and more importantly he 'could be said' to be preventing knowledge of 'what really happened' from being ascertained conclusively with regards to the Chief Executive.

The reason I ask is that I am not familiar with every de-classified document that is out there, but there are Church Committee Document's that are very salient to the topic you are mentioning.

See Church Committee Misc Documents (157-10014-10138 warning it is more than just a few pages, but is 'required reading')

Task Force W seemed to be a pretty hot little item in the fall of 1962, William Harvey, Desmond Fitzgerald and Edward Maurelius, the latter 'died' during the time of the Church Committee Hearings, and from what I gather the Church Committee Hearings seem to go to the 'heart of the matter' and are very overlooked by a lot of JFK researchers, which is really unfortunate.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Robert Howard

[John Simkin]

The reason I ask is that I am not familiar with every de-classified document that is out there, but there are Church Committee Document's that are very salient to the topic you are mentioning. See Church Committee Misc Documents (157-10014-10138 warning it is more than just a few pages, but is 'required reading') Task Force W seemed to be a pretty hot little item in the fall of 1962, William Harvey, Desmond Fitzgerald and Edward Maurelius, the latter 'died' during the time of the Church Committee Hearings, and from what I gather the Church Committee Hearings seem to go to the 'heart of the matter' and are very overlooked by a lot of JFK researchers, which is really unfortunate.

Interesting comment on Edward Maurelius. Have you got the spelling right? There was a Donald Charles Marelius (1914-2002). He was a senior CIA officer in El Salvador (1947-1949), Colombia (1949-1952), Chile (1952-1958) and Brazil (1958-1963). He then held a senior position at Langley until he retired in 1973. I am in contact with his grandson who interviewed him before he died and is currently working on a book on him.

http://www.namebase.org/xmar/Donald-Charles-Marelius.html

[Robert Howard]

The reason I ask is that I am not familiar with every de-classified document that is out there, but there are Church Committee Document's that are very salient to the topic you are mentioning. See Church Committee Misc Documents (157-10014-10138 warning it is more than just a few pages, but is 'required reading') Task Force W seemed to be a pretty hot little item in the fall of 1962, William Harvey, Desmond Fitzgerald and Edward Maurelius, the latter 'died' during the time of the Church Committee Hearings, and from what I gather the Church Committee Hearings seem to go to the 'heart of the matter' and are very overlooked by a lot of JFK researchers, which is really unfortunate.

Interesting comment on Edward Maurelius. Have you got the spelling right? There was a Donald Charles Marelius (1914-2002). He was a senior CIA officer in El Salvador (1947-1949), Colombia (1949-1952), Chile (1952-1958) and Brazil (1958-1963). He then held a senior position at Langley until he retired in 1973. I am in contact with his grandson who interviewed him before he died and is currently working on a book on him.

http://www.namebase.org/xmar/Donald-Charles-Marelius.html

I was relying on the document below for Maurelius, which indeed does identify him as 'Edward' but the namebase.org listing you have makes me think that it was actually 'Donald Charles' This is confusing, but my guess is that the 'subject' (who may be named Weatherby) got the name wrong, but that is just speculation.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...69&relPageId=10

FYI, the link I provided is an interview with someone (is anonymous during interview, although at one point I believe he is 'accidentally referred to as Weatherby,') who was the Case Officer for AMLASH during late summer 1962, his mentioning that 'AMLASH' wanted assurances from RFK that he 'supported' the ostensible assassination of Castro via AMLASH seems very suspicious, equally suspicious to me 'is the whole scenario with AMLASH on November 22, according to the case officer he indicated in his testimony that the idea of AMLASH committing the 'assassination of Fidel' was really not too believable, (ostensibly according to said Case Officer, Cubela didn't even like to use the word, there is also a reference to periods of time when AMLASH/Cubela's wherabouts were unknown, although he was (according to the subject the No. 4 man in Cuba, (only behind Fidel, Raul and Che) his disillusionment with Fidel 'selling out to the Soviets' (my characterization, not a quote) seems on the surface to have been something that was at least a thought in the mind of DGI, but that is sheer speculation on my part, Sen Hart interviewed 'Weatherby' on that very subject.

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...c.do?docId=1370

Interesting, to say the least.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Robert Howard

[Ron Ecker]

I will state my belief, for the final time on Castro, that if Castro knew all about the plots against him, he didn't have to do anything about it, because he would also know about any plot against Kennedy involving Cuban exiles. He may have known the day and the hour. But he had to do zilch.

[Thomas Graves]

I will state my belief, for the final time on Castro, that if Castro knew all about the plots against him, he didn't have to do anything about it, because he would also know about any plot against Kennedy involving Cuban exiles. He may have known the day and the hour. But he had to do zilch.

___________________________________

Ron,

Excellent point.

Thomas

___________________________________

[Lynne Foster]

Didn't Robert Blakey start the Castro rumors?

[Robert Howard]

Didn't Robert Blakey start the Castro rumors?

For the record, I would like to state that I do not subscribe to the 'Castro/Cuba did it theories' for God's sakes that is the ultimate dead horse, but it sure could have been a angle manipulated by 'rogue elements' to cover their butt, regarding dastardly deeds in Dealey. Especially in light of that 'relationship' between CIA and the Warren Commision, or lack thereof, when it came to procuring info.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Robert Howard

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It seems to me that to subscribe to the theory that there was no Castro involvement in the assassination one must conclude that each of the following were mere happenstance:

Here we go again, for the umpteenth time. Everything listed below by Tim has already been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam in prior threads, and this time will prove no more fruitful than any of the past efforts.

1. That Cubela re-initiated his contact with the CIA and offered to kill Castro on the very same day (September 7th) that Castro issued his warning to the U.S. about possible danger to US political leaders if US efforts to kill him continued.

Cubela was Castro's man before, during and after consorting with CIA. It is clear that he kept Castro fully apprised of developments. Hence, the time and place of Castro's warning speech is no coincidence. You do, however, assume it was Cubela who contacted and recontacted CIA. Unfortunately, your only source for this is CIA, and its record for veracity in this saga is hardly enviable. As you know, Cubela told a different story, which you discount because it suits your preference, not because it is inherently implausible.

Moreover, you have consistently characterized Castro's speech as a "threat," whereas I have inferred it was a "warning," designed to let the Kennedy White House know that Castro was aware of CIA's plotting. Assume for a moment that Castro was already planning to kill Kennecy by early September '63 [as must have been the case if his people were manipulating Oswald toward Mexico City, etc.] Whether the speech was a "threat" or a "warning," what possible purpose is served by Castro making that speech if he was already planning Dealey Plaza? It would serve no purpose, other than to self-incriminate Castro as the author of the eventual deed. Say what you will about Castro, he was/is not dumb enough to tip his hand in advance in so blatant a fashion. Were he the brains behind the assassination, he would simply have kept his mouth shut and let the clock run down to 11/22/63.

I've brought these points up repeatedly in the past, and you've never had a credible response. Nor even a lame rejoinder.

2. That Cubela approached the CIA in Brazil and Castro made his warning speech in the Brazilian Embassy.

Funny thing about that Cubela chap: no matter where he went, he knew where to find CIA'r'US in the Yellow Pages.

3. That the final meeting between Jean Daniel and Castro was set (by Castro) for the very hour of Kennedy's death.

And if Castro had merely been eating lunch by himself at the time, you'd characterize that as his callous disregard for human life. Imagine, eating lunch while his minions killed the President.

4. That Castro scheduled the meeting with Daniel for the very place that RFK had planned Castro's assassination on December 1st.

Again, you overinflate the importance of unsubstantiated trivia, while ignoring completely the back-channel peace feelers from Kennedy toward Castro, for which Jean Daniel was merely one of several emissaries. And when Castro learned of Kennedy's fate, did he dance a jig or rub his hands with glee? No. He appeared genuinely disturbed, referred to it as very bad news, and thereafter fretted about how this would be blamed upon Cuba. Funny thing is, each and every piece of so-called evidence marshalled to blame the Kennedys for plotting to kill Castro comes from CIA, the very agency that was responsible for such plotting, yet which itself neglected to discuss the matter with the Kennedys. Against this, you have the solemnly sworn recollections of everyone in the Kennedy circle - including McCone - that no such order was ever given by either Kennedy.

I submit that a reasonable person can infer that in both instances Castro was sending the US a "message" in both the timing and the place of first the warning and then the Daniel meeting. By the timing and place of the Daniel luncheon, Castro was asking the US: "Now do you get it?"

So, you suggest that Castro's luncheon arrangements were his way of admitting he was responsible for murdering the President, and you characterize those who reach such conclusions "reasonable?" Fascinating self-portrait you offer us, Tim. But what did his dinner mean? When he brushed his teeth before bedtime, what message was he sending, and to whom?

If as reported LBJ suspected Castro involvement in the assassination, is it any wonder that in a short period LBJ (a man not noted for his physical courage) instructed Califano to wind down all efforts against Castro? As LBJ said: "Kennedy was trying to get Castro. Castro got him first." (Castro acted through Trafficante, with whom his brother Raul had made a deal in 1959. Interestingly, Jack Ruby may have been involved in the deal that freed Trafficante from Trescornia.)

And yet, CIA ignored Johnson's purported cease-and-desist order and continued to consort with Cubela well into Johnson's term, and would have continued to do so had Cubela not been pinched by Castro. I have raised this very point with you a dozen times, with no credible response from you. I have argued from the get-go that CIA did not adhere to Presidential wishes, and this was simply one more instance in which it arrogantly violated a direct Presidential order. Apparently, CIA felt it didn't require Presidential authorization to kill Castro - and in this instance did so not only in the absence of such authorization, but in direct disobeyance of a Presidential order to the contrary. Which is precisely what it had done under Kennedy, who likewise was on the record as squelching such CIA-direct hit attempts.

Clearly, CIA was pursuing its own agenda, irrespective of who was President or what that President wanted done, or not done. And yet you continue to credit the Agency's version of modern history as more credible than all other knowledable accounts, all of whom disagree with that version. You either have too little respect for the credibility of your own Presidents and their inner circles of advisors, or have too much credulity toward CIA. I suspect it's both, and your boundless deference to CIA's concocted history of events has not gone unnoticed. Just what makes you so susceptible to CIA's lies, to the exclusion of all other, less self-serving scenarios?

[Jason Vermeer]

Tim, I think there may be a variable you could consider to bolster your hypothesis. According to Thomas Allen, former DGI agent Jesus Mendez informed authorities after his arrival in the U.S. that the DGI believed it had doubled nearly 100 percent of the agents the U.S. sent into operate against Castro. The doubled agents were reportedly sent back into the U.S. to report, of course, on anti-Castro activeties.

Now, given that the CIA operated out of control at times and under the wire of a sitting president, there is a chance that a DGI doubled agent was operating FOR Cuba WITHOUT Castro's direct knowledge and that agent somehow orchestrated the eventual demise of Kennedy. The "put a Texan in the Whitehouse" propoganda campain FEASIBLY could have been a method to agitate anti-castroites into action AGAINST Kennedy. A doubled agent causing the assassination of the president would almost force the CIA into a "cover your ass" mode. What an embarrassment. Multiple agencies would fall in line in a desperate attempt to allow Oswald and his "Pro-Castro" cover to take the sole blame for the assassination.

This is one example of "Cuban responsibility" WITHOUT Castro being aware of it. Plausible deniability if you will. I couldn't see Castro having the guts to launch this type of action against Kennedy with direct knowledge UNLESS Cuba retained nuclear capability that Mr. Hemming I believe indicated in another post. If you take a look though Tim, my first paragraph of this post is the only one where I'm not in speculation mode so take this for what it's worth. Jason Vermeer