Emilio Núñez Portuondo

[George Bollschweiler]

I’m trying to find some information concerning the sources Huismann may have used to produce his documentary about Lee Harvey Oswald contacts in Mexico. During my search I found a page where Ricardo Núñez Portuondo the son of former Cuban ambassador to the United Nations and one-time president of its Security Council Emilio Núñez Portuondo (1898-1978) states, that his father confirmed the story of Lee receiving order from Castro to assassinate President Kennedy.

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagrn013.php

Emilio Núñez Portuondo once told to his associate in Mexico Jose Antonio Cabarga, about Castro’s threat given to newsmen at a reception in the Brazilian Embassy in Havana in early September. This story was later published in the Miami News on November 24. Cabarga was arrested and beaten up by the Mexican police and accused to have told the story to El Universal, one of Mexico's leading newspapers, that published the story as a front page exclusive.

On the evening of November 17, 1963, Dr. Emilio Núñez Portuondo was a guest speaker at a Cuban rally held in Bayfront Park, Miami, Florida, in honor of Jose Ignacio Rivero now an exile in Miami, and the former owner and publisher of Diario La Marina in Havana, Cuba. The above rally was attended by approximately 6,000 to 8,000 Cubans. The above rally was covered by this Service in an effort to determine whether there would be any adverse reaction pursuant to the pending visit of the President on the following day. Bayfront Park was the place that is mentioned on the card that was sent to the Miami police.

http://cuban-exile.com/photo/jfk/threat0

During his speech, Dr. Portuondo bitterly attacked the United States, stating, among other comments, that the blood of the people who have been shot at the "wall" will remain forever as a black mark for this hemisphere and "that the cry of pain of all those who suffered in Cuba will be heard from the mountains of America to the Andes, and will be recorded in history as proof that once America was cowardly". It was observed that Pedro Luis Diaz-Lanz was seated among the guest speakers at the above rally. Diaz-Lanz was not observed in any areas the President visited on November 18, 1963.

Emilio Núñez Portuondo who knew Howard Hunt and WerBell informed on November 24, 1963 WerBell that Castro was responsible for the assassination of JFK.

When goggling for information concerning Emilio Núñez Portuondo or his son Ricardo there is not much information but some pages in Spanish. There is one picture of a Ricardo Núñez Portuondo with Henry Kissinger but I’m not sure if it really shows the right Ricardo. He is supposed to be the guy at the far right. I wonder if any member has some more information concerning Emilio or Ricardo.

George

[Robert Howard]

'I’m trying to find some information concerning the sources Huismann may have used to produce his documentary about Lee Harvey Oswald contacts in Mexico.'

Do yourself a big favor and dont bother. Ask yourself THE Question, George. If Cuba was behind the assassination or had any real connection to Oswald, a scenario the CIA and other bigwigs in the US gov't hierarchy were trying to develop from day one, do you really think we would just now be hearing about it. The argument that totally demolishes this 'theory' is the fact that just as in 1963, the intervening years since then up to today show the US gov't still despises Castro and Cuba, if there was an even remote connection you can be sure our govt would have made sure 'we were the first to know' eons ago. A fact that a certain member of the Forum choses to ignore and results in countless wasted posts and wheel spinning.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Robert Howard

[George Bollschweiler]

'I’m trying to find some information concerning the sources Huismann may have used to produce his documentary about Lee Harvey Oswald contacts in Mexico.'

Do yourself a big favor and dont bother. Ask yourself THE Question, George. If Cuba was behind the assassination or had any real connection to Oswald, a scenario the CIA and other bigwigs in the US gov't hierarchy were trying to develop from day one, do you really think we would just now be hearing about it. The argument that totally demolishes this 'theory' is the fact that just as in 1963, the intervening years since then up to today show the US gov't still despises Castro and Cuba, if there was an even remote connection you can be sure our govt would have made sure 'we were the first to know' eons ago. A fact that a certain member of the Forum choses to ignore and results in countless wasted posts and wheel spinning.

Thanks Robert, I do not bother and I do neither believe that Castro or Cuba were the driving force behind the assassination of JFK. I also said when the Huismann movie was discussed, that it was once more a story that was simply manufactured by putting together bits and pieces of information and hearsays. The reason I brought this up is only to get some more information on Emilio Núñez Portuondo. This name came up concerning sources and there fore I just dropped that name. But your are right there are so many names in the game already that it does not make much sense to dig up another.

George

Edited January 25, 2006 by George Bollschweiler

[Robert Howard]

George, a really thorough research tool is (and this is not a plug) the mary ferrell database online. Until Dec. 31, 2005 the website, maryferrell.org was offering potential subscribers full access to all of the features of mary ferrells database (she began collecting info. on the assassination from practically Day One 11-22-63) free of charge, now it requires a membership fee of 39.95 (I believe thats right) to access all the features. Although it is just my opinion, anyone who wants to get to the heart of JFK Research should consider using this site. As for your post, I did not mean to seem critical, even those who find the idea of a Castro plot to be valid are entitled to their views. I think you are a real credit to the Forum, and always look forward to your posts.

[James Richards]

The reason I brought this up is only to get some more information on Emilio Núñez Portuondo. (George Bollschweiler)

Hi George,

I can tell you that in 1956, as the Cuban delegate, Portuondo tried vigorously to introduce a resolution to expel the Soviet Union from the U.N. This was over the situation in Hungary.

In 1958, he was a part of a 22 member Peace Cabinet under Batista. This cabinet was tasked with restoring order and conducting elections. He led a walk-out saying that Batista's opponents (Castro) were only interested in violence and this was going to ruin the country.

In 1960, he pushed for direct action against Cuba claiming Castro was indeed Communist. He wrote about this in a periodical he edited in Washington titled, 'Latin American Events'. He believed that under U.N. law, the United States had the right to oust Castro by any means possible.

FWIW.

BTW, in that photo you posted, is that Jorge Mas Canosa third from the left?

James

Edited January 25, 2006 by James Richards

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

'I’m trying to find some information concerning the sources Huismann may have used to produce his documentary about Lee Harvey Oswald contacts in Mexico.'

Do yourself a big favor and dont bother. Ask yourself THE Question, George. If Cuba was behind the assassination or had any real connection to Oswald, a scenario the CIA and other bigwigs in the US gov't hierarchy were trying to develop from day one, do you really think we would just now be hearing about it. The argument that totally demolishes this 'theory' is the fact that just as in 1963, the intervening years since then up to today show the US gov't still despises Castro and Cuba, if there was an even remote connection you can be sure our govt would have made sure 'we were the first to know' eons ago. A fact that a certain member of the Forum choses to ignore and results in countless wasted posts and wheel spinning.

George:

I most heartily agree with the other Robert [Howard] that the Castro-did-it scenario is wholly devoid of any factual basis, and that in seeking the truth about the assassination, it should be dismissed as a CIA-inspired concoction. [Anyone who's caught my gazillion posts on that topic here knows that much.] However, where I might disagree with the formidable Mr. Howard is on one point. I think it is imperative to continue researching the basis for the allegation having been made in the first instance, because it regains currency every time a Gus Russo or Huismann dusts it off for another presentation to the public as fact. Those who know better have an obligation to ensure that this regurgitated CIA piffle isn't taken seriously. More important, however, I believe we can learn much about who was responsible for the assassination by determining who was responsible for manouevering Oswald into his historical destination as a pro-Castro agitator.

It is clear from the record that, whatever Oswald's interests in Cuba may have been, he was not a bona fide pro-Castro activist. He disobeyed the orders given him in correspondence by the FPCC in New York, he only masqueraded as a recruiter for FPCC members in New Orleans [incorrect addresses on the recruitment literature he passed out; recruitment drives that lasted only for the few minutes necessary to draw media attention; participation in a radio debate that only presaged his apparent loss of interest in the cause, etc.], and seemed to associate exclusively with anti-Castro activists, an odd proclivity for somebody purportedly in support of the Castro revolution.

Clearly, Oswald was merely a pawn in some type of intelligence exercise designed to paint him as pro-Castro, and the construction of this bogus 'legend' was purposeful. For me, that is the first bookend. Taking the post-assassination depiction of Oswald as being in contact with Cuban personnel in Mexico City [and apparently elsewhere, according to the Russo/Huismann crowd] and being paid off to kill the President as the other bookend, what falls in between must help explain the construction of Oswald's false 'legend.'

I think it is by following the breadcrumb trail of evidence laid prior to the event back to those who laid it, we can reconstruct a fairly reasonable list of suspects in the assassination itself. Moreover, I am thoroughly convinced that because this is the most potentially fruitful avenue of exploration in seeking to identify the authors of the assassination, it recurringly becomes imperative to throw the dogs off the scent, even today, with the same old tired false leads. The closer we get to this truth, the more often we'll see red herrings dragged across the trail by those who seek to protect the actual authors of the assassination. That people such as Russo and Huismann act in the service of the assassins, by protecting their identities with these long-since debunked red herrings, indicates to me both what type of people they are, and how shallow their interest is in achieving an historical certainty about what actually happened.

So, let us continue plumbing the depths of the Castro-did-it "evidence" and identify those responsible for manufacturing the crap in the first place. If there is a significant divergence between their identities, and those of the assassination's authors, I would be greatly surprised.

As for Emilio Nunez Portuondo, we know that he was virulently anti-Castro, and shortly after the assassination was overheard [tape-recorded?] in a conversation with a man in Mexico City. According to a four page memo sent by the Miami FBI SAC to Hoover's WFO and the SACs of Dallas and San Antonio:

"Ernest Aragon, U. S. Secret Service agent advised that about midnight Nov. 24-25 he received information from SS in San Antonio that a long distance telephone call had been placed by Jose San Antonio Cabaca in Mexico City to Dr. Emilio Nunez Portuondo in Miami. The conversation was in Spanish. The gist was 'plan of Castro carried forth. Bobby is next. Soon the atomic bombs will rain and they will not know from where.'"

From what I've been able to glean on the senior Nunez Portuondo, he shared something with all the others who trafficked in such rumours that Castro had been responsible for killing Kennedy: he was affiliated with, and used as a propaganda proxy by, one David Atlee Phillips.

I note that Phillips was apparently quizzed about Nunez Portuondo during his HSCA testimony, since the glossary of names mentioned in that testimony contains that name. However, one can scour that testimony and not find the name mentioned at all [perhaps one of many, many names redacted from the transcript, no doubt for national security considerations.] Cabaca's name is absent from the glossary of that testimony.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

If Cuba was behind the assassination or had any real connection to Oswald, a scenario the CIA and other bigwigs in the US gov't hierarchy were trying to develop from day one, do you really think we would just now be hearing about it. The argument that totally demolishes this 'theory' is the fact that just as in 1963, the intervening years since then up to today show the US gov't still despises Castro and Cuba, if there was an even remote connection you can be sure our govt would have made sure 'we were the first to know' eons ago. A fact that a certain member of the Forum choses to ignore and results in countless wasted posts and wheel spinning.

Robert's first sentence is just plain wrong. From Day One word went out that Oswald was to be treated as a lone assassin. An aide to LBJ called to Dallas and ordered the DA to drop from his proposed indictment the allegation that LHO was acting pursuant to a foreign conspiracy. Also, the respective superiors in DC ordered their subordinates in Mexico City to cease and desist any investigation of a foreign conspiracy, and the subordinates in Mexico City. The subordinates in Mexico City were irate about the order. Supposedly this was occuring because LBJ was concerned that if foreign involvement was demonstrated, it might lead to a war.

Those are the FACTS, Robert.

Re why we are just hearing possible evidence that Castro did it, clearly the US did not want it to come out that we had. for years, been trying to kill Castro. Granted, these plots were revealed in 1976 but I suspect there are still secrets that the US does not want to come out. As a possibility, some have speculated that there was an Operations Northwoods type operation going on in Dallas, perhaps a fake assassination attempt to be blamed on Castro. How would it look if that came out? The US government is more concerned about protecting some secrets, I suggest, than in identifying the true assassins of JFK. That, of course, was true from day one.

That should not be that hard for Robert to understans.

The activities of Miguel Casas Saez around the time of the assassination have convinced me more than ever that there probably was Cuban involvement in the assassination.

[John Dolva]

'I’m trying to find some information concerning the sources Huismann may have used to produce his documentary about Lee Harvey Oswald contacts in Mexico.'

Do yourself a big favor and dont bother. Ask yourself THE Question, George. If Cuba was behind the assassination or had any real connection to Oswald, a scenario the CIA and other bigwigs in the US gov't hierarchy were trying to develop from day one, do you really think we would just now be hearing about it. The argument that totally demolishes this 'theory' is the fact that just as in 1963, the intervening years since then up to today show the US gov't still despises Castro and Cuba, if there was an even remote connection you can be sure our govt would have made sure 'we were the first to know' eons ago. A fact that a certain member of the Forum choses to ignore and results in countless wasted posts and wheel spinning.

George:

I most heartily agree with the other Robert [Howard] that the Castro-did-it scenario is wholly devoid of any factual basis, and that in seeking the truth about the assassination, it should be dismissed as a CIA-inspired concoction. [Anyone who's caught my gazillion posts on that topic here knows that much.] However, where I might disagree with the formidable Mr. Howard is on one point. I think it is imperative to continue researching the basis for the allegation having been made in the first instance, because it regains currency every time a Gus Russo or Huismann dusts it off for another presentation to the public as fact. Those who know better have an obligation to ensure that this regurgitated CIA piffle isn't taken seriously. More important, however, I believe we can learn much about who was responsible for the assassination by determining who was responsible for manouevering Oswald into his historical destination as a pro-Castro agitator.

It is clear from the record that, whatever Oswald's interests in Cuba may have been, he was not a bona fide pro-Castro activist. He disobeyed the orders given him in correspondence by the FPCC in New York, he only masqueraded as a recruiter for FPCC members in New Orleans [incorrect addresses on the recruitment literature he passed out; recruitment drives that lasted only for the few minutes necessary to draw media attention; participation in a radio debate that only presaged his apparent loss of interest in the cause, etc.], and seemed to associate exclusively with anti-Castro activists, an odd proclivity for somebody purportedly in support of the Castro revolution.

Clearly, Oswald was merely a pawn in some type of intelligence exercise designed to paint him as pro-Castro, and the construction of this bogus 'legend' was purposeful. For me, that is the first bookend. Taking the post-assassination depiction of Oswald as being in contact with Cuban personnel in Mexico City [and apparently elsewhere, according to the Russo/Huismann crowd] and being paid off to kill the President as the other bookend, what falls in between must help explain the construction of Oswald's false 'legend.'

I think it is by following the breadcrumb trail of evidence laid prior to the event back to those who laid it, we can reconstruct a fairly reasonable list of suspects in the assassination itself. Moreover, I am thoroughly convinced that because this is the most potentially fruitful avenue of exploration in seeking to identify the authors of the assassination, it recurringly becomes imperative to throw the dogs off the scent, even today, with the same old tired false leads. The closer we get to this truth, the more often we'll see red herrings dragged across the trail by those who seek to protect the actual authors of the assassination. That people such as Russo and Huismann act in the service of the assassins, by protecting their identities with these long-since debunked red herrings, indicates to me both what type of people they are, and how shallow their interest is in achieving an historical certainty about what actually happened.

So, let us continue plumbing the depths of the Castro-did-it "evidence" and identify those responsible for manufacturing the crap in the first place. If there is a significant divergence between their identities, and those of the assassination's authors, I would be greatly surprised.

As for Emilio Nunez Portuondo, we know that he was virulently anti-Castro, and shortly after the assassination was overheard [tape-recorded?] in a conversation with a man in Mexico City. According to a four page memo sent by the Miami FBI SAC to Hoover's WFO and the SACs of Dallas and San Antonio:

"Ernest Aragon, U. S. Secret Service agent advised that about midnight Nov. 24-25 he received information from SS in San Antonio that a long distance telephone call had been placed by Jose San Antonio Cabaca in Mexico City to Dr. Emilio Nunez Portuondo in Miami. The conversation was in Spanish. The gist was 'plan of Castro carried forth. Bobby is next. Soon the atomic bombs will rain and they will not know from where.'"

From what I've been able to glean on the senior Nunez Portuondo, he shared something with all the others who trafficked in such rumours that Castro had been responsible for killing Kennedy: he was affiliated with, and used as a propaganda proxy by, one David Atlee Phillips.

I note that Phillips was apparently quizzed about Nunez Portuondo during his HSCA testimony, since the glossary of names mentioned in that testimony contains that name. However, one can scour that testimony and not find the name mentioned at all [perhaps one of many, many names redacted from the transcript, no doubt for national security considerations.] Cabaca's name is absent from the glossary of that testimony.

I would like to mention some things that I think should be kept in mind. They are only hints that I derive from some research and together make up a speculation that I'm looking for some stronger indications for.

This is (hypothesis) that at least the NO FPCC and possibly to some extent that the National FPCC was infiltrated, controlled and financed by as many as three groups. The FBI, the CIA and agents of the Misssissippi Sovereignty Comisssion. It is possible that the Lead investigator of the MSC was a Hoover plant and they worked closely together. The CIA funded through a number of dummy fronts various left wing organisations. The FBI through cointelpro at one point was the largest single finacial contributor to the CPUSA through membership dues for its informants. The MSC were aware of the FPCC and a memo directs an investigation and possible infiltration of the FPCC in the southern states. Throw LHO into the pot and there may be more than just speculation to this.

[George Bollschweiler]

The reason I brought this up is only to get some more information on Emilio Núñez Portuondo. (George Bollschweiler)

Hi George,

I can tell you that in 1956, as the Cuban delegate, Portuondo tried vigorously to introduce a resolution to expel the Soviet Union from the U.N. This was over the situation in Hungary.

In 1958, he was a part of a 22 member Peace Cabinet under Batista. This cabinet was tasked with restoring order and conducting elections. He led a walk-out saying that Batista's opponents (Castro) were only interested in violence and this was going to ruin the country.

In 1960, he pushed for direct action against Cuba claiming Castro was indeed Communist. He wrote about this in a periodical he edited in Washington titled, 'Latin American Events'. He believed that under U.N. law, the United States had the right to oust Castro by any means possible.

FWIW.

BTW, in that photo you posted, is that Jorge Mas Canosa third from the left?

James

James

You are correct, the persons in that picture are (from left to right)

Ricardo Núñez Portuondo; Emilio Milian; Jorge Mas Canosa, Senator Paula Hawkins; Henry Kissinger; Pedro A.Lopez jr. and Mister Hawkins.

As for Robert-Charles it seems that my post gave the impression that I support or believe in the Castro or Cuban involvement. Maybe I wasn't clear enough or it's due to my lack of the English language. Anyway, the subject I'm interested in is Cesar Morales Mesa who was mentioned in Huismann documentary as the guy who gave Oswald the money in Mexico. That was the only information I found interesting in the whole story because I thought that a black Cuban with reddish hair as Morales Mesa was described must have been recognised by others.

One source I did find about Morales Mesa is ajweberman (Nod 23) but in order to find more references I came across the name of Portuondo.

RAOUL: A CUBAN EXILE

James Earl Ray described "Raoul" as a 35-year-old blonde or red-haired Latin, 5'8", 140 pounds. He told author William Bradford Huie that "Raoul" was "a Cuban exile." James Earl Ray wrote: "In the spring of 1968 I James Earl Ray was working with agents of the Federal Government, including Raoul. They told me I was helping them to supply arms and guns to the Cuban refugees there to overthrow Castro and the communest I cuba. The reason why I'd made trips to Mexico was in regard to helping the agents of the federal government to supply arms to cuban refugees there to overthrow Castro. The Federal Agents led me to believe that I was working in Memphis in April 1968 for the same purpose. I knew I was working with Federal Agents the way they had me passed across the Mexican and Canadian borders is only one thing that proves they were federal agents. At a later time, if necessary, I will give more extensive proof about the federal agents with whom I was involved. It is a known fact that Agents of federal government and, the Mexican Police knew about my trips to Mexico and protected me there. I knew nothing about King being in Memphis until after King had been killed. I could not argue with the federal agents I worked for becous they would have put me back in the Missouri State Prison at Jefferson City if I failed to take orders from them. I know that the federal agents merly used me as the fall guy when they killed King. I now realize that they had no interest in overthrowing Castro and their whole purpose was to use me to cover up their own crime. Two federal agencies are guilty and I am fully innocent." [FBI 44-38961-5811 Sec. 81]

JULY 18, 1967 TO AUGUST 24, 1967

James Earl Ray had at eight meetings with "Raoul" over the next three weeks. HEMMING told this researcher: "Ray was involved in a homicide with Raoul." The FBI found that Ray was in possession of "Qc351 Photocopies of 4-page hw letter dated at Montreal, Que., signed "Code letter 'G.'"

As we all know what GPH thinks of ajw he sure won't comment on this one.

George

ps. James do you have any news concerning 'El Pelirrojo'

Edited January 26, 2006 by George Bollschweiler

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

If Cuba was behind the assassination or had any real connection to Oswald, a scenario the CIA and other bigwigs in the US gov't hierarchy were trying to develop from day one, do you really think we would just now be hearing about it. The argument that totally demolishes this 'theory' is the fact that just as in 1963, the intervening years since then up to today show the US gov't still despises Castro and Cuba, if there was an even remote connection you can be sure our govt would have made sure 'we were the first to know' eons ago. A fact that a certain member of the Forum choses to ignore and results in countless wasted posts and wheel spinning.

Anyone who is only now learning about purported Cuban involvement in the assassination has been asleep for a very long time. The Warren Commission's own volumes contain numerous documents and assertions suggesting Cuban involvement, and the latterday hearings led by Messrs. Church, Pike, Stokes, et al, each revealed more such "evidence." To contend that this is in any way new is to mislead those who are new to the topic.

Robert's first sentence is just plain wrong. From Day One word went out that Oswald was to be treated as a lone assassin. An aide to LBJ called to Dallas and ordered the DA to drop from his proposed indictment the allegation that LHO was acting pursuant to a foreign conspiracy. Also, the respective superiors in DC ordered their subordinates in Mexico City to cease and desist any investigation of a foreign conspiracy, and the subordinates in Mexico City. The subordinates in Mexico City were irate about the order. Supposedly this was occuring because LBJ was concerned that if foreign involvement was demonstrated, it might lead to a war.

Those are the FACTS, Robert.

Yet if these facts were thereafter "suppressed," Tim, why are there so many allusions in the WC, the HSCA Report, the ARRB disclosures, to Cuban involvement? Whether these reports were allowed to die for convenience or investigated and found to be non-credible is secondary to the key fact: we are discussing contemporaneous data from 1963-64, most of which has been known to us for some time. Russo and Huismann and you can allege otherwise all you want, but precious little "new" has been revealed by any of you.

Re why we are just hearing possible evidence that Castro did it, clearly the US did not want it to come out that we had. for years, been trying to kill Castro. Granted, these plots were revealed in 1976 but I suspect there are still secrets that the US does not want to come out. As a possibility, some have speculated that there was an Operations Northwoods type operation going on in Dallas, perhaps a fake assassination attempt to be blamed on Castro. How would it look if that came out? The US government is more concerned about protecting some secrets, I suggest, than in identifying the true assassins of JFK. That, of course, was true from day one.

That should not be that hard for Robert to understans.

Speculate all you like, Tim, but one could just as rationally posit that once it became apparent the Cuba-did-it "evidence" was wafer-thin and crumbled under the slightest scrutiny [Alvarado, the MC phone tapes/transcripts and photo coverage, all those DFS/CIA informants who contended Oswald partied with or paid by Cuban consular officials, etc.], it was eschewed because they knew it wouldn't pass the sniff test. From my perspective, that was true then, and hasn't changed in the interim. If there's one thing we've learned from plumbing these allegations it is that not a single piece of "evidence" proferred to date has withstood scrutiny and found to be credible. That's a real enviable record.

The activities of Miguel Casas Saez around the time of the assassination have convinced me more than ever that there probably was Cuban involvement in the assassination.

Old ground, already well covered. You find something probative in this because it justifies your pet theory, not because it has any evidentiary validity.

As for Robert-Charles it seems that my post gave the impression that I support or believe in the Castro or Cuban involvement. Maybe I wasn't clear enough or it's due to my lack of the English language. Anyway, the subject I'm interested in is Cesar Morales Mesa who was mentioned in Huismann documentary as the guy who gave Oswald the money in Mexico. That was the only information I found interesting in the whole story because I thought that a black Cuban with reddish hair as Morales Mesa was described must have been recognised by others.

Your English is perfectly good, George, and I understand your position. While we may disbelieve the Castro-did-it scenario prepared for our consumption, by pursuing information about who concocted that scenario [prior to the event, even], we can identify those who sponsored and executed the assassination. It is important to know more about Morales Mesa, but just as important to know the identities of those who made such reports about his paying Oswald, and what their own connections were to US or foreign intelligence operatives.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert (re Miguel Casas Saez):

Do you agree that Miguel entered the US for the first time in late September of 1963?

Do you agree that he entered the US using an assumed name? If so, can you suggest any reason for the assumed name?

I assume you do agree that he returned to Cuba only a day or two after the assaasination?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert (re Miguel Casas Saez):

Do you agree that Miguel entered the US for the first time in late September of 1963?

That's the claim. No doubt INS and Customs could have shed some light on whether this is true, but did CIA bother to seek such confirmation prior to making its claims? If so, I've located no such effort on the Agency's part. None of the extant documents is addressed to or from either INS or Cumstoms. [A rather odd oversight, wouldn't you agree? Here's a guy suspected of participation in the assassination, yet no effort is expended to confirm the most elementary part of that suspicion???] If you have such confirmation, please supply it. If not, then it's just another blind-sourced claim without basis in reality, like dozens of others in which CIA trafficked in the assassination's aftermath. I think it highly fitting that one of CIA's sources for this was code-named AM-LAME 4. "Lame" is the word.

Do you agree that he entered the US using an assumed name? If so, can you suggest any reason for the assumed name?

Who knows? Without a reason to suspect him of participation in the President's assassination, who cares? Somebody using the assumed name "Maurice Bishop" was apparently seen with Oswald a few months prior to the assassination. If you want to dwell on the topic of aliases, why not start with Veciana's CIA handler? Unless you's like to offer proof that Saez was seen with Oswald, or that he was spotted having tea with Cubela or anyone connected with Cuban intelligence. No allegations, mind, for they are a dime a dozen and not worth the price. I mean actual proof....

I assume you do agree that he returned to Cuba only a day or two after the assaasination?

I agree to no such thing. Without confirmation of those details from a reliable source, who knows? I know that's what CIA claimed, but given its unenviable track record for getting things astoundingly wrong [Alvarado/photos of a six foot 40 year old Oswald/an Oswald who spoke "terrible" Russian, etc.], I wouldn't bet the family farm on anything generated by CIA vis a vis Cuba. If you are sanguine about accepting such xxxxe as "evidence," be my guest. I'm sorry, but I shant be joining you.

Tim, I had rather expected you to mount some type of game defense for your prior assertion that we are only just now learning of these purportedly astonishing details regarding purported Cuban involvement in the President's murder. You seem to have abandoned that tack entirely, and I'm wondering why. Is it that you've only just discovered it isn't so, or you'd prefer not to endure the humiliation of having me itemize a few dozen such reports that all, to a one, were discovered to be wholly bogus?

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Robert, you may not find it suspicious that a Cuban enters the US under an assumed name and leaves Texas as soon as the border opens after the assassination, but I certainly do.

So when I bring up the issue of Casas Saez using an assumed name, you then bring up Veciana's alleged handler using the assumed name of Maurice Bishop. We know that many CIA operatives used assumed names (e.g. E. Howard Hunt, Phillips, etc.) I think you just made my point. The fact that Casas Saez used an assumed name is certainly a reason to suspect at least that he entered the US on an intelligence mission ol some sort. The fact that he left immediately after Kennedy died, but no sooner, may give us a hint what his mission was.