I thought that it might be a good idea to look at the evidence that suggests that the assassination of JFK was organized by the governments of the Soviet Union or/and Cuba. I think the idea makes no political sense at all but I know some members of the forum do believe this theory.
The history of this theory is an interesting one. The first person to put this theory forward was John Martino, an electronics expert, who was employed by Santos Trafficante. He also worked as a CIA agent and took part in its Black Operations.
In an article published in January, 1964, Martino argued that in 1963 Castro discovered an American plot to overthrow his government. He retaliated by employing Oswald to kill JFK.
Shortly before his death in 1975 Martino confessed to a Miami Newsday reporter, John Cummings, that he had been guilty of spreading false stories implicating Oswald and the Soviets in the assassination. In fact, he had himself been part of the conspiracy to kill JFK. He claimed that two of the gunmen were Cuban exiles. It is believed the two men were Herminio Diaz Garcia and Virgilio Gonzalez. Cummings added: "He told me he'd been part of the assassination of Kennedy. He wasn't in Dallas pulling a trigger, but he was involved. He implied that his role was delivering money, facilitating things.... He asked me not to write it while he was alive." Martino made a similar confession to his wife, son and business partner.
The next person to spread this story was Billy James Hargis, the founder of Christian Crusade ("a Christian weapon against Communism and its godless allies"). In 1964 he wrote a book called The Far Left. In it he argued:
What are the lies that are confronting the American people today as a result of this internal Communist conspiracy, and in connection with this murder of the President of the United States?
The first lie is that there is no conspiracy, that the Communist conspiracy does not exist, and there are not thousands upon thousands of trained Communist agents in this country today, some of them trained, as Lee Harvey Oswald obviously was, to be expert killers. The murder of the President of the United States was one of the most skillful acts of killing imaginable and could have been accomplished only by great training, and now the facts show that Oswald received such training inside the Soviet Union, while he lived there as a citizen.
It is a lie hatched in hell that the so-called “right-wing extremists” are guilty of the murder of the President of the United States. That lie was put out as official Communist Party propaganda in the first flash of Tass News Agency in Moscow as reported in this country within minutes after the President was killed. Tass, the Russian Communist News Agency, said it was believed that “right-wing extremists” were responsible for the murder of the President, and specifically branded General Edwin A. Walker as being one of those guilty.
Hargis was known as a right-wing fanatic and his views on the assassination were not taken seriously (except for Kenneth Rahn’s Academic (sic) JFK Assassination Site).
Despite the efforts of James Jesus Angleton very few researchers were unwilling to put forward the theory that the Soviets were behind the assassination. Understandably, most researchers were more likely to think that it was the CIA or FBI that planned the assassination than the KGB.
The next book that argued that the KGB was behind the assassination came in 1975. The book, Khrushchev Killed Kennedy had been written by the English author, Michael Eddowes. The fact that Eddowes had written such a book surprised researchers in the UK. Eddowes, a former lawyer, had gained fame in 1955 by publishing a book called The Man on Your Conscience. The book was an investigation into the murder trial and execution of Timothy Evans. The book caused renewed interest in the case and eventually Evans received a posthumous pardon by the Queen. This case played an important role in the subsequent abolition of capital punishment in Britain.
Eddowes was therefore had a good reputation as an investigative reporter. However, he appeared to lose interest in this profession after the publication of The Man on Your Conscience. In fact, by 1975, he was mainly known for his right-wing extremist political views.
In Khrushchev Killed Kennedy Eddowes argued that Kennedy was killed by a Soviet agent impersonating Oswald. Eddowes also claimed that LBJ was aware of this and had covered-up the role of the KGB in the killing of Kennedy in order to prevent a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. With the release of the LBJ tapes we now know this is what he was saying at the time. Had Eddowes been tipped off by the FBI/CIA about this?
Two events helped to undermine Eddowes and as a result his book is rarely quoted by the “Soviets did it” theorists. To test his theory, Eddowes brought a suit in Texas to exhume Oswald's body. This was originally refused but after gaining the support of Lee Harvey Oswald's family, the exhumation took place on 4th October, 1981. The body was taken to the Baylor Medical Center. Identification was made primarily using dental records. At a news conference held later the following statement was issued: “The findings of the team are as follows: We independently and as a team have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hill Cemetery is in fact Lee Harvey Oswald.”
The other event was the discovery that the writing and publication of Khrushchev Killed Kennedy had been financed by the Texas oil billionaire, Haroldson L. Hunt. This was of course the man claimed by Thomas Buchanan (Who Killed Kennedy? 1964) to have paid for the JFK assassination.
The next person to argue that it was the KGB was Edward Jay Epstein. In 1978 he published Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. In the book he claims that Oswald killed JFK and that it was working on behalf of the KGB. Much of the book is based on interviews with James Jesus Angleton and Yuri Nosenko. This book did little for Epstein’s reputation as a serious researcher and many now believe he was in the pay of the CIA.
In 1982 Michael Kurtz published The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian's Perspective. It is a good book and mainly concentrates on looking at the evidence for a conspiracy. In the book he speculates about different groups being involved in the assassination. This includes the possibility that the assassination was ordered by Fidel Castro.
In recent years few researchers have claimed that the Soviets were behind the assassination. The release of secret files under the Freedom of Information Act has also undermined this theory. It is now clear that JFK was involved in secret negotiations with Castro and Khrushchev about bringing the Cold War to an end. The idea that they should be at the same time being plotting to have JFK assassinated so that they could have LBJ as president is indeed ridiculous.
Full Version: Did the Soviets/Castro organize the assassination?
Can't wait to reply in depth (but I have to).
You forgot to mention Rolando Cubela and the Second Naval Guerilla, by the way. Might they be of any relevance?
The following people suscribe to the theory that Castro did it: LBJ; Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig (the latter two were deeply involved in JFK's anti-Castro activities); Professor Michael Kurtz, Joseph Trento, etc. With due respect, to characterize a theory with evidentiary basis, subscribed to by intelligent men who were there and had access to confidential materials, as "ridiculous" seems a tad presumptuous.
Had JFK lived, Castro would most likely have been dead before the Nov 1964 election. Assuredly, he would no longer be in power in Cuba. LBJ turned off all of the anti-Castro operations being planned by JFK and RFK. It was the assassination of JFK that guaranteed the survival of the Castro government in Cuba.
You forgot to mention Rolando Cubela and the Second Naval Guerilla, by the way. Might they be of any relevance?
The following people suscribe to the theory that Castro did it: LBJ; Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig (the latter two were deeply involved in JFK's anti-Castro activities); Professor Michael Kurtz, Joseph Trento, etc. With due respect, to characterize a theory with evidentiary basis, subscribed to by intelligent men who were there and had access to confidential materials, as "ridiculous" seems a tad presumptuous.
Had JFK lived, Castro would most likely have been dead before the Nov 1964 election. Assuredly, he would no longer be in power in Cuba. LBJ turned off all of the anti-Castro operations being planned by JFK and RFK. It was the assassination of JFK that guaranteed the survival of the Castro government in Cuba.
Does anyone seriously believe that Castro would still be in power (or even alive) if he killed a sitting US President and the US knew of this? 'Nuf said.
How did Castro or the Soviet Union manage the cover-up? For example, was it Castro or the Russians who sent Humes, Boswell, and Finck into the Betheseda morgue, to perform their Three Stooges act on a body that apparently had already been altered while in Secret Service custody?
Or did Castro or the Russians appoint the Warren Commission (avoiding any Congressional investigations) with the likes of Allen Dulles as members?
I can only assume that the Secret Service, U.S. military, and LBJ had to coordinate all this through the Soviet Embassy.
Ron
Or did Castro or the Russians appoint the Warren Commission (avoiding any Congressional investigations) with the likes of Allen Dulles as members?
I can only assume that the Secret Service, U.S. military, and LBJ had to coordinate all this through the Soviet Embassy.
Ron
To David Boylan:
LBJ probably wanted to live more than to avenge the murder of his good friend John Kennedy, whose brother was getting ready to prosecute him. If you are saying LBJ would have killed Castro if he really thought Castro did it, the record is clear LBJ thought Castro did it. So did his aides Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig. LBJ's response was to "turn off" the US attacks against Cuna.
LBJ probably wanted to live more than to avenge the murder of his good friend John Kennedy, whose brother was getting ready to prosecute him. If you are saying LBJ would have killed Castro if he really thought Castro did it, the record is clear LBJ thought Castro did it. So did his aides Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig. LBJ's response was to "turn off" the US attacks against Cuna.
To Ron:
There were different reasons for the cover-up, as you know, LBJ had his reasons and RFK had reasons of his own.
LBJ was even a suspect. Forty years later John Simkin has turned up very good reasons why LBJ had a motive. These reasons would have come up had there been a full investigation. So a full investigation was the last thing LBJ wanted. If he did not do it himself, he could thank his lucky stars it happened when it did. What interest did he have in solving the murder at possible greact cost to himself?
There were different reasons for the cover-up, as you know, LBJ had his reasons and RFK had reasons of his own.
LBJ was even a suspect. Forty years later John Simkin has turned up very good reasons why LBJ had a motive. These reasons would have come up had there been a full investigation. So a full investigation was the last thing LBJ wanted. If he did not do it himself, he could thank his lucky stars it happened when it did. What interest did he have in solving the murder at possible greact cost to himself?
Tim,
I find it hard to believe that Castro or the Russians would assassinate JFK and not worry about any investigation that could lead to them because LBJ, the military, the CIA, the FBI, ONI, DPD, and the YMCA would all have reasons to cover up and would be rushing to see who could do it first. That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
I find it hard to believe that Castro or the Russians would assassinate JFK and not worry about any investigation that could lead to them because LBJ, the military, the CIA, the FBI, ONI, DPD, and the YMCA would all have reasons to cover up and would be rushing to see who could do it first. That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Jan 12 2005, 07:10 AM)
Tim,
I find it hard to believe that Castro or the Russians would assassinate JFK and not worry about any investigation that could lead to them because LBJ, the military, the CIA, the FBI, ONI, DPD, and the YMCA would all have reasons to cover up and would be rushing to see who could do it first. That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
I find it hard to believe that Castro or the Russians would assassinate JFK and not worry about any investigation that could lead to them because LBJ, the military, the CIA, the FBI, ONI, DPD, and the YMCA would all have reasons to cover up and would be rushing to see who could do it first. That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
Members: Please refer to my thread "Did Castro Kill JFK?"
Thanks!
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Jan 11 2005, 11:51 AM)
Can't wait to reply in depth (but I have to).
You forgot to mention Rolando Cubela and the Second Naval Guerilla, by the way. Might they be of any relevance?
The following people suscribe to the theory that Castro did it: LBJ; Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig (the latter two were deeply involved in JFK's anti-Castro activities); Professor Michael Kurtz, Joseph Trento, etc. With due respect, to characterize a theory with evidentiary basis, subscribed to by intelligent men who were there and had access to confidential materials, as "ridiculous" seems a tad presumptuous.
Had JFK lived, Castro would most likely have been dead before the Nov 1964 election. Assuredly, he would no longer be in power in Cuba. LBJ turned off all of the anti-Castro operations being planned by JFK and RFK. It was the assassination of JFK that guaranteed the survival of the Castro government in Cuba.
You forgot to mention Rolando Cubela and the Second Naval Guerilla, by the way. Might they be of any relevance?
The following people suscribe to the theory that Castro did it: LBJ; Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig (the latter two were deeply involved in JFK's anti-Castro activities); Professor Michael Kurtz, Joseph Trento, etc. With due respect, to characterize a theory with evidentiary basis, subscribed to by intelligent men who were there and had access to confidential materials, as "ridiculous" seems a tad presumptuous.
Had JFK lived, Castro would most likely have been dead before the Nov 1964 election. Assuredly, he would no longer be in power in Cuba. LBJ turned off all of the anti-Castro operations being planned by JFK and RFK. It was the assassination of JFK that guaranteed the survival of the Castro government in Cuba.
Tim:
With all due respect, selecting the half of an argument that supports your own bias, while dismissing the half that doesn't, will not advance your case.
Rolando Cubela is worth remembering, as is the fact that everything he gleaned was instantly fed back to Fidel's intel personnel. It was precisely because Fidel wished to determine whether JFK's Oval Office supported the attempted hits against Castro - or whether they were the work of 'rogue' elements within CIA - that Cubela insisted on a face-to-face with RFK. Clearly, Cubela was recruited as a pawn in CIA's own machinations; your scenario requires that Des Fitzgerald and others within CIA were pawns in Fidel's plotting. Which do you find more tenable?
The fact that any number of people subscribe to any given theory doesn't give it weight or validity. Many more people than you cite above, who were far more involved in the investigations of the day, believed that Oswald acted alone. Does that make it true?
Arguendo, let's suppose Castro plotted against Kennedy. Would he have selected a fallguy whose own personal history tracked straight back to Moscow and Cuba? Would he have instructed that fallguy to make ostentatious - but entirely superficial - attempts to found a FPCC chapter in NOLA? Would he have instructed the fallguy to make repeated visits to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City - knowing full well that this facility was under photographic and telephonic surveillance by CIA - for no purpose other than to create the illusion Cuba was behind his subsequent murder of the President? Seems rather self-defeating, doesn't it?
Turn the scenario around, however, and the very same evidence - a mile wide but only an inch deep - would have been the justification for invading Cuba, which is precisely what had been intended.
Far from being the guarantee of Castro's retention of power, Cuban sponsorship of Kennedy's murder - had the manufactured trail of bread crumb evidence been taken as seriously as it had been intended to be - would have been the end of Castro. As Fidel himself said when he heard of JFK's death, "This is very bad news." Far from being the beneficiary of the crime, Castro was its intended secondary victim.
It is worth remembering that literally dozens of attempts on Castro's life have taken place, been thwarted, been demonstrated with evidence, and several - though far from all - were even admitted to by those CIA personnel responsible, during the Church Committe hearings. Can you cite a single genuine attempt by Cuban intelligence against a US head of state?
If so, I'm sure we'd all like whatever details you can provide. If not, then what seems a "tad presumptuous" is asking us to accept the wafer-thin evidence of Cuban sponsorship manufactured by the conspirators, simply because a half dozen people - each with their own agenda, including a chief suspect in the conspiracy [LBJ] - ask us to do the same.
How about this scenario (not that I believe it, but it's the only way I see that Castro could have been involved). Castro was plotting to kill JFK. The CIA found out and decided to let it happen, but planted evidence (the framing of Oswald) to make sure Castro would be exposed, leading to an invasion of Cuba. (This would only work, of course, if Castro didn't know that the CIA knew.) When Oswald was captured, the CIA panicked, because if Oswald talked the CIA's preknowledge of the assassination could be exposed. The CIA had virtually been in cahoots with Castro, though Castro didn't know it. So the CIA covered up and went with the lone gunman theory to protect itself. Meanwhile Castro figured out (thanks to the Oswald business) why the CIA was protecting him and had a good laugh.
Ron
Ron
John
It seems that in many of the theories you presented here that Oswald, or an Oswald impersonator, is a part of the conspiracy while in a few he is not. Seems the theories haven't gotten to far away from this particular part of the crime.
Jim Root
PS I do like reading several of Epsteins interviews.
It seems that in many of the theories you presented here that Oswald, or an Oswald impersonator, is a part of the conspiracy while in a few he is not. Seems the theories haven't gotten to far away from this particular part of the crime.
Jim Root
PS I do like reading several of Epsteins interviews.
QUOTE (Jim Root @ Jan 12 2005, 08:53 PM)
John
It seems that in many of the theories you presented here that Oswald, or an Oswald impersonator, is a part of the conspiracy while in a few he is not. Seems the theories haven't gotten to far away from this particular part of the crime.
Jim Root
PS I do like reading several of Epsteins interviews.
It seems that in many of the theories you presented here that Oswald, or an Oswald impersonator, is a part of the conspiracy while in a few he is not. Seems the theories haven't gotten to far away from this particular part of the crime.
Jim Root
PS I do like reading several of Epsteins interviews.
______________________________
What a strange conversation this is. Thanks Ron for being the voice of reason here. No one has mentioned Castro himself, what he had to say about the assassination so allow me to try. I will scan his speech to John, tho I have been told via email from Andy that when I send John an email it goes to Andy and not to John, so I hope that I can accomplish this.
Dawn
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Jan 12 2005, 07:10 AM)
Tim,
That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
Ron:
From my own perspective, I think it's important to draw a distinction between those who authored and executed the plan, and those who helped cover it up, because they're not necessarily the same people.
Allow me to hypothesize a scenario. You are John McCone. You arrive at work on 11/23/63, and are briefed by underlings. They claim that a few of your personnel may have been involved in the prior day's events. Despite the fact that you had no prior knowledge of those plans, you now must do all in your power to obscure the truth. To admit the truth is to invite the dismembering of your Agency, which you rightly view as a vital part of the nation's defense against an implacable Communist enemy. Disclosing the truth will not bring back the dead President, but will irreparably harm your Agency. Hence, you collude with others to ensure that your Agency isn't subjected to greater scrutiny than is necessary. This doesn't make you responsible for the President's murder, but does make you an accessory after the fact. Yet, what other viable choice is open to you?
Of course, it's a simplistic scenario, made only to illustrate a point. Aside from strict need-to-know compartmentalization being SOP at the Agency, I strongly suspect that McCone was completely out of the loop on any number of things, the result of what the Agency calls "selective briefing." Because DCIs were regularly questioned by Congressional intel committees, they were often shielded from the truth by their own underlings, to preclude sudden bursts of honesty while they were being grilled on the Hill.
[Moreover, McCone was Kennedy's nominee for DCI, after all, and by most accounts such a boy scout that when the anti-Castro plots came to his attention, he fretted he would be excommunicated from the Catholic church should those plots be made public. If McCone didn't even know about the attempts to whack Castro while they were current, as he insisted, whom within the Agency - presuming that anyone within the Agency had foreknowledge - would have made him privvy to plans to kill the US President?]
As for the coverup, I can see ample cause for virtually all agencies to collude in scuttling the truth, without it necessarily implicating them in the crime itself.
In a perfect world, FBI should have admitted that Oswald was well known to them [as the subsequent release of previously classified documents makes clear], but chose instead to claim no prior knowledge of him or his movements. To admit otherwise would only have raised questions about why the Bureau didn't monitor this man more closely. Given their role as Warren Commission "investigators" [conflict of interest, anyone?], one clearly sees why certain facts were filtered out of the data provided to the Commission. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for the Secret Service, already in the frying pan for its multiple failures in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not Oswald fit their criteria for inclusion in the Protective Registry, the presumption of his sole guilt after the fact only made it more obvious that he should have been included, irrespective of SS criteria for doing so. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for the CIA, the most obstructionist of all the agencies, and the one with the most incendiary data about Oswald: the Mexico City charade. Oswald meeting with the putative head of KGB's assassination department before Kennedy's murder might qualify as the kind of information one passes on to FBI, SS, et al. Oops.
Ditto for the DPD, which - with Oswald's death while in custody - had to to pin the blame on Oswald as a sole assassin, by itself and/or in collaboration with others. The alternative was to admit it had arrested the wrong man, and allowed him to be murdered while in its custody. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for military intelligence of all branches of the service. I've always puzzled over how much Colonel Robert Jones seemed to immediately know about LHO - per Jones' HSCA testimony - yet nobody within the military volunteered that data to the Commission while it was sitting. By the time of Jones' admissions to the HSCA, Oswald's own military intelligence files had been "routinely" destroyed, as though he were any other run-of-the-mill leatherneck, thus depriving us the means to verify Jones' contentions.
None of the foregoing precludes individuals at each agency from being a part of the crime, of course. But collusion in the coverup doesn't necessarily demonstrate the colluders were [fore-]knowing participants in the crime.
QUOTE (Robert Charles-Dunne @ Jan 13 2005, 01:06 AM)
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Jan 12 2005, 07:10 AM)
Tim,
That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
Ron:
From my own perspective, I think it's important to draw a distinction between those who authored and executed the plan, and those who helped cover it up, because they're not necessarily the same people.
Allow me to hypothesize a scenario. You are John McCone. You arrive at work on 11/23/63, and are briefed by underlings. They claim that a few of your personnel may have been involved in the prior day's events. Despite the fact that you had no prior knowledge of those plans, you now must do all in your power to obscure the truth. To admit the truth is to invite the dismembering of your Agency, which you rightly view as a vital part of the nation's defense against an implacable Communist enemy. Disclosing the truth will not bring back the dead President, but will irreparably harm your Agency. Hence, you collude with others to ensure that your Agency isn't subjected to greater scrutiny than is necessary. This doesn't make you responsible for the President's murder, but does make you an accessory after the fact. Yet, what other viable choice is open to you?
Of course, it's a simplistic scenario, made only to illustrate a point. Aside from strict need-to-know compartmentalization being SOP at the Agency, I strongly suspect that McCone was completely out of the loop on any number of things, the result of what the Agency calls "selective briefing." Because DCIs were regularly questioned by Congressional intel committees, they were often shielded from the truth by their own underlings, to preclude sudden bursts of honesty while they were being grilled on the Hill.
[Moreover, McCone was Kennedy's nominee for DCI, after all, and by most accounts such a boy scout that when the anti-Castro plots came to his attention, he fretted he would be excommunicated from the Catholic church should those plots be made public. If McCone didn't even know about the attempts to whack Castro while they were current, as he insisted, whom within the Agency - presuming that anyone within the Agency had foreknowledge - would have made him privvy to plans to kill the US President?]
As for the coverup, I can see ample cause for virtually all agencies to collude in scuttling the truth, without it necessarily implicating them in the crime itself.
In a perfect world, FBI should have admitted that Oswald was well known to them [as the subsequent release of previously classified documents makes clear], but chose instead to claim no prior knowledge of him or his movements. To admit otherwise would only have raised questions about why the Bureau didn't monitor this man more closely. Given their role as Warren Commission "investigators" [conflict of interest, anyone?], one clearly sees why certain facts were filtered out of the data provided to the Commission. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for the Secret Service, already in the frying pan for its multiple failures in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not Oswald fit their criteria for inclusion in the Protective Registry, the presumption of his sole guilt after the fact only made it more obvious that he should have been included, irrespective of SS criteria for doing so. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for the CIA, the most obstructionist of all the agencies, and the one with the most incendiary data about Oswald: the Mexico City charade. Oswald meeting with the putative head of KGB's assassination department before Kennedy's murder might qualify as the kind of information one passes on to FBI, SS, et al. Oops.
Ditto for the DPD, which - with Oswald's death while in custody - had to to pin the blame on Oswald as a sole assassin, by itself and/or in collaboration with others. The alternative was to admit it had arrested the wrong man, and allowed him to be murdered while in its custody. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for military intelligence of all branches of the service. I've always puzzled over how much Colonel Robert Jones seemed to immediately know about LHO - per Jones' HSCA testimony - yet nobody within the military volunteered that data to the Commission while it was sitting. By the time of Jones' admissions to the HSCA, Oswald's own military intelligence files had been "routinely" destroyed, as though he were any other run-of-the-mill leatherneck, thus depriving us the means to verify Jones' contentions.
None of the foregoing precludes individuals at each agency from being a part of the crime, of course. But collusion in the coverup doesn't necessarily demonstrate the colluders were [fore-]knowing participants in the crime.
______________________________
The Castro speech I have scanned to this forum is primarily the first page and then 4-5 more pages, as it is a very long speech (as we know Castro does that). I first found this speech in the work of Paris Flommonde who did the very first book on the Garrison inverstigation. In fact he so titled it (to best of memory going back to 74)"An UNcommissioned report into the invertigation of Jim Garrison).
Castro's remarks are extremely illustrative of how very insightful he was so quickly after the assassination. I took these pages today from the longer version of the speech from Dr Marty Schotz' book, "History Will Not Absolve Us". I do hope the words can be enlarged enough to be legible as I was only able to scan, but not enlarge the print.
Hoperfully his words will put to rest once and for all the innane notion that "Castro did it". (Or as I have always called it "cover story no 2). LBJ KNEW BETTER, he knew tape was running when he was making those comments. LBJ knew damn well Castro did NOT kill JFK.
Dawn
Some people have argued that "it did not make sense for Castro to kill JFK."
I diifer with that viewpoint. The US government continued its efforts to kill Castro, and Desmond Fitzgerald told Rolando Cubela that Robert F. Kennedy had personally endorsed Cubela's plot to kill Castro. How could he possibly do any worse under Johnson? And in the event, if it was Castro who killed Kennedy, his gamble paid off for LBJ did shut down the efforts to kill Castro, the sabotage raids, etc. (See last paragraph.)
There is another, humorous answer to this objection. Not only is it humorous, I think there is some point to it.
It comes from Paul Hoch (although he is not himself a proponent of the "Castro-did-it" theory).
"Sure, it didn't make sense for Castro to want to kill Kennedy, but if making sense is the only criterion, how can we explain the plots to kill Castro?" (Paul Hoch, in Echoes of Conspiracy.)
Hoch has a point. We are all familiar with some of the outlandish schemes concocted by Edward Lansdale and Desmond Fitzgerald. In his memoirs, "Inside", Joseph Califano describes another outlandish scheme.proposed on February 14, 1963 by the Chief of Naval Operations: "Attach incendiary devices to bats and drop them over training centers. Bats retire to attics during daylight. Incendiary devices ignite by timers and start fires."
I'd say some of these people had bats in their belfries!
By the way, Califano states in his memoirs that soon after he took office Johnson ordered an end to covert activities against Cuba. Califano traveled around the country in February of 1964 to give this message to the anti-Castro exiles.
Despite what Dawn says, I believe LBJ thought Castro did it. Maybe he suspended the anti-Castro activities because he did not want to be on Fidel's hit list!
I diifer with that viewpoint. The US government continued its efforts to kill Castro, and Desmond Fitzgerald told Rolando Cubela that Robert F. Kennedy had personally endorsed Cubela's plot to kill Castro. How could he possibly do any worse under Johnson? And in the event, if it was Castro who killed Kennedy, his gamble paid off for LBJ did shut down the efforts to kill Castro, the sabotage raids, etc. (See last paragraph.)
There is another, humorous answer to this objection. Not only is it humorous, I think there is some point to it.
It comes from Paul Hoch (although he is not himself a proponent of the "Castro-did-it" theory).
"Sure, it didn't make sense for Castro to want to kill Kennedy, but if making sense is the only criterion, how can we explain the plots to kill Castro?" (Paul Hoch, in Echoes of Conspiracy.)
Hoch has a point. We are all familiar with some of the outlandish schemes concocted by Edward Lansdale and Desmond Fitzgerald. In his memoirs, "Inside", Joseph Califano describes another outlandish scheme.proposed on February 14, 1963 by the Chief of Naval Operations: "Attach incendiary devices to bats and drop them over training centers. Bats retire to attics during daylight. Incendiary devices ignite by timers and start fires."
I'd say some of these people had bats in their belfries!
By the way, Califano states in his memoirs that soon after he took office Johnson ordered an end to covert activities against Cuba. Califano traveled around the country in February of 1964 to give this message to the anti-Castro exiles.
Despite what Dawn says, I believe LBJ thought Castro did it. Maybe he suspended the anti-Castro activities because he did not want to be on Fidel's hit list!
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
"Arguendo, let's suppose Castro plotted against Kennedy. Would he have selected a fallguy whose own personal history tracked straight back to Moscow and Cuba?"
Therefore you must believe LHO was a sincere leftist, Castro-lover, I take it?
What if, as many suspect, LHO was an agent of U.S. intelligence? Then it would make perfet sense to make LHO the patsy, guaranteeing a cover-up.
"Arguendo, let's suppose Castro plotted against Kennedy. Would he have selected a fallguy whose own personal history tracked straight back to Moscow and Cuba?"
Therefore you must believe LHO was a sincere leftist, Castro-lover, I take it?
What if, as many suspect, LHO was an agent of U.S. intelligence? Then it would make perfet sense to make LHO the patsy, guaranteeing a cover-up.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Jan 13 2005, 08:26 AM)
Despite what Dawn says, I believe LBJ thought Castro did it. Maybe he suspended the anti-Castro activities because he did not want to be on Fidel's hit list!
I suspect that LBJ suspended the anti-Castro activities because they had proven to be a stupid waste of time. And LBJ had no intention of starting off his own presidency with his own Bay of Pigs, "covertly" supporting another exile invasion of Cuba with no guarantee of success. If leaving Castro alone meant again betraying the anti-Castro Cubans, so be it. He had Vietnam to worry about, an issue that probably played a significant role in his predecessor's death. LBJ knew we'd be going to war there after the 1964 election and he was going to need support (along with some convenient provocation, hence the Gulf of Tonkin resolution). Another Cuba fiasco was the last thing he needed.
Ron
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
The fact that any number of people subscribe to any given theory doesn't give it weight or validity. Many more people than you cite above, who were far more involved in the investigations of the day, believed that Oswald acted alone. Does that make it true?
These people were unaware of our country's efforts to kill Castro. The CIA chose not to tell the Warren Commission. Richard Helms said "We were never asked." At least one WC staff counsel said that had the WC known about the Castro polts it would have proceeded much differently.
And, as I am sure you know, much other evidence was withheld from the WC, some pointing to Cuban involvement.
WC did not know that Ruby helped negotiate Trafficante's release from Cuban jail in 1959.
WC did not know Trafficante was acting as paymaster for Castro intelligence agents in U.S.
CIA never told WC about Cubela, so obviously WC did not know about Cubela's links to Trafficante and to Valery Kostikov.
The cover-up may have prevented a nuclear exchange in 1964. But now it is time to get to the truth!
The fact that any number of people subscribe to any given theory doesn't give it weight or validity. Many more people than you cite above, who were far more involved in the investigations of the day, believed that Oswald acted alone. Does that make it true?
These people were unaware of our country's efforts to kill Castro. The CIA chose not to tell the Warren Commission. Richard Helms said "We were never asked." At least one WC staff counsel said that had the WC known about the Castro polts it would have proceeded much differently.
And, as I am sure you know, much other evidence was withheld from the WC, some pointing to Cuban involvement.
WC did not know that Ruby helped negotiate Trafficante's release from Cuban jail in 1959.
WC did not know Trafficante was acting as paymaster for Castro intelligence agents in U.S.
CIA never told WC about Cubela, so obviously WC did not know about Cubela's links to Trafficante and to Valery Kostikov.
The cover-up may have prevented a nuclear exchange in 1964. But now it is time to get to the truth!
Ron Ecker wrote:
I suspect that LBJ suspended the anti-Castro activities because they had proven to be a stupid waste of time. And LBJ had no intention of starting off his own presidency with his own Bay of Pigs, "covertly" supporting another exile invasion of Cuba with no guarantee of success. If leaving Castro alone meant again betraying the anti-Castro Cubans, so be it. He had Vietnam to worry about, an issue that probably played a significant role in his predecessor's death. LBJ knew we'd be going to war there after the 1964 election and he was going to need support (along with some convenient provocation, hence the Gulf of Tonkin resolution). Another Cuba fiasco was the last thing he needed.
Ron, absolutely right! So Castro's gambit worked! He got the Kennedy brothers off his back!
(And we got the War in Vietnam!)
I suspect that LBJ suspended the anti-Castro activities because they had proven to be a stupid waste of time. And LBJ had no intention of starting off his own presidency with his own Bay of Pigs, "covertly" supporting another exile invasion of Cuba with no guarantee of success. If leaving Castro alone meant again betraying the anti-Castro Cubans, so be it. He had Vietnam to worry about, an issue that probably played a significant role in his predecessor's death. LBJ knew we'd be going to war there after the 1964 election and he was going to need support (along with some convenient provocation, hence the Gulf of Tonkin resolution). Another Cuba fiasco was the last thing he needed.
Ron, absolutely right! So Castro's gambit worked! He got the Kennedy brothers off his back!
(And we got the War in Vietnam!)
Tim,
Considering all the evidence, and applying Occam's Razor, JFK was assassinated by powers within the U.S. government, powers in a position to cover up their own deed. Those powers (as institutions, and whatever individuals are left who were involved) are still covering up, and as institutions probably always will.
Ron
Considering all the evidence, and applying Occam's Razor, JFK was assassinated by powers within the U.S. government, powers in a position to cover up their own deed. Those powers (as institutions, and whatever individuals are left who were involved) are still covering up, and as institutions probably always will.
Ron
Ron, I agree that if the cover-up was accomplished by the conspirators, then, quite obviously, neither Castro nor Leonid Brezhnev did it.
But it is not necessarily true that the cover-up was accomplished by the conspirators. Certainly not all of the cover-up was.
For instance, RFK participated in the cover-up and I think we would all agree he did not do it.
So if some of the cover-up was by non-conspirators, it cannot be concluded that any of the cover-up was by a conspirator.
Therefore, the cover-up does not disprove that Castro did it.
I hope to demonstrate that the weight of the evidence indicates Castro did it.
What evidence, if any, supports a theory that, for instance, the CIA or any of its rogue elephants did it? From all I can tell, it boils down to: (a) arguably some CIA members had a motive; (
in drunken braggadocia, one CIA agent boasted about how "we took care of that (blankety-blank) Kennedy; and © some of the photographs of Dealey Plaza show men who look like they may be recognizable CIA agents.
What other hard evidence exists that anyone in the CIA did it?
But it is not necessarily true that the cover-up was accomplished by the conspirators. Certainly not all of the cover-up was.
For instance, RFK participated in the cover-up and I think we would all agree he did not do it.
So if some of the cover-up was by non-conspirators, it cannot be concluded that any of the cover-up was by a conspirator.
Therefore, the cover-up does not disprove that Castro did it.
I hope to demonstrate that the weight of the evidence indicates Castro did it.
What evidence, if any, supports a theory that, for instance, the CIA or any of its rogue elephants did it? From all I can tell, it boils down to: (a) arguably some CIA members had a motive; (
in drunken braggadocia, one CIA agent boasted about how "we took care of that (blankety-blank) Kennedy; and © some of the photographs of Dealey Plaza show men who look like they may be recognizable CIA agents.What other hard evidence exists that anyone in the CIA did it?
Tim,
In considering all the usual suspects, one has to look at means, motive, and opportunity, and who had the power to cover up. Many people, such as Castro, the Mafia, and the Russians had means, motive, and opportunity, but not the power to cover up the deed. Who does that leave? I would put the CIA, FBI, military, and LBJ at the top of the list, in no particular order but probably as a conspiratorial group.
Offhand I would say there is no hard evidence against any of them, just plenty of circumstantial evidence against all of them.
Ron
In considering all the usual suspects, one has to look at means, motive, and opportunity, and who had the power to cover up. Many people, such as Castro, the Mafia, and the Russians had means, motive, and opportunity, but not the power to cover up the deed. Who does that leave? I would put the CIA, FBI, military, and LBJ at the top of the list, in no particular order but probably as a conspiratorial group.
Offhand I would say there is no hard evidence against any of them, just plenty of circumstantial evidence against all of them.
Ron
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jan 13 2005, 02:50 AM)
QUOTE (Robert Charles-Dunne @ Jan 13 2005, 01:06 AM)
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Jan 12 2005, 07:10 AM)
Tim,
That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
That's why I don't buy the idea that it's a mistake to think that those who planned the assassination are also those who covered it up. I think that those who planned the assassination are exactly those who covered it up. No one would commit such a crime without a plan in place to cover their tracks instead of depending on someone else to hopefully do it for whatever reasons. That would be like invading Iraq with no exit strategy, which we all know would be stupid. Who would do it?
Ron
Ron:
From my own perspective, I think it's important to draw a distinction between those who authored and executed the plan, and those who helped cover it up, because they're not necessarily the same people.
Allow me to hypothesize a scenario. You are John McCone. You arrive at work on 11/23/63, and are briefed by underlings. They claim that a few of your personnel may have been involved in the prior day's events. Despite the fact that you had no prior knowledge of those plans, you now must do all in your power to obscure the truth. To admit the truth is to invite the dismembering of your Agency, which you rightly view as a vital part of the nation's defense against an implacable Communist enemy. Disclosing the truth will not bring back the dead President, but will irreparably harm your Agency. Hence, you collude with others to ensure that your Agency isn't subjected to greater scrutiny than is necessary. This doesn't make you responsible for the President's murder, but does make you an accessory after the fact. Yet, what other viable choice is open to you?
Of course, it's a simplistic scenario, made only to illustrate a point. Aside from strict need-to-know compartmentalization being SOP at the Agency, I strongly suspect that McCone was completely out of the loop on any number of things, the result of what the Agency calls "selective briefing." Because DCIs were regularly questioned by Congressional intel committees, they were often shielded from the truth by their own underlings, to preclude sudden bursts of honesty while they were being grilled on the Hill.
[Moreover, McCone was Kennedy's nominee for DCI, after all, and by most accounts such a boy scout that when the anti-Castro plots came to his attention, he fretted he would be excommunicated from the Catholic church should those plots be made public. If McCone didn't even know about the attempts to whack Castro while they were current, as he insisted, whom within the Agency - presuming that anyone within the Agency had foreknowledge - would have made him privvy to plans to kill the US President?]
As for the coverup, I can see ample cause for virtually all agencies to collude in scuttling the truth, without it necessarily implicating them in the crime itself.
In a perfect world, FBI should have admitted that Oswald was well known to them [as the subsequent release of previously classified documents makes clear], but chose instead to claim no prior knowledge of him or his movements. To admit otherwise would only have raised questions about why the Bureau didn't monitor this man more closely. Given their role as Warren Commission "investigators" [conflict of interest, anyone?], one clearly sees why certain facts were filtered out of the data provided to the Commission. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for the Secret Service, already in the frying pan for its multiple failures in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not Oswald fit their criteria for inclusion in the Protective Registry, the presumption of his sole guilt after the fact only made it more obvious that he should have been included, irrespective of SS criteria for doing so. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for the CIA, the most obstructionist of all the agencies, and the one with the most incendiary data about Oswald: the Mexico City charade. Oswald meeting with the putative head of KGB's assassination department before Kennedy's murder might qualify as the kind of information one passes on to FBI, SS, et al. Oops.
Ditto for the DPD, which - with Oswald's death while in custody - had to to pin the blame on Oswald as a sole assassin, by itself and/or in collaboration with others. The alternative was to admit it had arrested the wrong man, and allowed him to be murdered while in its custody. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.]
Ditto for military intelligence of all branches of the service. I've always puzzled over how much Colonel Robert Jones seemed to immediately know about LHO - per Jones' HSCA testimony - yet nobody within the military volunteered that data to the Commission while it was sitting. By the time of Jones' admissions to the HSCA, Oswald's own military intelligence files had been "routinely" destroyed, as though he were any other run-of-the-mill leatherneck, thus depriving us the means to verify Jones' contentions.
None of the foregoing precludes individuals at each agency from being a part of the crime, of course. But collusion in the coverup doesn't necessarily demonstrate the colluders were [fore-]knowing participants in the crime.
______________________________
The Castro speech I have scanned to this forum is primarily the first page and then 4-5 more pages, as it is a very long speech (as we know Castro does that). I first found this speech in the work of Paris Flommonde who did the very first book on the Garrison inverstigation. In fact he so titled it (to best of memory going back to 74)"An UNcommissioned report into the invertigation of Jim Garrison).
Castro's remarks are extremely illustrative of how very insightful he was so quickly after the assassination. I took these pages today from the longer version of the speech from Dr Marty Schotz' book, "History Will Not Absolve Us". I do hope the words can be enlarged enough to be legible as I was only able to scan, but not enlarge the print.
Hoperfully his words will put to rest once and for all the innane notion that "Castro did it". (Or as I have always called it "cover story no 2). LBJ KNEW BETTER, he knew tape was running when he was making those comments. LBJ knew damn well Castro did NOT kill JFK.
Dawn
_______________________________
If someone has Marty Schotz book History Will Not Absolve Us, would you please post the portions of Castro's speech that I scanned to John yesterday, they were not good quality he said, sometning to so with not right scanning equipment. I think it is very important that readers on this thread read these words. I began with the start of the speech on p, 53, then pages 76-79. If someone else could post this I would greatly appreciate it.
Dawn.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Jan 13 2005, 10:59 AM)
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
"Arguendo, let's suppose Castro plotted against Kennedy. Would he have selected a fallguy whose own personal history tracked straight back to Moscow and Cuba?"
Therefore you must believe LHO was a sincere leftist, Castro-lover, I take it?
Obviously not, as was made clear in the very next lines of my post [which I've made bold, below], which you chose to delete, rather than acknowledge: "Would he have instructed that fallguy to make ostentatious - but entirely superficial - attempts to found a FPCC chapter in NOLA? Would he have instructed the fallguy to make repeated visits to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City - knowing full well that this facility was under photographic and telephonic surveillance by CIA - for no purpose other than to create the illusion Cuba was behind his subsequent murder of the President? Seems rather self-defeating, doesn't it?"
What if, as many suspect, LHO was an agent of U.S. intelligence? Then it would make perfet sense to make LHO the patsy, guaranteeing a cover-up.
"Arguendo, let's suppose Castro plotted against Kennedy. Would he have selected a fallguy whose own personal history tracked straight back to Moscow and Cuba?"
Therefore you must believe LHO was a sincere leftist, Castro-lover, I take it?
Obviously not, as was made clear in the very next lines of my post [which I've made bold, below], which you chose to delete, rather than acknowledge: "Would he have instructed that fallguy to make ostentatious - but entirely superficial - attempts to found a FPCC chapter in NOLA? Would he have instructed the fallguy to make repeated visits to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City - knowing full well that this facility was under photographic and telephonic surveillance by CIA - for no purpose other than to create the illusion Cuba was behind his subsequent murder of the President? Seems rather self-defeating, doesn't it?"
What if, as many suspect, LHO was an agent of U.S. intelligence? Then it would make perfet sense to make LHO the patsy, guaranteeing a cover-up.
OK, let's assume LHO was US intelligence asset, as I do suspect. Yes, it would guarantee a coverup. And your Castro scenario becomes entirely superfluous, in the absense of any evidence that it existed. Unless, that is. you can provide any documentation that US intelligence operative Oswald advised his case officer of Cuban intelligence approaches to him.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Jan 13 2005, 11:16 AM)
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
The fact that any number of people subscribe to any given theory doesn't give it weight or validity. Many more people than you cite above, who were far more involved in the investigations of the day, believed that Oswald acted alone. Does that make it true?
These people were unaware of our country's efforts to kill Castro. The CIA chose not to tell the Warren Commission. Richard Helms said "We were never asked." At least one WC staff counsel said that had the WC known about the Castro polts it would have proceeded much differently.
"Unaware?" You might have noticed that one of the Commissioners was a chap named Dulles. You know, the bloke on whose watch as DCI those self-same "efforts to kill Castro" were first hatched. You might also have noticed that neither Dulles nor any of his former colleagues rushed to volunteer this information for the Commission's consideration. Any guesses why?
And, as I am sure you know, much other evidence was withheld from the WC, some pointing to Cuban involvement.
Citation please. What "evidence pointing to Cuban involvement" was withheld? Does it pass the sniff test? The laugh test?
WC did not know that Ruby helped negotiate Trafficante's release from Cuban jail in 1959.
And we still don't. McWillie allowed that Ruby may have accompanied him during one of McWillie's visits to Trafficante in prison. That's still a long way from making him a "negotiator" on Trafficante's behalf. Moreover, there may have been an entirely different person Ruby wished to visit there, as is suggested by McWillie's own HSCA testimony.
WC did not know Trafficante was acting as paymaster for Castro intelligence agents in U.S.
And we still don't, in the absense of you posting any actual evidence. Citation please.
CIA never told WC about Cubela, so obviously WC did not know about Cubela's links to Trafficante and to Valery Kostikov.
Obviously, if Cubela was still operational [as the 1967 CIA Inspector General's Report makes clear] while the Commission was sitting, this would not be disclosed. But it wasn't Trafficante or Kostikov who recruited Cubela to kill Kennedy [unless you finally post some evidence for this pet supposition]; it was the CIA who recruited Cubela to kill Castro, for which we have CIA's own admission.
The cover-up may have prevented a nuclear exchange in 1964. But now it is time to get to the truth!
The fact that any number of people subscribe to any given theory doesn't give it weight or validity. Many more people than you cite above, who were far more involved in the investigations of the day, believed that Oswald acted alone. Does that make it true?
These people were unaware of our country's efforts to kill Castro. The CIA chose not to tell the Warren Commission. Richard Helms said "We were never asked." At least one WC staff counsel said that had the WC known about the Castro polts it would have proceeded much differently.
"Unaware?" You might have noticed that one of the Commissioners was a chap named Dulles. You know, the bloke on whose watch as DCI those self-same "efforts to kill Castro" were first hatched. You might also have noticed that neither Dulles nor any of his former colleagues rushed to volunteer this information for the Commission's consideration. Any guesses why?
And, as I am sure you know, much other evidence was withheld from the WC, some pointing to Cuban involvement.
Citation please. What "evidence pointing to Cuban involvement" was withheld? Does it pass the sniff test? The laugh test?
WC did not know that Ruby helped negotiate Trafficante's release from Cuban jail in 1959.
And we still don't. McWillie allowed that Ruby may have accompanied him during one of McWillie's visits to Trafficante in prison. That's still a long way from making him a "negotiator" on Trafficante's behalf. Moreover, there may have been an entirely different person Ruby wished to visit there, as is suggested by McWillie's own HSCA testimony.
WC did not know Trafficante was acting as paymaster for Castro intelligence agents in U.S.
And we still don't, in the absense of you posting any actual evidence. Citation please.
CIA never told WC about Cubela, so obviously WC did not know about Cubela's links to Trafficante and to Valery Kostikov.
Obviously, if Cubela was still operational [as the 1967 CIA Inspector General's Report makes clear] while the Commission was sitting, this would not be disclosed. But it wasn't Trafficante or Kostikov who recruited Cubela to kill Kennedy [unless you finally post some evidence for this pet supposition]; it was the CIA who recruited Cubela to kill Castro, for which we have CIA's own admission.
The cover-up may have prevented a nuclear exchange in 1964. But now it is time to get to the truth!
I doubt we'll get any closer to the truth by posting pet theories that don't synch with known facts. On the contrary, we must parse the facts - not delete or ignore them - in order to arrive at the truth.
QUOTE (Larry Hancock @ Jul 20 2005, 02:06 PM)
First, I have to say that most of us who have seriously wrestled with the conspiracy make use of the type of source material which is being discussed here - in this particular case Veciana's remarks about Phillips and Veciana's cousin in the MC embassy has some real potential value.
The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deepley involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK. The first is to cast suspicion on Castro for JFK's murder, that is so consistent as to be almost universal and its pretty easy to understand why. The second is to disclaim that they really had nothing against JFK and he was OK - that's not quite as universal but its frequently said by individuals who are on record saying the exact opposite when not talking to an interviewer.
I've seen more than one interview including approaches to the FBI by exiles with stories about Castro agents in DP, in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness. Reminds me of Roselli telling his media friends he could name the Castro agents involved in the hit on JFK and the only individual he eventually was forced to cite was found be found was a long term inmate in a mental hospital.
Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.
....OK, so that's my estimate of the data... Larry
The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deepley involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK. The first is to cast suspicion on Castro for JFK's murder, that is so consistent as to be almost universal and its pretty easy to understand why. The second is to disclaim that they really had nothing against JFK and he was OK - that's not quite as universal but its frequently said by individuals who are on record saying the exact opposite when not talking to an interviewer.
I've seen more than one interview including approaches to the FBI by exiles with stories about Castro agents in DP, in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness. Reminds me of Roselli telling his media friends he could name the Castro agents involved in the hit on JFK and the only individual he eventually was forced to cite was found be found was a long term inmate in a mental hospital.
Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.
....OK, so that's my estimate of the data... Larry
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Jul 20 2005, 03:24 PM)
QUOTE (Larry Hancock @ Jul 20 2005, 02:06 PM)
First, I have to say that most of us who have seriously wrestled with the conspiracy make use of the type of source material which is being discussed here - in this particular case Veciana's remarks about Phillips and Veciana's cousin in the MC embassy has some real potential value.
The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deepley involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK. The first is to cast suspicion on Castro for JFK's murder, that is so consistent as to be almost universal and its pretty easy to understand why. The second is to disclaim that they really had nothing against JFK and he was OK - that's not quite as universal but its frequently said by individuals who are on record saying the exact opposite when not talking to an interviewer.
I've seen more than one interview including approaches to the FBI by exiles with stories about Castro agents in DP, in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness. Reminds me of Roselli telling his media friends he could name the Castro agents involved in the hit on JFK and the only individual he eventually was forced to cite was found be found was a long term inmate in a mental hospital.
Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.
....OK, so that's my estimate of the data... Larry
The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deepley involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK. The first is to cast suspicion on Castro for JFK's murder, that is so consistent as to be almost universal and its pretty easy to understand why. The second is to disclaim that they really had nothing against JFK and he was OK - that's not quite as universal but its frequently said by individuals who are on record saying the exact opposite when not talking to an interviewer.
I've seen more than one interview including approaches to the FBI by exiles with stories about Castro agents in DP, in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness. Reminds me of Roselli telling his media friends he could name the Castro agents involved in the hit on JFK and the only individual he eventually was forced to cite was found be found was a long term inmate in a mental hospital.
Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.
....OK, so that's my estimate of the data... Larry
LHO was nowhere near the experienced actor that was John Wilkes Booth, and therefore highly "overplayed" his role.
1. Attempt to point finger at Castro through Fair Play for Cuba.
2. Attempt to point finger at Castro through visit to Embassy in Mexico.
3. Attempt to point finger at Castro through purchase of guns from McKeon,
known arms provided to Castro.
4. Superficial contact with a variety of liberal elements.
As an old experienced squirrel hunter, I am reminded of how an experienced squirrel will run on the ground jumping onto one tree, only to jump off and run to other trees doing and repeating the same actions.
Many a good squirrel dog has been mislead by these planned antics, and is frequently found to be "barking up the wrong tree".
When placed into proper perspective, most of the actions of LHO demonstrate a planned actions, with some specific intent.
The FPCC altercation event on the streets of New Orleans is a prime example of how this act of the play was written.
Tom
In July, 1967, a British journalist, Comer Clark, interviewed Fidel Castro. During the conversation Castro told Clark that Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City in September, 1963. The first time he told Cuban officials he wanted to work for them (Cuba). However, he was unwilling to discuss what he meant by this. The second time he said he wanted to “free Cuba from American imperialism”. Then he said “somebody ought to shoot that President Kennedy… maybe I’ll try to do it.”
When he heard this information Castro thought there was two possible explanations for Oswald’s behaviour: (1) Oswald was mentally unstable and was not to be taken seriously: (2) Oswald was part of some right-wing conspiracy that was looking for an opportunity to persuade the US army to invade Cuba. Castro came to the conclusion that he was mentally unstable. After the assassination of JFK he realised he was part of a right-wing conspiracy.
Castro’s story is actually supported by none other than J. Edgar Hoover. On 17th June, 1964, Hoover sent by special courier, a top-secret letter to Lee J. Rankin of the Warren Commission. The letter said “through a confidential source which has furnished reliable information in the past, we have been advised of some statements made by Fidel Castro, Cuban Prime Minister, concerning the assassination of President Kennedy.”
This letter was classified and even when it was released in 1976 what Castro said was deleted. The full details of this letter was not published until the appearance of Daniel Schorr’s book, Clearing the Air (1977). Schorr discovered that the letter basically repeated what Castro had told Comer Clark in 1967. However, it went into more detail about what he believed was a right-wing conspiracy to provoke an invasion of Cuba.
When he heard this information Castro thought there was two possible explanations for Oswald’s behaviour: (1) Oswald was mentally unstable and was not to be taken seriously: (2) Oswald was part of some right-wing conspiracy that was looking for an opportunity to persuade the US army to invade Cuba. Castro came to the conclusion that he was mentally unstable. After the assassination of JFK he realised he was part of a right-wing conspiracy.
Castro’s story is actually supported by none other than J. Edgar Hoover. On 17th June, 1964, Hoover sent by special courier, a top-secret letter to Lee J. Rankin of the Warren Commission. The letter said “through a confidential source which has furnished reliable information in the past, we have been advised of some statements made by Fidel Castro, Cuban Prime Minister, concerning the assassination of President Kennedy.”
This letter was classified and even when it was released in 1976 what Castro said was deleted. The full details of this letter was not published until the appearance of Daniel Schorr’s book, Clearing the Air (1977). Schorr discovered that the letter basically repeated what Castro had told Comer Clark in 1967. However, it went into more detail about what he believed was a right-wing conspiracy to provoke an invasion of Cuba.
I wonder if that may go some way to explaining the backyard photos for me. I find them puzzling, pointless even. I still don't get fully their significance. They have such a theatrical nature about them. (please note this is not a statement on their authenticity, but rather a comment on a possible explanation that may fit a picture of Oswald as an (or part of a group) of agent/s provocateur/s should they be found to be genuine.)
Agent provocateur (quoted in entirity from wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
"NOUN: a·gent pro·vo·ca·teur (-zhä prô-vôkä-tr) (plural: agents provocateurs) :
A person employed to associate with suspected individuals or groups with the purpose of inciting them to commit acts that will make them liable to punishment."
"An agent provocateur is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provocateurs seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.
An agent provocateur is often a police officer whose duty is to make sure suspected individual(s) carry out a crime to guarantee their punishment; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime the provocateur suggested. The phrase comes from the French language, where it means, roughly, "inciting agent".
The activities of agents provocateurs are typically called sting operations. Agents provocateurs are typically used to investigate consensual or "victimless" crimes; since each participant in such a crime is a willing participant, only a police spy posing as a fellow participant in criminal activity is likely to be able to uncover such a crime.
Agents provocateurs are also used against political opponents. Here, it has been documented that provocateurs deliberately carry out or seek to incite counter-productive and/or ineffective acts, in order to foster public disdain for the group and provide a pretext for aggression; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of political groups the U.S. government found unacceptably radical, such as the Black Panthers. However, since there is some evidence that the Black Panther organization was itself established as a provocation, aimed at disrupting and discrediting the integrationist program and coalition politics strategy of the Civil Rights Movement, this example drawn from FBI archives may be deliberately deceptive. The activities of agents provocateurs against dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution.
The activities of agents provocateurs pose a number of ethical and legal issues. Within common law jurisdictions, the law of entrapment seeks to discern whether the provocateur's target intended to commit the crime he participated in with the provocateur, or whether the suggestion to commit the crime began with the provocateur. It is also debatable whether the institutionalized deception that the use of agents provocateurs implies is in fact more harmful to the social order than the various consensual offenses typically investigated by provocateurs."
Agent provocateur (quoted in entirity from wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
"NOUN: a·gent pro·vo·ca·teur (-zhä prô-vôkä-tr) (plural: agents provocateurs) :
A person employed to associate with suspected individuals or groups with the purpose of inciting them to commit acts that will make them liable to punishment."
"An agent provocateur is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provocateurs seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.
An agent provocateur is often a police officer whose duty is to make sure suspected individual(s) carry out a crime to guarantee their punishment; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime the provocateur suggested. The phrase comes from the French language, where it means, roughly, "inciting agent".
The activities of agents provocateurs are typically called sting operations. Agents provocateurs are typically used to investigate consensual or "victimless" crimes; since each participant in such a crime is a willing participant, only a police spy posing as a fellow participant in criminal activity is likely to be able to uncover such a crime.
Agents provocateurs are also used against political opponents. Here, it has been documented that provocateurs deliberately carry out or seek to incite counter-productive and/or ineffective acts, in order to foster public disdain for the group and provide a pretext for aggression; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of political groups the U.S. government found unacceptably radical, such as the Black Panthers. However, since there is some evidence that the Black Panther organization was itself established as a provocation, aimed at disrupting and discrediting the integrationist program and coalition politics strategy of the Civil Rights Movement, this example drawn from FBI archives may be deliberately deceptive. The activities of agents provocateurs against dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution.
The activities of agents provocateurs pose a number of ethical and legal issues. Within common law jurisdictions, the law of entrapment seeks to discern whether the provocateur's target intended to commit the crime he participated in with the provocateur, or whether the suggestion to commit the crime began with the provocateur. It is also debatable whether the institutionalized deception that the use of agents provocateurs implies is in fact more harmful to the social order than the various consensual offenses typically investigated by provocateurs."
I have also just read Michael R. Beschloss’s “Kennedy v. Khrushchev: The Crisis Years: 1960-1963”. Beschloss is considered to be the most well-informed historians today writing about JFK’s foreign policy. In the final section of the book Beschloss considers the possibility of JFK being killed as a result of a conspiracy. Understandably he dismisses the idea that JFK was killed by the KGB or Castro. Beschloss points out that JFK’s death was a terrible political blow to both Khrushchev and Castro.
Beschloss argues that if it was a communist plot it would have originated in China. After all, the Chinese government, like right-wingers in America, were very concerned about the successful negotiations that were taking place between the United States and the Soviet Union. Beschloss points out that the only places where school children applauded when told of the JFK assassination, was in China and Dallas. He quotes Henry Brandon of the Sunday Times who visited the Soviet Union a month after the assassination and was surprised to find the mourning was “almost more intense in Moscow than in Washington”. Time and time again he was asked, “do you think Johnson organized the assassination?”
Beschloss clams that documents released since the fall of communism conforms that senior figures in the Soviet Union believed that JFK had been “murdered by the CIA, which could not forgive him for the Bay of Pigs and the Soviet détente”. These sources also show that the Soviets considered LBJ to be “reactionary” and “inflexible” and a more doctrinaire Cold War warrior than JFK. It of course made no sense for them to kill JFK.
Beschloss argues that if it was a communist plot it would have originated in China. After all, the Chinese government, like right-wingers in America, were very concerned about the successful negotiations that were taking place between the United States and the Soviet Union. Beschloss points out that the only places where school children applauded when told of the JFK assassination, was in China and Dallas. He quotes Henry Brandon of the Sunday Times who visited the Soviet Union a month after the assassination and was surprised to find the mourning was “almost more intense in Moscow than in Washington”. Time and time again he was asked, “do you think Johnson organized the assassination?”
Beschloss clams that documents released since the fall of communism conforms that senior figures in the Soviet Union believed that JFK had been “murdered by the CIA, which could not forgive him for the Bay of Pigs and the Soviet détente”. These sources also show that the Soviets considered LBJ to be “reactionary” and “inflexible” and a more doctrinaire Cold War warrior than JFK. It of course made no sense for them to kill JFK.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Oct 21 2005, 04:20 PM)
I have also just read Michael R. Beschloss’s “Kennedy v. Khrushchev: The Crisis Years: 1960-1963”. Beschloss is considered to be the most well-informed historians today writing about JFK’s foreign policy. In the final section of the book Beschloss considers the possibility of JFK being killed as a result of a conspiracy. Understandably he dismisses the idea that JFK was killed by the KGB or Castro. Beschloss points out that JFK’s death was a terrible political blow to both Khrushchev and Castro.
Beschloss argues that if it was a communist plot it would have originated in China. After all, the Chinese government, like right-wingers in America, were very concerned about the successful negotiations that were taking place between the United States and the Soviet Union. Beschloss points out that the only places where school children applauded when told of the JFK assassination, was in China and Dallas. He quotes Henry Brandon of the Sunday Times who visited the Soviet Union a month after the assassination and was surprised to find the mourning was “almost more intense in Moscow than in Washington”. Time and time again he was asked, “do you think Johnson organized the assassination?”
Beschloss clams that documents released since the fall of communism conforms that senior figures in the Soviet Union believed that JFK had been “murdered by the CIA, which could not forgive him for the Bay of Pigs and the Soviet détente”. These sources also show that the Soviets considered LBJ to be “reactionary” and “inflexible” and a more doctrinaire Cold War warrior than JFK. It of course made no sense for them to kill JFK.
Beschloss argues that if it was a communist plot it would have originated in China. After all, the Chinese government, like right-wingers in America, were very concerned about the successful negotiations that were taking place between the United States and the Soviet Union. Beschloss points out that the only places where school children applauded when told of the JFK assassination, was in China and Dallas. He quotes Henry Brandon of the Sunday Times who visited the Soviet Union a month after the assassination and was surprised to find the mourning was “almost more intense in Moscow than in Washington”. Time and time again he was asked, “do you think Johnson organized the assassination?”
Beschloss clams that documents released since the fall of communism conforms that senior figures in the Soviet Union believed that JFK had been “murdered by the CIA, which could not forgive him for the Bay of Pigs and the Soviet détente”. These sources also show that the Soviets considered LBJ to be “reactionary” and “inflexible” and a more doctrinaire Cold War warrior than JFK. It of course made no sense for them to kill JFK.
The Soviet Union has, on more than one occassion, mistaken the "free enterprise" system of the money handlers of the US, with the CIA.
But, so have many American citizens.
Difference being, free enterprise has unlimited funds and frequently had little "oversight" of their actiivities.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Nov 5 2005, 12:49 PM)
Gus Russo does not claim that Castro did it but he does not exclude the possibility and his book is replete with evidence re Castro's motive and possible DGI agents in Dealey Plaza. I cannot post his entire book here. I can only encourage members to read it. But many, like Dawn, exclude the possibility that Castro did it and refuse to read Russo's book.
Similar situation exists with Trento's book.
If people want to seriously evaluate the evidence of Cuban involvement, they should read Russo's book, Trento's book and Kurtz's book. I do not claim to have substantial evidence other than those sources. well, let me amend that. I also believe Trento's book because I think Angleton was correct about many things, including the Nosenko affair. Further evidence would be that Richard Nagell claimed that the GRU had pre-knowledge of the upcoming assassination.
Everyone ought to know that I try to read just about everything I can about the assassination and I do not exclude any scenario provided there is some evidence to suggest it. Anyone who is sincere in wanting to solve the assassination ought to be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, and that would then include reading Russo, Trento and Kurtz. It is fine if they read the books with an open mind and then decide to reject them. But I don't think anyone can state he or she is willing to follow the evidence and then refuse to read those books.
Consider the evidence of DGI agents in Dealey Plaza. Robert Charles-Dunne writes off all such evidence solely because it is contained in CIA reports. One report came from the aunt of one of the agents, so Robert then argued the aunt was not a good source. I guess Robert would only believe it if the report included statements by both of the Cuban's parents and each of his siblings, and then only after each family member had undergone a polygraph examination.
Similar situation exists with Trento's book.
If people want to seriously evaluate the evidence of Cuban involvement, they should read Russo's book, Trento's book and Kurtz's book. I do not claim to have substantial evidence other than those sources. well, let me amend that. I also believe Trento's book because I think Angleton was correct about many things, including the Nosenko affair. Further evidence would be that Richard Nagell claimed that the GRU had pre-knowledge of the upcoming assassination.
Everyone ought to know that I try to read just about everything I can about the assassination and I do not exclude any scenario provided there is some evidence to suggest it. Anyone who is sincere in wanting to solve the assassination ought to be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, and that would then include reading Russo, Trento and Kurtz. It is fine if they read the books with an open mind and then decide to reject them. But I don't think anyone can state he or she is willing to follow the evidence and then refuse to read those books.
Consider the evidence of DGI agents in Dealey Plaza. Robert Charles-Dunne writes off all such evidence solely because it is contained in CIA reports. One report came from the aunt of one of the agents, so Robert then argued the aunt was not a good source. I guess Robert would only believe it if the report included statements by both of the Cuban's parents and each of his siblings, and then only after each family member had undergone a polygraph examination.
Russo, Trento and Kurtz all use the same evidence to suggest that Castro was in some way responsible for the assassination of JFK.
It is wrong to put Kurtz in the same camp as Russo and Trento. I rate his book, Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian's Perspective (1982), very highly. In fact, it is one of the few books on the assassination that has been written by a historian. Kurtz does not of course claim that Castro did order the assassination. Like anybody who knows anything about politics in 1963, Castro's motivation makes no sense at all. After all, JFK was in secret negotiations with Castro in 1963. JFK's attitude towards Castro had changed dramatically since the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is what concerned those who were really behind the assassination. Anyway, as Castro pointed out afterwards, why would he want JFK replaced by Lyndon Johnson. Also, any link between Castro and the assassination would have triggered a full-scale invasion of Cuba. It makes more sense that those violently opposed to Castro should want to set-up Castro in order to get the invasion that JFK refused to give them.
This is the evidence presented by Kurtz in his book:
The CIA knew that the Cuban government employed assassins and that it had actually carried out an assassination in Mexico. On 19 March 1964, the intelligence agency learned that a "Cuban-American" who was somehow "involved in the assassination" crossed the border from Texas to Mexico on 23 November, stayed in Mexico for four days, and flew to Cuba on 27 November. The CIA also received information that on 22 November, a Cubana Airlines flight from Mexico City to Havana was delayed for five hours until a passenger arrived in a private aircraft. The individual boarded the Cubana flight, and it left for Havana shortly before 11:00 p.m.
These occurrences clearly arouse suspicions of an assassination plot engineered by the Cuban government under Fidel Castro. Various items of information gleaned from the recently declassified FBI and CIA assassination files reinforce those suspicions. On 24 November 1963, for example, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent an urgent telegram to the FBI legation in Madrid: "Spanish Intelligence possesses a report that attributes president's assassination to Castro and claims that Oswald was acting as Cuban agent." The CIA also received similar information from several sources. One claimed that the Chinese Communists and Castro had masterminded the assassination. Another source claimed that a "Miss T" heard Cubans talking about having the president killed. Yet another source in Spain told the CIA that local Cuban officials asserted that Oswald "had nothing to do with Kennedy's murder."
Russo and Trento have gone further than Kurtz and have actually named the people who were probably involved in the assassination. Both these men got their information from sources within the CIA. In "The Secret History of the CIA" Trento writes: "In Angleton's theory, agents Policarpo and Casas, plus a third man whom Angleton would not name, separately worked their way to Dallas, where they met up and carried out the assassination." (page 266)
For some reason Russo and Trento trust the CIA on this issue. What could be their motivation for lying? They do not entertain the possibility that the CIA was involved in the assassination and this was part of a disinformation campaign.
Gerry McKnight tells me that Michael Kurtz has written a new book on the assassination. It will be interesting if he still believes that it is possible that Castro was behind the assassination.
QUOTE (Gerald McKnight @ Apr 26 2006, 12:25 PM)
I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Apr 27 2006, 07:27 AM)
By the way, I assume that this is the same Michael Kurtz who wrote "The Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective"? If so, does he still think it is possible that the Soviets were involved in the assassination?
The Kurtz I mention is the one you suspected. But from his ms that I reviewed for the Kansas Press he is now of the view that JFK was a victim of CIA or rogue US elements. However, while he does not believe Oswald shot JFK, he does deem it probable that Oswald shot Tippit. Go figure.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.