JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

What evidence of a conspiracy would we expect to find?

<< < (2/4) > >>

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 02, 2026, 08:51:30 PM ---All of those would be wonderful, but would they realistically be EXPECTED in a tight, compartmentalized Mafia hit of the POTUS - a hit that could literally destroy the organization if it went awry? Have a little respect for professionalism of the Mafia, willya? The American and Sicilian Mafia are estimated to have carried out thousands of successful hits over the past century. My expectation for the JFKA would be no more evidence than we have.

Alas, all of the Mafia-did-it books are not available on Kindle, so I'm going to have to load up on hard copies.

I know Larry Schnapf and Pat Speer lean toward the Mafia. I did a search on the Ed Forum and found what I expected: The Mafia gets little attention, and then only in the context of being a bit player in the elaborate and completely unbelievable LBJ, CIA and Everyone Else In the World Except Jackie and Hickey Conspiracy. The CT community simply cannot abide a conspiracy as dull and unsatisfying as the Mafia - just the Mafia.

--- End quote ---

There is as much evidence of Mafia involvement as there is for any other entity other than Oswald which is to say there is zero evidence. If you want to hypothesize a conspiracy for which you can find no evidence, that's your privilege. I choose to base my beliefs on real evidence.

Lance Payette:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 02, 2026, 09:19:21 PM ---There is as much evidence of Mafia involvement as there is for any other entity other than Oswald which is to say there is zero evidence. If you want to hypothesize a conspiracy for which you can find no evidence, that's your privilege. I choose to base my beliefs on real evidence.

--- End quote ---
Well, let's see: Frank Ragano, who was unquestionably one of the principal lawyers for Hoffa, Marcello and Trafficante, said there had long been hints of Mafia involvement in the JFKA and that Trafficante made a deathbed confession. Hearsay regarding deathbed confessions is admissible in court under the exceptions for "dying declarations' or "statements against interest" - but you, of course, knew this from Episode #89 of Perry Mason, where Big Louie confessed "Yeah, I killed da bum" and Perry responded "Son of a gun, Della, I didn't see that coming." Ergo, what Ragano says cannot be dismissed as "zero evidence." He should be and was scrutinized, but Blakey believed him.

You can keep saying "zero evidence" to everyone who disagrees with you, but your opinion that the evidence is inadequate does not equate to zero evidence.

Lest anyone think I'm hiding the ball, here is the Wokeypoodia section on Ragano's claims, including Bugliosi's opinion that they were bogus (no, really?).

JFK assassination claims

On January 14, 1992, Ragano told Jack Newfield of the New York Post that he relayed a request from Hoffa to Trafficante and Marcello asking that the two Mafia bosses kill Kennedy.[37] He repeated the claim two days later on ABC's Good Morning America,[38] in Newfield's Frontline report entitled JFK, Hoffa and Mob broadcast in November 1992,[39] and again in his 1994 autobiography Mob Lawyer.[8]

According to Ragano, he met Hoffa at the Teamsters' headquarters in Washington D.C. then delivered the message to Trafficante and Marcello a few days later in a meeting at the Royal Orleans Hotel in New Orleans.[37][38] He stated he was chosen by Hoffa because, as both Hoffa and Trafficante's lawyer, he could be assured of attorney–client privilege.[37] Ragano said that Jim Garrison served as a patsy for the New Orleans mob by disseminating theories that served to distract attention from mafia figures who were involved in the plot.[40]

Although Ragano believed he had received a few hints from both Trafficante and Marcello that they had somehow been involved in the Kennedy assassination, it was not until just before he died in 1987 that Trafficante, according to Ragano, made a direct confession to him. Ragano wrote that on March 13, 1987, a dying Trafficante (he died four days later) asked to meet him in Tampa for a hurried meeting. While riding in Ragano's car, Trafficante allegedly told Ragano in Sicilian: "Carlos e' futtutu. Non duvevamu ammazzari a Giovanni. Duvevamu ammazzari a Bobby," which Ragano translated as: "Carlos screwed up. We shouldn't have killed John. We should have killed Bobby."[41] Ragano stated three witnesses could support his statement that he met Trafficante in Tampa.[42] He refused to name them adding: "One guy is afraid of retaliation. The other guys are two doctors, who say they'll testify if they're summoned to court."[42]

In his book Reclaiming History: the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi has pointed out many flaws in Ragano's claims, including the fact that Trafficante was most likely not in Tampa on the day in question, but was rather in North Miami Beach receiving dialysis treatments.[43] Bugliosi argues that it is absurd to think that Marcello and Trafficante would get involved in plotting to assassinate a president, particularly as nothing more than a supposed favor to Jimmy Hoffa.[44] Bugliosi also points out that by allegedly conveying a message in 1963 to that effect, and by relating this confession from an alleged conspirator, Ragano would himself be admitting to having been a part of a murder conspiracy.[45]

Shortly after the initial allegations, Jeffrey Hart compared Ragano's account with that presented in Oliver Stone's recently released film JFK.[46] According to Hart, Ragano presented an "earthy motive, vastly more plausible than the movie theory."[46] Hart quoted G. Robert Blakey as stating that he believed Ragano and that his testimony "would have strengthened the conclusions" of the HSCA.[46] Hart also quoted Frank Mankiewicz, Robert F. Kennedy's press secretary, as finding Ragano's scenario as "the most plausible (assassination) theory".[46]

When Ragano was questioned by the Assassination Records Review Board, created in 1992 to reexamine JFK conspiracy theories after the release of Stone's film, he claimed to have contemporaneous notes of his conversations regarding the JFK plot, but when they were produced, "he could not definitively state whether the notes were taken during the meetings [with mob figures]... or later when he was working on his book." His notes were subjected to Secret Service tests to determine when they were actually prepared, but the results were inconclusive.[47]

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 02, 2026, 09:50:08 PM ---
You can keep saying "zero evidence" to everyone who disagrees with you, but your opinion that the evidence is inadequate does not equate to zero evidence.
--- End quote ---

It should be easy to prove me wrong. Just present evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the JFKA. Got any?

Martin Weidmann:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 02, 2026, 09:53:05 PM ---
You can keep saying "zero evidence" to everyone who disagrees with you, but your opinion that the evidence is inadequate does not equate to zero evidence. {/quote]

It should be easy to prove me wrong. Just present evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the JFKA. Got any?

--- End quote ---

The case against Oswald is highly circumstantial with very few dots of physical evidence, interpreted in one particular way, to connect.

You most surely won't agree with this, but by using the same physical evidence and applying a different interpretation a circumstantial case can also be made for some kind of conspiracy.

Now before you ask, I am not going to spend a great deal of time to explain the details of that case as your fanatical approach to this case would automatically make that a waste of time.

I will say this; there are so many anomalies and things that simply don't make any sense and/or add up, that the mere number of those arguments would not only create reasonable doubt about the case against Oswald but also strongly point into the direction of some sort of set up and thus conspiracy.

Steve M. Galbraith:
Marina testified to the WC in Russian and had an interpreter.

Note in this exchange that she said Oswald tried to get her and the baby to return to Russia by herself and before the Walker attempt.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwFwCJ8Qy54

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page