JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on February 20, 2020, 02:14:54 PM
-
On pages 115 and 116, in his book "Inner Circles - How America Changed the World - A Memoir," Alexander M. Haig, Jr. writes:
For reasons of my own, I think that President Johnson's suspicions in regard to Castro's role were amply justified. Very soon after President Kennedy's death, an intelligence report crossed my desk. In circumstantial detail, it stated that Oswald had been seen in Havana in the company of Cuban intelligence officers several days before the events in Dallas, and that he had traveled there by way of Mexico City, where, as the Warren Commission later established, he had been received at the Soviet embassy. The detail - locale, precise notations of time, and more - was very persuasive. I was aware that it woild not have reached so high a level if others had not judged it plausible enough to merit the consideration of high officials. As I read the report, I felt a sense of physical shock, a rising of the hair on the back of my neck. I walked it over to my superiors, some of whom had attended that Sunday-morning meeting with President Johnson. Reading it caused their faces to go ashen.
"Al," said one of them, "you will forget, as from this moment, that you ever read this piece of paper, or that it ever existed." The report was destroyed. Notwithstanding the order I was given, I have found it impossible, over the course of the last thirty years, to forget the report as I was ordered to do or to banish from my mind the many unanswered - and now, perhaps, unanswerable - questions that it raised.
Why would Al Haig write this if he had not seen such a report? To sell his book? I don't think so, his section on the JFK assassination is relatively short compared to the rest of his story.
I have looked at the possibilities of LHO traveling to Cuba during the "several days before the events in Dallas," and LHO's whereabouts appear to be in the Dallas area with the exception of Sunday 11/17/63. LHO didn't call Marina that day, and so she asked Ruth Paine to call the number of LHO's rooming house. And of course, since LHO had used a fake name at the rooming house, they were unable to reach LHO. When questioned by Marina later, LHO reportedly told her he was at the rooming house watching television. However, I believe that it might be possible that LHO lied to Marina and wasn't really at the rooming house, but in Havana, Cuba that day.
I don't have any idea why the Cubans would have wanted LHO to be in Havana. In fact I think that, if they were involved in an assassination plot, that they would want to avoid having him there. And therefore, the report that Al Haig said he saw would appear to me to most likely be a false sighting of LHO, and Haig's superiors might have just wanted to avoid having to explain it, so they destroyed it (similar to the destruction of the LHO note that the Dallas FBI destroyed).
I would like to know if anyone has seen any evidence that the report actually existed. If anyone else has ever said that they saw such a report, etc. Also, if there is any evidence (other than what he told Marina) that LHO actually was at the rooming house on 11/17/63.
-
Charles: I have this from Gus Russo's "Live by the Sword." After quoting the above from Haig's book, Russo follows with this:
"It is possible that Haig was reading the report filed by "Jeremy Ryan" (pseudonym), a CIA Chief of Station posted in Latin America. Recently, Ryan recalled to the author the day Kennedy was killed - a day when Ryan was attending a pre-arranged lunch meeting with a communist source he had developed. "This man was the best recruitment I had made in my thirty years with the Agency. He was very close to both Fidel and Che [Guevara]." As the recruitment was reconstructing recent conversations with Fidel and Che, in broke a Ryan intermediary with the news of Kennedy's murder. "On hearing the news from Dallas, he [the source] broke down in tears and said, 'Oh, my God. They said they weren't going to do that."
Ryan immediately filed a report of this conversation with headquarters. "When I reported that discussion, everything came down on me like a thunderstrom. Headquarters wanted me to develop more information. The most I got was that my source had met Oswald in Cuba. Based on this source's know reliability, I'm convinced to this day that Oswald was in Cuba.
The reliability of the Oswald-in-Havana allegation was further bolstered by sources for the CIA's Miami JM/WAVE station. According to one source, Oswald was seen in Havana sometime during the first week of October in the company of "Commandante Miranda", cited as an officer in the Cuban Navy."
(Source: JMWAVE to CIA Director, member memo, 4 February 1964; CIA segregated file, JFK Collection)
As noted above, Russo cites as his source for the Ryan interview a firsthand interview with the man.
Russo also mentions several other claims/speculations about Oswald visiting Cuba such as the "two suitcase question" - I.e., Oswald was seen leaving New Orleans with two suitcases; but he was seen with just one when he arrived in MC.
-
Charles: I have this from Gus Russo's "Live by the Sword." After quoting the above from Haig's book, Russo follows with this:
"It is possible that Haig was reading the report filed by "Jeremy Ryan" (pseudonym), a CIA Chief of Station posted in Latin America. Recently, Ryan recalled to the author the day Kennedy was killed - a day when Ryan was attending a pre-arranged lunch meeting with a communist source he had developed. "This man was the best recruitment I had made in my thirty years with the Agency. He was very close to both Fidel and Che [Guevara]." As the recruitment was reconstructing recent conversations with Fidel and Che, in broke a Ryan intermediary with the news of Kennedy's murder. "On hearing the news from Dallas, he [the source] broke down in tears and said, 'Oh, my God. They said they weren't going to do that."
Ryan immediately filed a report of this conversation with headquarters. "When I reported that discussion, everything came down on me like a thunderstrom. Headquarters wanted me to develop more information. The most I got was that my source had met Oswald in Cuba. Based on this source's know reliability, I'm convinced to this day that Oswald was in Cuba.
The reliability of the Oswald-in-Havana allegation was further bolstered by sources for the CIA's Miami JM/WAVE station. According to one source, Oswald was seen in Havana sometime during the first week of October in the company of "Commandante Miranda", cited as an officer in the Cuban Navy.
(Source: JMWAVE to CIA Director, member, 4 February 1964; CIA segregated file, JFK Collection)
As noted above, Russo cites as his source for the Ryan interview a firsthand interview with the man.
Russo also mentions several other claims/speculations about Oswald visiting Cuba such as the "two suitcase question" - I.e., Oswald was seen leaving New Orleans with two suitcases; but he was seen with just one when he arrived in MC.
Thanks Steve, so in Russo’s accounts, the “several days before the events in Dallas” of Haig’s recollections becomes more like “seven weeks before the events in Dallas.” It’s possible that Haig’s memory could be faulty with respect to that detail. And if LHO actually did go on a side trip to Havana during the time frame associated with his known trip to Mexico City it would tend to explain why LHO got upset when questioned about MC and denied even going there.
Do we have access to the source:
(Source: JMWAVE to CIA Director, member, 4 February 1964; CIA segregated file, JFK Collection)
???
-
Charles: I'm doubtful that it'd be online but you could try the Mary Farrell site or the online JFK Collection. Probably would have to go in person to the National Archives to view it.
For me the dates on these allegations just don't add up. Besides, Castro had agents in the US; I would think they would meet Oswald somewhere in the US and not run the risk of having fly back and forth between here and Havana.
I think we make a mistake trying to "fit" Oswald into all of that Cold War intrigue that was going on. To be sure, he came across all sorts of "interesting" people - the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, DGI - that one is tempted to try and connect him with (or them with him). But I think those were always tangential and distant "crossings" that in the end were nothing. Someone may have been interested in who he was, what he was doing; but that was the extent of it.
-
Charles: I'm doubtful that it'd be online but you could try the Mary Farrell cite of the online JFK Collection. Probably would have to go in person to the National Archives to view it.
For me the dates on these allegations just don't add up. Besides, Castro had agents in the US; I would think they would meet Oswald somewhere in the US and not run the risk of having fly back and forth between here and Havana.
I think we make a mistake trying to "fit" Oswald into all of that Cold War intrigue that was going on. To be sure, he came across all sorts of "interesting" people - the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, DGI - that one is tempted to try and connect him with (or them with him). But I think those were always tangential and distant "crossings" that in the end were nothing. Someone may have been interested in who he was, what he was doing; but that was the extant of it.
I do agree with you. Just trying to figure out if there is enough smoke to be concerned about. Thanks.
-
The whole Cuba did it theory is nonsense . Fidel was no dummy , he wasnt about to have Cuba crushed by an avenging Johnson administration .
-
The whole Cuba did it theory is nonsense . Fidel was no dummy , he wasnt about to have Cuba crushed by an avenging Johnson administration .
I used to think that way also. But after learning more about Castro, I am questioning that theory.
-
Charles: I have this from Gus Russo's "Live by the Sword." After quoting the above from Haig's book, Russo follows with this:
"It is possible that Haig was reading the report filed by "Jeremy Ryan" (pseudonym), a CIA Chief of Station posted in Latin America. Recently, Ryan recalled to the author the day Kennedy was killed - a day when Ryan was attending a pre-arranged lunch meeting with a communist source he had developed. "This man was the best recruitment I had made in my thirty years with the Agency. He was very close to both Fidel and Che [Guevara]." As the recruitment was reconstructing recent conversations with Fidel and Che, in broke a Ryan intermediary with the news of Kennedy's murder. "On hearing the news from Dallas, he [the source] broke down in tears and said, 'Oh, my God. They said they weren't going to do that."
Ryan immediately filed a report of this conversation with headquarters. "When I reported that discussion, everything came down on me like a thunderstrom. Headquarters wanted me to develop more information. The most I got was that my source had met Oswald in Cuba. Based on this source's know reliability, I'm convinced to this day that Oswald was in Cuba.
The reliability of the Oswald-in-Havana allegation was further bolstered by sources for the CIA's Miami JM/WAVE station. According to one source, Oswald was seen in Havana sometime during the first week of October in the company of "Commandante Miranda", cited as an officer in the Cuban Navy."
(Source: JMWAVE to CIA Director, member memo, 4 February 1964; CIA segregated file, JFK Collection)
As noted above, Russo cites as his source for the Ryan interview a firsthand interview with the man.
Russo also mentions several other claims/speculations about Oswald visiting Cuba such as the "two suitcase question" - I.e., Oswald was seen leaving New Orleans with two suitcases; but he was seen with just one when he arrived in MC.
The introduction to Gus Russo’s book “Live by the Sword” is intriguing enough that I decided to read it. Here is a quote from it that I can identity with:
When the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) began gearing up in 1978, I spoke often with its staff members, directing them to areas I believed important. It was their meticulous photographic, forensic, and ballistic work that convinced me that Oswald alone shot President Kennedy. From that point on, only one question remained for me to answer: Was Oswald a hired gun?
-
The introduction to Gus Russo’s book “Live by the Sword” is intriguing enough that I decided to read it. Here is a quote from it that I can identity with:
When the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) began gearing up in 1978, I spoke often with its staff members, directing them to areas I believed important. It was their meticulous photographic, forensic, and ballistic work that convinced me that Oswald alone shot President Kennedy. From that point on, only one question remained for me to answer: Was Oswald a hired gun?
Interesting, given that the HSCA didn't actually turn up any new evidence showing that Oswald shot Kennedy.
-
I used to think that way also. But after learning more about Castro, I am questioning that theory.
LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?
In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.
I'm sure you know this incident? On September 7, 1963 Castro visited the Brazilian Embassy in Havana to recognize the celebration of Brazilian independence. While there he singled out the AP reporter Daniel Harker (according to Harker's account) and told him this:
"If U.S. leaders are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe. Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they too can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death."
Castro later said that it wasn't a threat by him against JFK but a warning that if he worked with these "terrorists" that they could strike back at him. Harker later said that it was clear to him what Castro meant: he wasn't talking about the anti-Castro Cubans who would strike back but Castro.
Harker later gave more details. He said: "I never misunderstood Catro. There was absolutely no hint that he was referring to the Cuban exiles. Spanish is my first language, as a Latin- American born in Columbia, Venezuela. That'w why the AP sent me to Havana in the first place, because I was fluent in both Spanish and English.
Castro chose me for the interview because I had interviewed him two months earlier, and he was impressed with the accuracy of my account. After the September conversation, I stayed in Havana three more years and never once did he complain that I had misrepresented him. In fact, all our wire transmissions were monitored by the Castro government, which had to approve the material before it was sent out. The interview [with Castro] lasted three hours. We stood the entire time. Castro was not mad, merely colloquial. Castro remained cordial with me in the years after the interview."
This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.
-
LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?
In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.
I'm sure you know this incident? On September 7, 1963 Castro visited the Brazilian Embassy in Havana to recognize the celebration of Brazilian independence. While there he singled out the AP reporter Daniel Harker (according to Harker's account) and told him this:
"If U.S. leaders are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe. Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they too can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death."
Castro later said that it wasn't a threat by him against JFK but a warning that if he worked with these "terrorists" that they could strike back at him. Harker later said that it was clear to him what Castro meant: he wasn't talking about the anti-Castro Cubans who would strike back but Castro.
Harker later gave more details. He said: "I never misunderstood Catro. There was absolutely no hint that he was referring to the Cuban exiles. Spanish is my first language, as a Latin- American born in Columbia, Venezuela. That'w why the AP sent me to Havana in the first place, because I was fluent in both Spanish and English.
Castro chose me for the interview because I had interviewed him two months earlier, and he was impressed with the accuracy of my account. After the September conversation, I stayed in Havana three more years and never once did he complain that I had misrepresented him. In fact, all our wire transmissions were monitored by the Castro government, which had to approve the material before it was sent out. The interview [with Castro] lasted three hours. We stood the entire time. Castro was not mad, merely colloquial. Castro remained cordial with me in the years after the interview."
This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.
LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?
I believe that, if there was convincing evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, LBJ would have responded (due to the public outcry and resulting political pressures). Just LBJ's suspicions were not enough to act upon (and risk a potential nuclear war with the Soviets). And I believe that Cuban intelligence was much better than even our intelligence agencies gave them credit for (at the time). And it is possible that they could have used LHO covertly, leaving no convincing evidence of it.
In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.
Castro first came to the U.S. for help, but was refused to even be seen by the Eisenhower administration. Castro had nationalized all international businesses and was executing his enemies and these type of actions angered the U.S. and it's leaders. Eisenhower even banned all sugar imports from Cuba. And virtually handed Cuba to the Soviets (who were happy to purchase all the sugar, etc., etc.). Castro's "Armageddon Letter" to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missle Crisis is a good example of your irrational behavior beliefs. Here is another:
Quote from Russo's book:
...Halperin quoted Castro as often saying, "We [Cuban revolutionaries] are not agraid of danger. As a matter of fact, we thrive on it. And besides, everyone has to die sooner or later."
This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.
Yes, I also believe that LHO read that article in the N.O. newspaper.
-
LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?
I believe that, if there was convincing evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, LBJ would have responded (due to the public outcry and resulting political pressures). Just LBJ's suspicions were not enough to act upon (and risk a potential nuclear war with the Soviets). And I believe that Cuban intelligence was much better than even our intelligence agencies gave them credit for (at the time). And it is possible that they could have used LHO covertly, leaving no convincing evidence of it.
In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.
Castro first came to the U.S. for help, but was refused to even be seen by the Eisenhower administration. Castro had nationalized all international businesses and was executing his enemies and these type of actions angered the U.S. and it's leaders. Eisenhower even banned all sugar imports from Cuba. And virtually handed Cuba to the Soviets (who were happy to purchase all the sugar, etc., etc.). Castro's "Armageddon Letter" to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missle Crisis is a good example of your irrational behavior beliefs. Here is another:
Quote from Russo's book:
...Halperin quoted Castro as often saying, "We [Cuban revolutionaries] are not agraid of danger. As a matter of fact, we thrive on it. And besides, everyone has to die sooner or later."
This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.
Yes, I also believe that LHO read that article in the N.O. newspaper.
The general claim by the conspiracy advocates - or some of them - is that Oswald was framed because "they" - the conspirators - wanted a justification for a war with Castro. So a pro-Castro person (whether Oswald was a legitimate Castroite or whether it was his "legend" or cover) was framed - e.g., the Mexico City trip was by an impostor - in order to blame Castro and then it was to be used to eliminate him.
But of course none of that happened. Castro was not blamed, the Soviets were not blamed; in fact, the Warren Commission - a supposed fraudulent investigation - blamed Oswald alone for the act. The assassination wasn't used as a sort of Reichstag fire incident to justify actions by LBJ or Hoover et al. Nothing was done as a result.
Even LBJ's suspicions of Castro's involvement were pushed aside. LBJ didn't ask for an investigation of the matter, he didn't push the CIA or his intelligence people to look into the matter: he did, well, nothing. In fact, Joe Califano, one of his top aides, said he was ordered by LBJ to go to the anti-Castro exiles and tell them to stop their war on Castro, that LBJ was not going to allow a continuation of it.
So the claim that a pro-Castro person was framed in order to justify a removal of Castro completely falls apart. In fact, not only was Castro not blamed, he was cleared of any role.
As to Castro and Che: In addition to the letter to Khrushchev (and he said in his memoirs that when he read it to the Politburo that they were stunned), Che admitted shortly after the crisis was resolved that had he and Fidel had the missiles that they would have launched them. He said he realized that that would have been the end of Cuba - and that millions would have been likely killed in a larger war - but that a strike against "global imperialist aggression" warranted it. As I said, I don't think Castro ordered the assassination; but I don't think he particularly cared about the consequences of doing so. He was striking the "imperialist monsters" and that justified it.
-
The general claim by the conspiracy advocates - or some of them - is that Oswald was framed because "they" - the conspirators - wanted a justification for a war with Castro. So a pro-Castro person (whether Oswald was a legitimate Castroite or whether it was his "legend" or cover) was framed - e.g., the Mexico City trip was by an impostor - in order to blame Castro and then it was to be used to eliminate him.
But of course none of that happened. Castro was not blamed, the Soviets were not blamed; in fact, the Warren Commission - a supposed fraudulent investigation - blamed Oswald alone for the act. The assassination wasn't used as a sort of Reichstag fire incident to justify actions by LBJ or Hoover et al. Nothing was done as a result.
Even LBJ's suspicions of Castro's involvement were pushed aside. LBJ didn't ask for an investigation of the matter, he didn't push the CIA or his intelligence people to look into the matter: he did, well, nothing. In fact, Joe Califano, one of his top aides, said he was ordered by LBJ to go to the anti-Castro exiles and tell them to stop their war on Castro, that LBJ was not going to allow a continuation of it.
So the claim that a pro-Castro person was framed in order to justify a removal of Castro completely falls apart. In fact, not only was Castro not blamed, he was cleared of any role.
As to Castro and Che: In addition to the letter to Khrushchev (and he said in his memoirs that when he read it to the Politburo that they were stunned), Che admitted shortly after the crisis was resolved that had he and Fidel had the missiles that they would have launched them. He said he realized that that would have been the end of Cuba - and that millions would have been likely killed in a larger war - but that a strike against "global imperialist aggression" warranted it. As I said, I don't think Castro ordered the assassination; but I don't think he particularly cared about the consequences of doing so. He was striking the "imperialist monsters" and that justified it.
Well said! Here is another quote from Russo’s book that supports one of those points:
Castro himself supported the view that his alignment was transient and pragmatic. As if to drive home the point of his non-allied independence, he said, “I hate Soviet imperialism as much as Yankee imperialism! I’m not breaking my neck fighting one dictatorship to fall into the hands of another.”
And here is yet another one regarding Ike’s methods:
What transpired under Ike’s direction led Blanche Cook, author of The Declassified Eisenhower, to label him “America’s most covert President.” Implicit in Eisenhower’s demand for counter-insurgency was the need for detailed planning: any undertaking was to commence not one moment before every possible contingency had been addressed. In addition, Ike demanded total deniability for the President, and he got what he wanted: after counter-insurgent escapades, the CIA burned the entire paper trail of its communications with the President.
Similarly, in my mind, there is no reason to not believe that if Castro thought that he also could have total deniability, that he might have employed (or at least encouraged) LHO. The evidence of this however, is scant and uncorroborated.
-
Another quote from Russo’s book (to counter the claim that LHO was only complementary of JFK):
“He was extremely critical of President Kennedy, and he was just obsessed with what America did to support this invasion at the Bay of Pigs, obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy.” —Volkmar Schmidt, describing a conversation he had with Oswald soon after his return from Russia16