I don't know much about this stuff, but found this interesting...

Cuba paid Oswald to kill Kennedy, new film says

By Mark Trevelyan

Cuba lay behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald and its agents provided the gunman with money and support, an award-winning German director says in a new documentary film.

Wilfried Huismann spent three years researching "Rendezvous with Death ["Rendezvous mit dem Tod"]," based on interviews with former Cuban secret agents, U.S. officials and a Russian intelligence source, and on research in Mexican security archives.

The film, shown to journalists in Berlin on Wednesday, says Oswald traveled to Mexico City by bus in September 1963, seven weeks before the Kennedy shooting, and met agents at the Cuban embassy there who paid him $6,500.

Oscar Marino, a former Cuban agent and a key source for the documentary, told Huismann that Oswald himself had volunteered for the assassination mission and Havana had exploited him.

"Oswald was a dissident. He hated his country...Oswald offered to kill Kennedy," Marino said in the film.

"He was so full of hate, he had the idea. We used him...He was a tool."

He said he knew with certainty that the assassination was an operation of the Cuban secret service G-2, but would not say if it was ordered by President Fidel Castro.

Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby two days after killing Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

The film argues Cuba wanted to eliminate Kennedy as the chief enemy of its Communist revolution, and portrays him and Castro as dueling opponents each trying to assassinate the other first.

Former CIA official Sam Halpern told Huismann: "He (Castro) beat us. He bested us. He came out on top, and we lost."

FBI PROBE ABORTED

Laurence Keenan, an officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who was sent to Mexico City immediately after Kennedy's death to investigate a possible Cuban connection, said he was recalled after just three days and the probe was aborted.

"This was perhaps the worst investigation the FBI was ever involved in," Keenan said. "I realized that I was used. I felt ashamed. We missed a moment in history."

Keenan, 81, said he was convinced Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, blocked further investigation because proof of a Cuban link would put him under irresistible pressure to invade the island, a year after the Cuban missile crisis had brought the United States and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.

"Most likely there would have been an invasion of Cuba which could have had unknown consequences for the whole world," he told journalists at the screening, saying that was why Johnson preferred to accept Oswald was "a crazed lone Marxist assassin."

Interviewed for the film, Alexander Haig, then a U.S. military adviser and later secretary of state, quoted Johnson as saying "we simply must not allow the American people to believe that Fidel Castro could have killed our president."

"And the reason was that there would be a right-wing uprising in America, which would keep the Democratic party out of power for two generations," Haig said.

He added that Robert F. Kennedy, brother of the assassinated president and attorney general in his administration, had personally ordered eight attempts on the life of Castro, who is still in power to this day.

Cuban and Russian sources interviewed in the film say the KGB alerted the Cubans to Oswald in mid-1962 after he left the Soviet Union, where he had lived for three years, and returned to the United States with his Soviet wife and their daughter.

Cuban intelligence first made contact with Oswald in November 1962, according to the film.

Huismann also unearthed a U.S. intelligence report shown to Johnson which said Cuban secret service chief Fabian Escalante flew via Mexico City to Dallas on the day of Kennedy's assassination, and back again the same day.

Tracked down by the film maker, Escalante denied he had been in Dallas and evaded questions about Cuba's alleged role. "What is truth, what are lies?" he said, smiling.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

--

(There's more about this on German site radiobremen which you can translate by plugging the URL into Babel Fish )

An interesting theory but some things just don't add up. Why would Lee Harvey use a post office box to get the gun when he could have walked into any store, given a fake name and got an untracable gun that way? Also if it was Cuba, why did the FBI f*ck the investigation up so much other than Johnson telling them not to? I believe our government helped kill Kennedy but I don't think it would have ever aligned itself with Cuba, espeically in those days

Thanks for posting that Geoff. Interesting. I've always believed that Oswald was hired or used by someone or some organization. Be it the Mob, Russia, Cuba or the CIA. IMO someone or some organization was behind his shooting Kennedy. I also believe that he did NOT act alone and was one amongst several shooters.

Somehow, and I don't know exactly how, Jack Ruby was put up to killing Oswald.

There is no doubt in my mind that the whole Kennedy / Oswald assasination was the result of a conspiracy, and not the act of a crazed lone gunman.


Don Cardi

Seems rather unlikely to me, especially since Cuba's middleman was meeting with U.S. officials in France at the time of the JFK assassination to work out details of a mutual agreement for peaceful coexistance.

Not only that, but Oswald was practically thrown out by Russia and denied by Cuba, if I recall, so it doesn't seem likely that the Cubans would make an organized effort to use him, especially if the United States had tied them to Oswald.

As someone who has researched the JFK assassination quite a bit (currently reading the latest book "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Hartman), there is no doubt that the Kennedys both hated Castro, and that they had used the mob to attempt assassinations against him. Whether or not the Cubans "struck back" (as books like Gus Russo's "Live By the Sword" claim) with enough power is one of many theories that still are open to discussion.

For starters, DC, regarding Oswald/Ruby, I'd read Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK," which delves into the history of Ruby quite profusely. Also, it explores James Angleton, CIA spyhunter who many believe played a role in the orchestration of Kennedy's murder.

As you know, JG, from having had the opportunity to personally examine my library, I'm a bit if a JFK assassination buff, and have read about 25 books or so on the subject.

As Don Cardi correctly points out, conspiracy theories abound.

In addition to the culprits he cited (CIA, Mafia, Castro, Russia), there are also theories - as legitimate as any of the others - which connect Lyndon Johnson and the Texas oil interests to JFK's death, another which blames conspirators who were members of a U.S. "shadow government" and part of the "military-industrial complex" which President Eisenhower warned the country about in one of his final addresses to the nation, and others which involve two of these groups working together, as in "the CIA hired some Mafia hitmen."

Despite all of the study I have devoted to the subject, though, I have never been able to definitely reach a conclusion in my own mind as to who exactly was responsible.

Every theory I've read makes sense, and yet every one of them has a hole or two in it here and there.

The only two things that I personally am certain of is that Lee Harvey Oswald, if he was, in fact, one of the shooters (and I'm not even sure of that), absolutely did not act alone, and that Jack Ruby, in killing Oswald, was in some way involved in the plot himself.

"The Cubans did it" is low on my list of probable scenarios, though.

I believe that the cover-up began almost immediately, particulary in the way that the autoposy was mishandled, and the only way that an immediate coverup could have begun would be if some branch (read: CIA) of the government had been involved.

There is no way Fidel Castro could have gotten the coverup rolling immediately, if at all.

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination itself, no one seemingly had any way of knowing who was responsible, and even though Oswald was caught a mere few hours later, no one seemingly had any idea as to the extent of his involvement or who he was working for or with.

But if you agree that the coverup started almost immediately and continued two days later with Ruby killing Oswald, then you have to agree that there was government participation.

And since the factions in our government who had the motives for seeking JFK's removal were vehemently anti-Communist, it's impossible to picture them working with Castro.

Note to JJ:

If you are still studying the case, what you should realize, if you don't already, is that there is a strong possibility that the coverup is still going on.

You have to be very careful what you believe, particularly in light of the fact that all of the arguments for the various conspiracy theories are presented so plausibly, and be aware of the fact that there are those who suggest that even today, some authors are deliberately throwing false conspiracy theories and misinformation out there to help continue to hide the truth.

You should also know that my being alive at the time of JFK's assassination and watching the events unfold and being old enough to understand them,and believing in a conspiracy and coverup, was probably the biggest single factor which contributed to my present distrust of our government.

One that seems irrational to me despite the claims of Oliver Stone, Fletcher Prouhy, et al. JFK was responsible for the largest boost in military financing in history up to 1963, which makes no sense if one tries to say that the MIC killed Kennedy because he was going to pull out of Vietnam. Citing NSC 263 and 273, they claim that Kennedy was going to completely withdraw from Vietnam outright. Yet, the withdrawal of advisors had already been going on before NSC 263 had been enacted by Kennedy.

To me, the military-industrial complex theory never held much ground, in my personal opinion. If I had to make any guesses (and since I'm writing a thesis surrounding the Kennedys and crime, with overlaps into the JFK assassination, I think I'm allowed to speculate), I'd have to say that the mob was certainly involved in the assassination, no question. Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, Jr., both had motive, and Frank Ragano has come forth with quotes and stories of both regarding the assassination and how the mob were the culprits (take these for what you will, the believebility of Ragano is highly speculative). How else did Ruby get into the Dallas police department, evading guards, and killing Oswald? And Ruby was also at the press conference where they annouced they had apprehended Oswald. In fact, if you listen, he is the one who corrects the speaker regarding Oswald and the "Fair Play for Cuba" committee.

I don't think the mob acted alone however. Plaw has brought up the unusual circumstances surrounding the autopsy. Again, this is where I think that some government entity, be it James Jesus Angleton, or someone else, played at the very least a supporting role in what happened on November 22nd, 1963.

you know i read this interesting book called AMERICAN TABLOID its by the author of l.a. confidential. it deals with the whole conspirecy..and how everyone from the fbi to the cia and even tabloid journalists were in on it. obviously the book is fiction, but interesting nonetheless. check it out everyone.

Have you read either ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS by Jim Garrison or CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY by Jim Marrs? These 2 books were what the movie was based off of

plawerence is right there probably is still a coverup in the JFK assasination. Some think it might have been set up because of the LBJ regime. There are many theories behind this. People hated JFK because he was different than everyone before him. It was tragic that he died he wouldve been a key figure in the anti-communism time.

We all know why Johnson would want Kennedy dead but what were the texas oil interests and why would they want JFK dead? Just so if Lyndon got into office he'd make them more rich than they already were?

Undoubtedly, I wholeheartedly agree. While we may never find out the true causation for the Kennedy assassination, it is safe to assume that at the very least, we won't find out until those who could be implicated or damaged by that information are all dead. However, I believe there are documents scheduled to be released 2017 that could (and should) shed new light on areas we previously haven't been able to see.

No doubt. I would place the assassination of JFK as a landmark event in our history, perhaps rivaled only by Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves, the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and the adoption of the Constitution. Certainly, JFK has been the single most pivotal event in the last 50 years.

I obviously wasn't alive when JFK was murdered but the movie, and theories have had a profound impact on me and have in part contributed to my distrust of the government as well. If they can murder the President of the United States in front of our eyes and get away with it by selling the American public the lemon of "the magic bullet theory" ( ) then what exactly else have they done and what are they capable of doing?

I'm fairly confident we'll never know the full truth. I wouldn't be surprised if we never saw the documents that are scheduled to be released in 2017

People hated the Kennedys in general long before JFK was even born. Joseph P. Kennedy ruined livelihoods by underhanded dealings in the stock market and was a bootlegger in competition with people like Frank Costello. I recommend "The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster" by John H. Davis.

Not in their entirety, but I have looked at both books and cited them. No doubt Garrison has a compelling theory, but there are also many people who disagree with him. Gerald Posner, whose book I take with a grain of salt ("Case Closed" was the controversial book that the media lapped up because he claimed to have proven that Oswald was the lone gunman).

There was a documentary not that long ago (I believe it was on the Discovery Channel) that actually proved the magic bullet theory was true. They re-enacted the entire sequence using realistic body models and gel casts in order to replicate the JFK assassination, and their results were eerily similar. What has previously been stated regarding the magic bullet is often biased or speculative, because most ignore the height differences between the seats of Kennedy and Connally. I cite this program as definitive evidence that whomever fired the particular magic bullet shot (#2 of Oswalds, I believe, if we go by the sequence of the Warren Commission) could very well have happened in that instance regardless of any conspiracy. I know that it sounds hard to believe, and I didn't the first time I heard about the documentary, but after watching it, I'm at least 90% sure that the magic bullet sequence isn't just theory or speculation, and that there was nothing magic about the bullet or its trajectory.

You can find the documentary here.

Well, the whole point of them being withheld by President Johnson until 2039 was for "national security reasons." But I think that they bound by the 1992 JFK Records Collection Act to release them, and, if by nothing else, the Freedom of Information Act. But again, what these documents could hold is highly speculative.

I've actually been intrigued recently by the re-internment of JFK's body, and the whereabouts of his brain (which, according to some photos, might have been in a box that was seen nearby RFK and the Cardinal, re-interred along with JFK).

I find Ruby's "Fair Play" comment and very presence at the Friday evening press conference, along with his obvious ties to local Dallas mobsters and his Chicago origins, to be the single most persuasive piece of evidence that the mob was in some way involved.

BTW, JJ, what have you read besides those which you mentioned?

I read a spate of early books back in the mid-sixties which raised many questions, but provided few answers.

Then I read another round when the Stone film came out, some of it reissued and updated versions of earlier stuff, and some of it new.

But the most recent book I read, I think, was Posner's aplogia for the Warren Report, Case Closed (1993), and Harold Weisberg's response, Case Open (1994).

Oh, and Mrs. Paine's Garage (Thomas Mallon, 2002).

I haven't read as many books on the assassination as Plaw, but I went on a JFK binge after seeing the movie and read approximately 15 different books. No one theory is without its flaws. I personally don't think Cuba was involved with Oswald. If they were, the US and the American people would have definitely supported attacking Cuba, where just one year before JFK's murder Cuba was holding nuclear weapons for the Soviets.

If it was the Mob, they farmed their work out by hiring non-mafia gunmen. Not out of the realm, to be sure, but not all that likely. There were lots of mob connections to JFK, Ruby, and Oswald, but I think they were not involved in the killing.

Again, this has just as many flaws as the other versions. But I think the CIA/FBI was in on it. Not to the level Oliver Stone portrays in his film, but a few key people. Why? JFK was working to dissolve the CIA and some very prominent people lost their jobs under JFK (Allen Dulles, Helms, etc.) Other reasons: JFK and the CIA were at odds the entire tenure of his administration. He blamed them for the faulty info with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. They pressured to get Kennedy to invade Cuba and then commit more troops to Vietnam. And Kennedy opposed both and was always skeptical of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs. And Hoover from the FBI hated the Kennedys and most certainly wasn't in on the killing, but was also not sorry to see him go.

Throw in the fact that Oswald was in the CIA, along with some of his buddies like Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and
Guy Bannister. Oswald was obviously on some kind of covert mission for our government in order to be able to travel so freely to Cuba and Russia after renouncing his US citizenship.

IMO, it's a mystery that no one will ever have the complete answer to, not even 100 years from now.

The Texas Conspiracy by Craig I. Zirbel

Google the author. There's some interesting stuff there.

JFK had threatened to eliminate the U.S. Tax Code's oil depletion allowance, which would have cost Texas oilmen a fortune, so that was supposedly the motive.

LBJ was allegedly their stooge. It had very little to do with Johnson's desire for the presidency.

Too numerous to mention all of them, but some of those that I rely on for my research are both Kennedy biographies and assassination books. I like both the aforementioned Davis Dynasty and Disaster as well as Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life. I don't care for Hersh's Dark Side of Camelot or Thomas Reeves Question of Character because they take a particularly negative look at Kennedy, and I much prefer objective biographies.

With regards to the assassination, the ones I can think of off the top of my head are the aforementioned Russo's Live By The Sword, David Scheim's Contract on America, Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Gerald Posner's Case Closed, Morrow's First Hand Knowledge, and the current Hartman release, Ultimate Sacrifice. I've cited many more, but have not actually read their entireties, and have documented many other sources including the Warren Report, the HSCA (what I can find, at least, with thanks to Turnbull ), Fletcher Prouty (in both his book and his claims on the bonus disc of the JFK special edition).

I'm in the process of obtaining other notable works, especially Davis' book on Carlos Marcello and the Kennedy assassination, as well as the books by the grassy knoll witnesses.

That was the rationale for not bringing the Cuban involvement (if any) to light.

The very same Allen Dulles who served on the Warren Commission. :rolleyes:

Hmmm........I wonder

I wouldn't say working to dissolve the CIA, but certainly he distrusted them after the Bay of Pigs, no doubt.

Hoover is an interesting figure, especially because his files magically disappeared after his death (James Jesus Angleton again?). JEH had the dirt on both of the Kennedys, and was not stupid. As long as he could manipulate the current President, he had no need to whack JFK. The Kennedys might have hated Hoover, but they couldn't risk the destruction of their public image in exchange for Hoover's removal. This is why I believe Hoover wasn't directly involved, but, most likely, did turn the other way when it happened.

There have been many contradicting stories regarding Oswald going back and forth from Mexico, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the United States. Some claim that he was expedited back into the country, while others say it was normal procedure. And the Oswald who had been allegedly spotted in Mexico didn't look much like the *real* Oswald.

I've read a few of those, JJ.

I could recommend several more, but no reasearch into the case can be complete without reading Mark Lane's seminal work, Rush To Judgement (1966).

That was the first one to ask many of the questions that remain unanswered to this day.

Also his 1991 follow-up, Plausible Denial, about possible CIA involvement.

I'll have to take a look at my University's libraries and archives, since it appears the Lane book is now out of print. Actually, both of his books are out of print (btw, are you "Acute Observer," the reviewer at Amazon.com?)

"Rush to Judgment" was one that I read. If I recall, that came out in approx 1966, not long after the Warren Report was released.

Another good one was "Best Evidence," with the contention that the Parkland surgeons and coroners altered JFK's body surgically in order to conceal that there was a frontal headshot.

Did anyone read "JFK" by Fletcher Prouty? He contends to be the basis for the "X" character in JFK (portrayed by Donald Sutherland). That was interesting, if nothing else. He makes a lot of claims, but there are not too many who can dispute or support those claims based on his classified work within the intelligence community.

I totally agree. Ruby had too many different ties to various mobsters and it would be too much of a coincidence that he shot Oswald because he felt that it was his patriotic duty.

I also agree with you that there was, and still is, a cover-up going on by our government. Stories like this one, that Geoff posted are interesting, but when stories like this come out it makes me believe that our government is putting these kinds of stories out to cast doubt on the possibility that they themselves were originally part of the conspiracy.

As for that magic bullet not being a magic bullet, well JJ, with all die respect I do not buy it one bit. No one will ever convince me that Oswald was the lone shooter, fired those shots in such a short time, and that one bullet traveled the way that it did, up, down, sideways and did all that damage. I believe that the shooters, including Oswald, shot from different angles.

Personally I think that the government and the mob were in cohoots with the killing of JFK.


Don Cardi

No, JJ, the only places I've ever reviewed anything are here and IMDb.

The copy of "Rush" that I have is a paperback version, re-issued in 1992 by Thunder's Mouth Press (New York).

I'm sure you can find a copy on e-bay. It's a must-read.

Plausible Denial is from the same publisher (1992).

Have you read either ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS by Jim Garrison or CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY by Jim Marrs? These 2 books were what the movie was based off of [/b][/quote]I have read both. The movie borrows quite a bit from both. That's why Oliver Stone was attacked so much for basing the movie on Garrison's account.

He was the basis for Mr. X. In fact, he was one of the technical advisors for the film. And, he appears in a documentary on the JFK: Director's Cut Special Edition disc 2.

I never tried to convince anyone that Oswald was the lone shooter, especially since I don't believe it myself. I fully believe in the triangulation theories proposed by many researchers (i.e. Texas School Book Depository, grassy knoll/railroad fence, sewers/umbrella man/etc.). However, this documentary conclusively proves that there was nothing magic about the magic bullet and that information regarding its trajectory and condition has often been intentionally misrepresented.

Read all three.

Best Evidence was credibly written, yet really hard to believe, I think. Not that I didn't believe it, but what a wild story, huh?

The Prouty book was a bit convoluted and hard to follow at times if I remember correctly, and, as you say, it's impossible to judge its objectivity or truth.

See, here we go again....

Is there anything in this case that can be conclusively proved?

Who knows if this evidence which disproves the magic of the magic bullet is not of the manufactured variety.

That, to me, is the big problem here.

Evidence, autopsy photos, ballistic tests, "expert" recreations......

Who the hell knows what was tampered with or manufactured and what wasn't, and who the tamperers or manufacturers were.

Same for the documents that may or may not be released in 2017.

I'm thoroughly convinced at this point that the truth is totally muddled, the evidence completely tainted, and that we'll never know what really happened.