 Tim Gratz Posted March 00, 0000 Tim Gratz Members 0.0k Gender:Male Author Share Posted March 00, 0000 (edited) Re Robert's post above: I wrote: I agree with you that Leopoldo might have been putting words into Oswald's mouth. Robert replied: There's no "might" about it. Oswald never said anything about the Cubans lacking guts or that they should kill Kennedy. These things were said for him, not by him. And not just on Odio's doorstep. Robert, with all due respect, you cannot possibly know for a CERTAINTY that Oswald did not make that remark. You may strongly infer that Leopoldo made it up (in part because it is consistent with your scenario) but there is no way you can say it with a certainty. I mean, if Oswald was alive, and both Oswald and Leopoldo (whoever he was) were testifying in court, and Leopoldo testified that Oswald had said that and Oswald denied it, you still could not know with a certainty who was telling the truth, although at least in that case you could judge the demeanor of the two witnesses. Like I said, I tend to agree with you it was a statement planted on Oswald, but neither you nor I nor anyone else can know that with certainty. I wrote: On the other hand, it is certainly possible that Oswald was "taunting" anti-Castro Cubans to kill Kennedy. Robert replied: To what end? Oswald, himself, never displayed any animus toward Kennedy. One could hypothesize that Oswald anticipated a radical departure in foreign policy should Kennedy be killed. However, when Oswald was in DPD custody and asked by Fritz what changes would result from Kennedy's death, Oswald stated he thought Johnson would carry on the same policies. Oswald never displayed any animus toward Kennedy? How about Kennedy's policies, my friend? Whether or not correct, Oswald's public stance was as a Castro supporter and organizer of a Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The FPCC, of course, condemned Kennedy's POLICIES against Cuba. And Castro himself expresed personal hatred toward Kennedy, calling him, at various times, "a cretin", "a gangster", "a modern day Batista", etc etc. There were anti-Kennedy posters throughout Havana. We may very well agree that Oswald was not in fact pro-Castro, but we do not know that with certainty either. If Oswald was indeed a sympathizer with Castro, he certainly must have had an animus toward Kennedy's policies at least. Castro certainly had reason to kill Kennedy. As has been discussed above, not only was the Cubela plot ongoing on November 0nd, RFK was also involved with a diferent Castro dissident to start a coup against Castro within weeks of November 00nd. It would have been a stroke of genius if Castro had used Oswald to inspire his enemies in the United States to kill Kennedy on his behalf. And if as many think anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination, who is to say that they were not inspired to act against Kennedy by a double agent in their midst? The flip side of the coin is that if anti-Castro Cubans wanted Kennedy dead, and if Oswald was indeed pro-Castro, the anti-Castro Cubans could have inspired Oswald to act by, for instance, revealing to Oswald the ongoing Cubela plot to kill Castro. One of the things that makes the case baffling is that Castro and his suporters had reason to seek the death of Kennedy. Many of the anti-Castro Cubans also had reason to think Kennedy's death would advance their cause (I would argue they were wrong, because they did not know what the Kennedys were ploting against Castro without their knowledge). Therefore, the trigger could have been pulled by an anti-Castro Cuban, but prompted by a Castro sympathizer, or by a pro-Castro Cuban, but inspired by someone whose agenda was indeed anti-Castro. This situation exists precisely because both sides had reason to believe their position would be advanced by the death of Kennedy. And in the event it is clear that it was the pro-Castro side that benefited from Kennedy's death. There can be no dispute that LBJ wound down the war against Castro (even if, as you have argued, perhaps in violation of LBJ's policies the CIA still pursued an ocasional anti-Castro plot. We have previously seen that several of the prominent anti-Castro Cubans who were privy to what the Kennedys were doing knew that their cause had indeed ended with the death of Kennedy. As you stated, Oswald might have anticipated a "radical departure in foreign policy should Kennedy be killed." If he did, he was prescient because the US war against Castro did effectively end with the death of Kennedy. LBJ was more interested in fighting the Communists 00,000 miles away than the ones in power ninety miles south of Key West. Edited March 00, 0000 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Tim Gratz Posted March 00, 0000 Tim Gratz Members 0.0k Gender:Male Author Share Posted March 00, 0000 (edited) I wrote: Also, if Leopoldo was really trying to frame Oswald, why did he not put words into Oswald's mouth about Oswald's wanting to kill Kennedy? The words he attributed to Oswald were not as incriminating as he could have made them. Robert wrote: It was necessary to strike a delicate balance, and avoid any language that was too incendiary. Had Leopoldo told Odio "Oswald says he will kill Kennedy," it created the risk that Odio may prematurely pick up the phone and inform authorities. That would have defeated the purpose of the exercise. Robert, in this case I believe your response makes an effective point. Although I argued above that we do not know it to a certainty, we agree that it is most likely that Leopoldo planted the words on Oswald. Your point that the operation may have been revealed had a statement been attributed to Oswald that was perceived as a direct threat against the President is, I think, well-taken. I continue to think that the point of the exercise was not to link Oswald to JURE. JURE may have been left-of-Center, but it was certainly not pro-Communist or pro-Castro. To posit that the plan was to portray the killer as pro-Castro, pro-JURE makes no sense, I think. If Oswald was indeed pro-Castro he was anti-JURE (remember Castro was jailing Odio's parents); if he was pro-JURE he was by definition anti-Castro. Couldn't be both. Had someone tried to portray him as both it would have destroyed the plot. Edited March 00, 0000 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Larry Hancock Posted March 00, 0000 Larry Hancock Members 0.0k Gender:Male Location:Oklahoma USA Share Posted March 00, 0000 