Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, & the Garrison Case

by DiEugenio, James

  Tanenbaum had been influenced by his discussion of the issue with Senator Richard Schweiker of the Church Committee. Schweiker and Senator Gary Hart had helmed a sub-committee, which investigated the performance of the intelligence agencies in support of the Commission. But it actually had gone further than just analysis of documents. Pennsylvania’s Senator Schweiker had hired Philadelphia journalist Gaeton Fonzi to do some field investigation. And he had come up with some very interesting results concerning a mysterious personage named Maurice Bishop. Tanenbaum had visited Schweiker with Detective Cliff Fenton. After discussing a few things with the pair, the senator asked Fenton to leave the room. Schweiker then turned over Fonzi’s Maurice Bishop file to the HSCA Deputy Counsel. Schweiker then looked at Tanenbaum and told him that the Central Intelligence Agency had killed President Kennedy.17 Etched in those grave terms, the Deputy Counsel read the file carefully. On the strength of it, he hired Fonzi. There is little doubt that the conversation with Schweiker and the research file on Bishop combined to make a strong impression on Tanenbaum and Sprague. As Tanenbaum later stated, from what he was able to discern, there were certain rogue elements of the CIA, in union with Bishop, who were involved with both Oswald and the Cuban exiles. And he felt that these exiles were involved in the assassination.18 Tanenbaum has always qualified this as a working hypothesis he had. Not an ultimate conclusion. Since, as we will see, he was not around long enough to prove that thesis.

  In addition to Fonzi, Tanenbaum hired a detective named L. J. Delsa. Tanenbaum knew Delsa from a previous case they had worked on together.19 Delsa was a resident of New Orleans. He recommended the hiring of New Orleans police investigator Robert Buras. Tanenbaum also hired attorney Jonathan Blackmer.20 While Tanenbaum was running the Kennedy inquiry, these three men formed his New Orleans team. While Fonzi and Al Gonzalez, another detective Tanenbaum brought with him from New York, investigated South Florida. To say that this network got compelling results does not begin to do them justice.

  As we have seen, it was Fonzi who discovered the wider story about the first CIA infiltrator into Garrison’s camp, Bernardo DeTorres. And how DeTorres may have been associated with Oswald before the assassination, and allegedly had photos of what went on in Dealey Plaza. Further, DeTorres was associated with Mitch Werbell in 1963, the CIA weapons expert who some believe may have designed the weapons used in Dealey Plaza.21 When Blackmer was interviewing Francis Fruge about his work on the Rose Cheramie case and the Clinton witnesses, he retraced how Garrison had sent Fruge back to the bar that Rose and her two companions had stopped at and where they had forcibly bid her adieu. Fruge went on to relate how the bartender there had identified the two men with Rose as Sergio Arcacha Smith and Emilio Santana, both seen at 544 Camp Street, and both friends of Clay Shaw. As we have seen, Santana provided a link between Shaw and Ruby; Rose provided a link between Oswald and Ruby. But in a separate interview with investigator Bob Buras, Fruge dropped in a bombshell that connected the New Orleans aspect of the case, that is the setting up of Oswald, with the actual mechanics of the murder in Dealey Plaza.

  At the time of Kennedy’s death, Arcacha Smith had been living in Dallas. Probably because—due to embezzlement accusations—he had been deprived of his leadership role in the local branch of the CRC. But he kept close tabs on his friends in New Orleans and visited the city. Arcacha Smith appears to have gotten into the lucrative transportation of contraband from Florida to Texas, specializing in drugs, guns, and even prostitution.22 And this is how he may have gotten involved with Ruby, since Ruby had been in the gun running business with, among others, CIA contract agent, Thomas Eli Davis. In fact, Ruby even said that if he was acquitted for killing Oswald, he hoped to get back in business with Davis.23 While incarcerated, Ruby made one of his most memorable utterances: “They’re going to find out about Cuba. They’re going to find out about the guns, find out about New Orleans, find out about everything.”24 As we have seen in abundance, Arcacha Smith was directly involved with Banister, Ferrie, and Shaw. Recall, Carlos Quiroga was polygraphed by Garrison, and he reportedly was deceptive when he said that Arcacha Smith did not know Oswald and that he, Quiroga, had not seen the weapons used in the assassination prior to Kennedy’s murder.

  To top this all off, in a summary of an interview that Bob Buras did with Fruge, the former state trooper casually interrupted the investigator and asked him if the Committee had discovered “that diagrams of the sewer system in Dealey Plaza were found in Arcacha Smith’s apartment in Dallas.” Buras goes on to write that Fruge thought it was Will Fritz who mentioned this to him, but he was not sure on that point.25 In Arcacha Smith, you have a man who, one can make a case, seems to have been involved in nearly every aspect of the assassination. No wonder Aynesworth did not want Garrison to question him. But also incriminating is this: Arcacha Smith strongly resisted a formal deposition by the HSCA. His interview was done on a moment’s notice by Fonzi himself. It should have been done by someone on the New Orleans team: Buras, Delsa, or Blackmer. Further, not only did Fonzi not have enough time to prepare properly, Arcacha Smith’s attorney insisted the interview not be done under oath.26

  Further research by Bob Dorff has shed light on an apparently inaccurate aspect of the famous HSCA report on Cheramie. In that report, written by Pat Orr, it states that the doctor who Cheramie told in advance about the JFK assassination was a man named Dr. Bowers.27 Bowers then relayed this information to Dr. Victor Weiss. Weiss then talked to Cheramie on the twenty-fifth, and did a brief interview with her on that date. Weiss had been the source to Garrison for this information way back in 1967. In that rendition, Weiss had said it was he who first interviewed Rose. But, similar to Fruge, he said, “he didn’t really pay much attention to a woman of this type until after the assassination occurred.”28 When Dorff tracked down Dr. Bowers, Donn Bowers said that the HSCA report on this is wrong. It was Weiss to whom Rose predicted the assassination in advance, not him. He never actually talked to her. Weiss told Bowers what she said on Sunday, November 24. Bowers then heard that Oswald had been killed by Ruby after he had talked to Weiss.29 The HSCA never talked to Bowers. Therefore they did not know that Weiss was not an indirect witness to what Cheramie said, but a direct witness, as Fruge was. Clearly, Weiss did not want to be involved in a formal way with the Kennedy assassination.

  Gaeton Fonzi started reinvestigating Garrison’s leads on Freeport Sulphur. He felt it was a nexus point for many suspicious people prior to the Kennedy assassination. And not just people like Shaw and Ferrie, or even David Phillips. For the executive board of Freeport Sulphur went all the way up to the top of the Eastern Establishment at the time.30 It included people like Godfrey Rockefeller, Admiral Arleigh Burke, and the Chairman of Texaco, Augustus Long. The founder of Freeport Sulphur was John Hay Whitney, Ambassador to England under President Eisenhower. As Donald Gibson later wrote, four of the directors of this rather medium sized company were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, that very exclusive and elitist based New York City organization which strongly influences the government and media agenda. Indeed, Freeport had as many directors in the CFR as did giant trans-nationals like DuPont and Exxon.31 Further, there were other Rockefeller originated globalist organizations in New Orleans that Shaw was associated with, namely International House and the Foreign Policy Association of New Orleans. For instance, Shaw’s International House runs a student exchange program worldwide, an effort to seemingly spread the concept of globalization, sometimes called “one worldism.” A director of Freeport Sulphur, and its Vice-President, was E. D. Wingfield, a native of New Orleans who had been with the company since 1933. Wingfield was a director of International House, and Shaw served as its acting manager in 1961–62.

  Jock Whitney, publisher of the New York Herald Tribune, and a firm Rockefeller ally, was Chairman of the Board of Freeport from 1936–57. In an authorized biography of Whitney, the following passage appears: “On November 22, President Kennedy was killed. Whitney, who was pres
sed into emergency service that tumultuous night as a copy reader, had a speaking engagement four days later”32 (italics added). As Professor Gibson notes, the idea that Whitney—the publisher of the Herald Tribune, a man worth several hundred million dollars, and a leading Establishment figure—could be “pressed” into anything is ridiculous. If Whitney was at his newspaper office reading copy the night President Kennedy was killed, its because he wanted to be there.

  What makes all this interesting is that the Herald Tribune published an editorial the next morning entitled, “Shame of a Nation-History of Assassinations.” There was no source or author given. This article stated that, although in some European states assassination had been a weapon of power politics, in America that pattern had not been historically followed. It then specifically mentioned a book called The Assassins by former Herald Tribune reporter Robert Donovan to back up this thesis. Quoting Donovan, the piece then reads that previous American assassination attempts did not attempt to shift political power, they did not attempt to alter a policy of government, nor did they try to resolve ideological conflicts. An accompanying editorial then said that in America, assassinations have almost always been the work of “crazed individuals representing nothing but their own wild imaginings .... The heat of normal politics has its reflex on the lunatic fringe.”33 In other words, on the night of the assassination, Whitney’s newspaper—with him reviewing the content—had predicted what the Warren Commission would conclude ten months later. That Oswald was a disturbed killer, a sociopath. At the same time it was pushing for a “crazed individual” solution to the case, Whitney’s paper was deliberately pushing away from any kind of political policy reason for the murder. But yet, at this time, Oswald was being branded a communist in the press. And at no time when he was allowed to appear in public that day, did he appear to be a “crazed individual.” If that is not prescient enough, consider the following. The very book that the Herald Tribune was quoting from, The Assassins, is the same book that Allen Dulles would be passing out to fellow members of the Commission at their first meeting, just two weeks later.34 This was a clear attempt by the former spymaster to influence the Warren Commission members. Just as Whitney’s paper, under his direct supervision, was trying to inculcate the public. And there can be no doubt that Whitney knew Dulles.35

  In this first phase of the HSCA, one of the personages who genuinely interested Tanenbaum and Fonzi was David Phillips. While working for Schweiker, Fonzi had done some good work on the militant Cuban exile group Alpha 66. The file he had turned over to Tanenbaum contained that work. During his field investigation, Fonzi had interviewed the Alpha 66 exile leader Antonio Veciana. Veciana had been part of a 1961 attempt to assassinate Castro. One which the CIA had not reported to the Church Committee. Veciana had also visited the Alpha 66 safe house in Dallas, the one that Oswald had reportedly been at.36 It should be noted here that Alpha 66 was a group of particular focus to Jim Garrison. In fact, some who worked with Garrison actually said he was a bit obsessed with this group.37 We should keep that point, plus the mysterious Mr. Phillips in mind—the man who was going to arrange the New Orleans telethon for Sergio Arcacha Smith—as we detail the following. For Alpha 66 seemed especially intent on violating Kennedy’s policies in the Caribbean. In fact, by raiding Russian supply ships, Alpha 66 was bent on provoking a direct conflict between America and the USSR. The man who supervised all of Veciana’s thirteen years of anti-Castro activity, and who orchestrated the violations of Kennedy’s Cuban policy, was a man he called Maurice Bishop. In fact, according to Veciana, Alpha 66 was essentially Bishop’s creation.38 It was he who had directed the Alpha 66 attempt to kill Castro in Cuba in 1961.39 Veciana told Fonzi he had seen Oswald in Dallas with Bishop in early September of 1963. It was at the Southland Center, a 42 story office complex built in the late fifties. When Veciana entered the lobby, he saw Bishop talking with Oswald off in a corner. When Veciana approached, Bishop ended the conversation. The three walked out of the lobby and onto the sidewalk. Bishop then dropped back with Oswald, exchanged some words with him and Oswald left.40

  There is very little doubt today that Bishop was Phillips.41 And for him to meet Oswald at this time and place would make perfect sense. For two reasons. First, after all the activity that Oswald had just performed in his public discrediting of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Phillips was likely now instructing him on what the next step would be. We can say this because we know something today that neither Fonzi nor Garrison knew at the time. Namely that Phillips was supervising the CIA campaign to counter the FPCC. Secondly, because Oswald now had a rather high profile in New Orleans, it was safer to meet somewhere else. Especially since Phillips had been at Guy Banister’s office to organize the New Orleans telethon.

  After a series of conferences in the late summer of 1977, between Fonzi, Delsa, Blackmer, Garrison, and others, Blackmer authored a long memo which included the following statement, “We have reason to believe Shaw was heavily involved in the anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans in the 1960s and [was] possibly one of the high level planners or ‘cut out’ to the planners of the assassination.”42 By the time this memorandum was written, the participants in this series of meetings didn’t really understand that everything had been changed. Whether or not Shaw was a planner or “cut out” for the assassination did not really matter. Because both Sprague and Tanenbaum were now gone. Beginning in January of 1977, an unrelenting press campaign had been revved up. The twin objects were to get Sprague removed as Chief Counsel, and to derail the committee. Sprague had made too many public comments about conducting a real investigation. And, as mentioned above, his first budget submission of December, 1976 proved that was his aim.43

  The first attacks on Sprague began with the Los Angeles Times. These were then picked up and amplified by the New York Times. And then the Washington Post jumped into it. Their reporter was Walter Pincus, who called the HSCA in February of 1977, “perhaps the worst example of Congressional inquiry run amok.”44 The man who led the charge at the LA Times was, predictably, Jack Nelson.45 The reporter who previously went after Jim Garrison. At the New York Times, something very revealing occurred. The first reporter that the Times had on the beat was Ben Franklin. Franklin had covered the prosecution of Tony Boyle by Sprague.46 And he had given Sprague some fair press so far.47 But at about the time of Sprague’s budget submission, they replaced Franklin with David Burnham. Burnham went to the newspaper morgue in Philadelphia and wrote a long series about Sprague’s career in the Philadelphia DA’s office. He picked five small points of controversy in Sprague’s illustrious eighteen-year career. When the series was over, the Times ran an editorial asking Sprague to resign.48 Once this happened, Burnham was rotated out of this assignment.49

  The other problem was that after Downing stepped down, there began to be a feud between Sprague and the new chairman Henry Gonzalez. This was very likely egged on by two assistants on the staff of Gonzalez, Gail Beagle and Edyth Baish. Baish admitted to being a mole inside of Sprague’s office for Gonzalez.50 Baish once reported back to Gonzalez that Sprague had poked fun at him at a meeting. Which Sprauge denied. After this, on February 10, 1977, Gonzalez tried to fire Sprague. But the committee rallied to Sprague’s side. Gonzalez then tried to shut down the committee by depriving them of certain functions, like franking privileges. He then began to denounce Sprague on the floor of Congress. Finally, at the end of February, sick and exhausted, he resigned and went back to San Antonio for care. But not before calling Sprague an “unconscionable scoundrel.”51

  At this point, Representative Louis Stokes of Ohio was brought in as Chairman. Stokes measured the way the votes were lining up in lieu of the incessant newspaper attacks on Sprague, and the embarrassing verbal fisticuffs of Gonzalez. The latter started up again once Gonzalez got his health back and returned to Washington. Stokes decided that if the committee was to survive, it would have to be without Sprague. Therefore Sprague resigned on the evening of March 29, 1977. Here it is in
teresting to note something. Very few people would dispute that, at the time he was appointed Chief Counsel, Sprague was one of the finest prosecutors in the country. Since he left Washington, he has had a distinguished career in private practice. The only time he ever had his professional credentials questioned was during the six months he agreed to serve as counsel to the HSCA. And that is simply because he was going to supervise a real investigation of the JFK case. Yet, the same thing happened to him as happened to Jim Garrison. In fact, like Garrison, Sprague was also even accused of being in bed with the Mafia!52 When the first press attacks began, HSCA staffer Chris Sharrett remembers thinking, “It’s Garrison all over again.”53 Or, as Joe Rauh, who knew Sprague from Philadelphia and had a front row seat to the controversy in Washington, said, “You know, I never thought the Kennedy case was a conspiracy until now. But if they can do that to Dick Sprague, it must have been.” With Sprague’s resignation, the House Select Committee survived. The interim Chief Counsel was Tanenbaum with Al Lewis, a friend and colleague of Sprague’s, as his deputy.

  Death in Manalapan

  During the tumultuous twenty-four hour period that Sprague left and the HSCA was renewed, another jarring event happened in Florida. George DeMohrenschildt died of a shotgun wound to the head. He had just been served with a subpoena from the committee by Fonzi. It is relevant to note that DeMohrenschildt’s attitude toward Oswald seemed to change over the years. The Baron and his wife Jeanne had been accusatory witnesses for the Warren Commission against Oswald. But by the time they returned from Haiti, this seemed to have changed. The Baron now told author Dick Russell that the Warren Commission had railroaded Oswald and that he was sure that Oswald had not killed Kennedy. His wife added, “Of course, the truth has not come out. We know it was a vast conspiracy.”54 Toward the end of his life, DeMohrenschildt became an instructor at a local college teaching French. He seemed to be having emotional problems. He exhibited some of this imbalance when Russell visited him again in July of 1976. During the interview, when his wife stated that Oswald had been sent to the Soviet Union at the request of the CIA, George began pacing across the room. He then started shouting, “It is defiling a corpse! Defiling a corpse! I don’t want to talk about it, it makes me sick!”55 This is around the time that DeMohrenschildt began to see a mysterious Dr. Mendoza. George suffered from chronic bronchitis. He did not like going to hospitals. He was persuaded to see a newly arrived physician in Dallas named Charles Mendoza. Although his physical health improved, he began to show symptoms of paranoia and a nervous breakdown.56 Jeanne accompanied George on one of his visits to Mendoza. She discovered he was giving her husband injections and expensive prescription drugs. She confronted the doctor as to why he was doing this and what was in the drugs and chemicals he was administering to her husband. Mendoza got angry and upset. Jeanne eventually came to believe that it was Mendoza who was behind George’s nervous breakdown.57 Jeanne eventually had George placed under observation at Parkland Hospital. The couple then split up.