That shady cabal includes the professional hit men of the Mafia who the US government were hired to work as a team with the CIA to kill Castro. Or didn't you know that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1555830/CIA-hired-the-Mafia-to-kill-Fidel-Castro.html
Of course the CIA were doing grubby deals of this sort,then and now (ask the Iranians), but that doesn't prove that they used the mafia to assassinate the president, which would still be a really stupid way of going about killing someone you have access to behind closed doors every day. If I wanted to murder my wife I wouldn't hire an assassin from a known criminal fraternity to beat her to death while she was out shopping. Particularly, as I said (and you pointedly ignored) if I knew that my wife had a chronic illness that could cause her unexpected death in a number of neatly achieved ways that would create rather less suspicion.
Except that American Intelligence had a very thick file on the alleged suspect,
I'm sure they had thick files on a number of people, many of them living in Texas at the time. The Dallas police didn't, though. How, practically, do you imagine that their actions were co-ordinated? Without raising any suspicion among the rank and file that something rather odd was going on?
Don't get your point. That fact sort of lends itself to the conspiracy theory.
Really? The conspirators wish to silence their bogus assassin, who has been arrested. Do they a) arrange for an 'accidental death in custody' (manufactured fracas, faked suicide etc.) that, given the general antipathy to the victim, nobody is going to be bothered investigating particularly closely or b) employ a gangster to wait until he is in plain sight, on national television, and shoot him at point blank range. You seem to think b), and as with the death of the president himself the question is why? What would be the point of such an elaborate and risky exercise when there are easier ways to accomplish the task?
Really? So anyone wishing to kill a leader is automatically a "nut"? Does that include Count Claus von Stauffenberg, who among many others tried to klll Hitler?
Ne'er in my life have I seen such rank Godwinisation, combined with such clumsy missing of the point, which is that leaders are considerably more vulnerable than those who protect them would have you imagine. Sane or not, I doubt that an effective political assassin needs much more elaborate plotting skills than a moderately ambitious bank robber.
Von Stauffenberg, incidentally, was by no means intending to strike a great blow for freedom - he just thought Hitler was a grubby little oik who'd gone to the wrong sort of school and that he and his posh chums could run Germany rather more effectively. His success may actually have made matters worse - imagine what a
sane Nazi state could have accomplished?
Ever hear of the word "Treason??"
The plan as laid out would not be treason, it would be rank insanity. And the question remains - why? Why kill Kennedy at all, when you have less dangerous ways of exerting pressure on him to achieve your political aims? And why do it using such a haphazard and complex methodology?
