Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Carvalho

Members
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Craig Carvalho

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,055 profile views
  1. Yes they were Steve. The third party/agency rule did, and still does exist within the FBI as well as the CIA. Earlier today I made a list of questions that I had in mind regarding the FBI's 105 contact files. 1.) Were the FBI 105 contact files on Oswald comprised solely of internal reports generated by SA's in outlying field offices? Answer: Yes. 2.) Were there internal restrictions on access to these files within the FBI? (beyond proper security clearance) Answer: No 3.) Were these files ever shared with other government agencies? Answer: Yes. Here is where it gets interesting. From John Newman's Oswald and the CIA, Chapter Nineteen, The Smoking File, section entitled, The Hidden Compartments in Oswald's CIA Files: "Prior to Oswald's trip to Mexico City, information on his activities reached the CIA via FBI, State, and Navy reports. Again, the "routing and record" sheets attached to these reports tell us who read them and when they read them. They show how the collision between Oswald's 201 and his FPCC story altered the destination of incoming FBI reports to a new file with the number 100-300-11." "What did this new number signify? On August 24, 1978, the CIA responded to an HSCA inquiry about Oswald's various CIA file numbers. That response contained this paragraph: "The file 100-300-011 is entitled "Fair Play for Cuba Committee." It consists of 987 documents dated from 1958 through 1973. All but approximately 20 are third agency (FBI, State, etc.) documents." "(Note: FPCC portion of the above quote classified until 1995)" "CIA documents lists show that Hosty's September 10, 1963 report--the first piece of paper associating Oswald with the FPCC-- was the catalyst for the diversion of the FBI files data stream into 100-300-11." "One of the two documents lists contains an interesting note in the "Formerly Filed" column for the September 10 Hosty report. It states, "Copy CI/SIG [351 164] 100-300-11." The other documents list has a column with the heading "Location of Original," that has this entry: "CI/SI File 100-300-11." CI/SI was short for CI/SIG, and it appears that the mole- hunting unit was again connected with a key change in Oswald's CIA file designation. Moreover, the association of Oswald's security number (351-164) with the 100-300-11 file denotes a security office tie-in. They had been tracking Oswald all along and now had access to this file too. Thus it appears that it was Angleton's CI/SIG which, in conjunction with the Security Office, had all the pieces of the Oswald puzzle." Only after JFK's assassination were these FBI files rerouted to Oswald's CIA 201 file.
  2. A check of the National Archives website gives a list of all classes of FBI case files closed prior to 1985. The classification "105" references "Foreign Counterintelligence". The classification "109" references "Foreign Political Matters". Classification 62 (HQ): Miscellaneous Subversive.
  3. You are spot on Steve. I suppose we simply have to follow that 105 designation and see where and to whom those files would go to in other agencies. I am just starting my day now, (3 a.m.), but will have more time later today to do more searching. Thanks.
  4. Hello Jim, I thought of the same thing... the timing of the canceled "Flash" on Oswald. I knew it had followed Mexico City, but I couldn't recall offhand the exact date or who had signed off on it. Thanks so much for filling in the specifics on that. I really need to archive more documents on my computer.
  5. Absolutely. Point taken Steve. What I am most interested in now is exactly what the criteria would be for such a designation(s).
  6. Thanks Steve. I will definitely be following up on this. I'm also going to check my copy of Oswald and the CIA as John Newman seems to be the expert on decoding these reference numbers. Perhaps he mentions the "105 contact" case, and at the time it simply meant little to me when reading it. Thanks also for providing the links!
  7. Among the newly released JFK documents there is an interview of retired FBI agent James P. Hosty by fellow retired agent Jack O'Flaherty of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI. The interview occurred on March 8, 2006. I found this passage of particular interest as I had never come across it anywhere in my prior research. On page two Hosty is relating to Flaherty the progression of the Oswald investigation prior to the assassination. "I got the case in October of 1963, one month before the assassination, lucky me. I never did interview Oswald until he was arrested. Now one of the criticisms of the Warren Commission was that I should have interviewed him. If they had bothered to ask me which they didn't, I could have told them I was forbidden to interview Oswald because he was a contact case." "As you all know, in 105 contact cases, when they contact the Soviet Embassy, you may not interview them without specific permission. In this case, I am sure it would never have been granted because the CIA was involved. They were the ones that came up with the information about Oswald talking to the Soviets. They would have never, ever given permission because this was a new technique and it would have blown all sorts of cover down in Mexico City and would have serious repercussions in the Mexican government if they had gotten wind that the CIA was being allowed to monitor the Soviet Embassy." Perhaps this is revealed in Hosty's book Assignment Oswald. Regardless, I will definitely be putting this on my list of publications "to be read". Thought those of you who were also unaware of this fact might find it of interest. Regards, Craig C.
  8. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Jim, Never read it. As to the Soviet's description of Oswald's demeanor at the time of his visit, yes I do believe they were telling the truth. Did the CIA withhold and falsify information about Oswald both before and after the assassination? Yes they did. Why they did it is what we are here debating. I admit I don't have that answer, nor do the experts... yet. Until that day comes... what is true, and what is false in this case depends largely on one's point of view regarding Oswald. P.S. Member Douglas Caddy recently started a thread entitled, CIA had 'very intensive' interest in Oswald before assassination. Worth a look IMO.
  9. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Mathias, Your hypothesis is possible. It would definitely take time to work through it in one's mind. You are correct on two very important points... it is a mystery that we may never fully understand. Thank you for the links. I will most certainly be reading them. Weapons and narcotics were two commodities Castro was very interested in, (guns coming in, and drugs going out).
  10. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    David, I didn't see this post until today when going back to find Paul T.'s post. In it you write... "So I ask a basic question... if, on Oct 1st the CIA took a photo of Oswald in Mexico at these consulates.... and the CIA wants to connect him with KOSTIKOV, how would his photo be detrimental to the effort?" This is an assumption on your part David, not without some validity I will admit. Truth be told, we still don't know exactly what operation the CIA, (specifically Angleton), may have been running in Mexico City during this time period. To me, this is the key element that is missing, especially in light of the fact that it occurred before the assassination. It would explain why the CIA wanted Oswald's participation, whether wittingly or unwittingly, kept "out of the loop"... even from Win Scott. As to your question regarding DeMohrenshildt... after emigrating to the U.S. in 1938 DeM began working for the Shumaker Co. in New York. The chief of export there was a man by the name of Pierre Fraiss. Fraiss was connected to French intelligence. The two of them became friends, and soon DeM was working directly for Fraiss collecting information on people involved in pro-German activities. This "side-line" required DeM to travel extensively within the U.S.. Part of this intelligence operation involved contacting domestic oil companies urging them to sell oil to the French at competitive prices against German oil supplies during WWII.
  11. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Hello Paul, sorry for the delay. I began to write a response to your query last night, but it got late, (I start my day at 3 a.m.). There are two aspects to this Paul... the paper trail and the monitoring. The CIA's first official notification of Oswald's defection came in the form of a telephone call on Monday, November 1, 1959 from FBI CIA liaison officer Sam Papich to Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence (ADDOCI), James Angleton. Why Papich would choose Angleton's direct office line is another subject of some controversy, but we may certainly assume that the monitoring began immediately thereafter. During the Warren Commission's investigation the CIA had maintained that it was unable to pinpoint the date(s) of their receipt of the many Oswald memorandums being digested by the various agencies that would have a "need to know" in the first week following Oswald's defection. We now know that U.S. consular Richard Snyder's second, lengthier memo on Oswald, that arrived at the Sate Department on November 6, was at the CIA by Friday, November 13. Although the document's cover sheet is missing, it does include a documents list which was parenthetically dated, "[Received in CIA on 13 Nov 59]". In the upper right hand corner of the document is written "'O'Neal". The chief of CI/SIG at that time was James Angleton's boss Birch D. O'Neal. Paul - if there are any dates or documents that you have a particular interest in I will do my best to provide you with any available info I have. Regards, Craig C.
  12. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Paul, You and I share a common interest in this case. However, I would have to agree with the idea that the CIA was responsible for the Mexico City charade, (not with any particular group here mind you). ALL of Oswald's activities both during and after his defection, were being closely monitored by the CIA. Let me be more specific. James Angleton was monitoring Oswald, and kept his 201 file under close wraps within the CI/SIG. This explains a lot. It explains why there "appeared" to be a 16 month gap between the time Oswald defected, and the opening of his 201 file. It also explains why Win Scott's "official" cable to CIA HQ regarding Oswald in Mexico City fails to mention Oswald's visit to the Cuban consulate, an oversight that Scott's close colleague, David Atlee Phillips could not explain to the HSCA. Oddly enough it was Phillips who drafted it. In Scott's memoir, which was finally released to his son Michael, (heavily redacted), after a protracted legal battle, Scott writes of Oswald's visit to Mexico City... "Every piece of information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald was reported immediately after it was received... These reports were made on all his contacts with both the Cuban Consulate and with the Soviets." Scott sent along with the cable two requests 1.) that a "trace" be made on Oswald, 2.) a photograph of Oswald. If the surveillance cameras weren't working during Oswald's visit(s), then why would Scott request his photograph? The response the Mexico City station chief received from Langley purported to be "...the latest headquarters information...", yet it said nothing of Oswald's activities in New Orleans just weeks prior to his arrival in Mexico... activities that both the FBI and CIA were aware of. The photograph, which would have been Phillips' responsibility to compare with the surveillance film, never arrived. And lastly, it would explain the CIA's initial claim to the Warren Commission that they knew nothing of Oswald's trip to Mexico until after the president's assassination. For four years Oswald had been carefully watched by both the FBI and the CIA, yet for some reason, someone, wanted it kept a secret even before the assassination. That man was James Jesus Angleton.
  13. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Sandy, Do you believe that the CIA, or members of that organization, would risk all they had to assassinate a sitting U.S. president without assurances that the man who would take his place would follow through with their plan? If what you are saying is true, the CIA wound up worse off then they were when Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960... no Cuba, and a treasonous conspiracy to commit assassination within their own ranks. P.S. Makes Oswald's mode of transportation seem rather irrelevant when you step back and take a look at the big picture.
  14. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Sandy, What you are referring to goes back to the JCS's proposed NORTHWOODS operation, which president Kennedy quickly dismissed. While I can understand the logic of your premise, my question to you would be this... why then did it fail to provide the intended result after Kennedy's assassination?
  15. Craig Carvalho

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Hello Paul, 'What Hoover was talking about was French espionage activities in the US in 1963.' 'Presumably however, what Hoover was referring to was the presence of a Corsican assassin linked to the French OAS, the very group that tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle and stage a coup d'etat in France in 1962.' There are many possibilities Paul. It could be a combination of more than one instance. As Hoover suggests in the memorandum there were more than the two mentioned. I could elaborate, but seeing as how few here believe Oswald participated in JFK's assassination it would be futile to further implicate him in another. I was merely pointing out a coincidence.
×