Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Jolliffe

Members
  • Content Count

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Jolliffe

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,306 profile views
  1. David, If I am following your argument correctly, you believe that because the extant transcripts of the alleged phone calls made from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviets on Friday afternoon, Sept. 27 have nothing to do with the substance of the conversations/confrontations between Duran, Azcue and an unknown male earlier that day, that therefore that same unknown man could not have been deliberately impersonating our "Oswald", correct? I agree that the existing transcripts we have of the alleged phone calls from the Cubans to the Soviets on Friday afternoon are deeply suspect, for all the reasons you've listed. Those transcripts are probably completely phony, at least in terms of connecting our "Oswald" to the earlier visits to the Cuban Consulate. You and I also agree that our "Oswald" was never inside the Cuban Consulate on Friday, September 27, and never interacted with either Duran or Azcue. We agree that some unknown man was there, who did indeed have some kind of interaction (maybe heated, maybe not) with Duran and Azcue. We agree (as does LITAMIL 9) that this unknown man did NOT resemble our "Oswald." (Apparently he was short, thin, blond and poorly dressed.) You believe that the lack of supporting documentation from either Azcue or Duran about a suspected American spy in their midst is evidence that no such suspect appeared before them on that Friday. Fair enough. However, I doubt if Azcue and Duran really considered this unknown man to be an American spy. My impression is that both of them described this man's actions and words as if they believed he was some sort of naive fool - after all, they made it clear to him he could NOT get an immediate transit visa to Cuba! Would they - at the time - have considered it likely that U.S. intelligence agencies would have sent this idiot on a hopeless mission, one doomed to fail? I doubt it. And therefore, I think it is at least possible that they dismissed the entire episode - at the time - as nothing more than pathetic effort by a dumb, ignorant clown, not worthy of further comment. Obviously, on November 22, 1963, their interactions with this man would come under heavy scrutiny. But back on September 27, I could see both of them dismissing this obnoxious, stupid young man without a second thought. So, the key question remains: did this young man, whoever he was, deliberate invoke our "Oswald's" identity during his meeting/conversations/confrontations with Azcue and Duran, or not? If not, and if this man's business was completely unrelated to our "Oswald", then how in the world did this particular mundane episode become entangled in the "Oswald" legend? How would David Atlee Phillips have seized upon it a week later to serve as the basis for the "Oswald - in - Mexico City - meeting - with - Commies" myth? If this man's (legitimate?) visit to the Cuban Consulate was indeed completely unremarkable, then how in the world would DAP have even known of it, let alone how it could be twisted into the "Oswald in Mexico City" myth later? Yet DAP is seemingly taking action by no later than October 7 about these visits. It seems likely to me that this unknown young man, whether he deliberately used "Oswald's" identity or not, really did visit the Cuban Consulate at least once on Friday, Sept. 27, and that he really did want a transit visa to Cuba and the Soviet Union. That part of the story, as related by Azcue and Duran, rings true - they did not make that part up out of thin air. So, could the visit of this unknown man to the Cuban Consulate have been seized upon by DAP a week later to create the myth that this young man was, in fact, our "Oswald"? Well, theoretically, yes it is possible. But it would be one helluva coincidence if some unknown young man, completely unrelated to anything "Oswaldian", really visited the Cubans to secure a visa through Cuba to the USSR just at the same time that the JFK assassination plot was really heating up, and plans to frame our "Oswald" were in place. And I don't believe in coincidences.
  2. David, We agree that our "Oswald" in New Orleans in September, 1963 never made the trip to Mexico City late that month. I think it is likely our "Oswald" instead went directly to Dallas somehow. In Dallas outside Sylvia Odio's door on Thursday,, September 26, our "Oswald" was in the company of two Cubans, one of whom, "Leopoldo" later made a phone call to Odio in which "Leopoldo" clearly implied (albeit falsely) our "Oswald" was a future assassin and JFK hater. So of course there is no legitimate record of our "Oswald's" trip to Mexico City - he never went there, either by bus or car or plane! You have done a great job of showing the problems in the evidence that our "Oswald" made the trip via bus. But you seem to be implying that no one was impersonating our "Oswald" in the Cuban Consulate on Friday, September 27, nor the USSR Consulate on Saturday, September 28. Forgive me if I have misread your guess here, but is that what you are thinking? Hmm. If no "Oswald" at all was in either the Cuban or Soviet consulates on either day, then what in the world were Duran and Azcue talking about later? To whom were they referring? Surely their stories were not made up completely out of thin air, were they? Isn't it more likely that they did indeed interact with and argue with someone who wanted to create the impression he was our "Oswald"? Isn't that person, by definition, an "Oswald" impostor, no matter the resemblance (or lack of it)? And since that person was there, physically present inside those consulates, is it then productive to speculate about how they got there? David, I am open to the idea the entire "Oswald" visits were a fiction, created by David Atlee Phillips after the fact. But surely, they must have been based on real incidents with a real person, one who somehow (at least for a bit), persuaded both Duran and Azcue that they had interacted with Lee Harvey Oswald? Otherwise, how would the plotters know in advance that Duran and Azcue would remember it that way later?
  3. Thanks, Ed for posting these two articles. The first one quotes Jerry Duncan extensively. How in the world does Jerry Duncan's insistence that LHO's visits (a man with whom Duncan really met and interacted at least twice!) to the Humble Gas Station, directly across the street from 1026 N. Beckley, support your theory that LHO did NOT live at 1026 N. Beckley? As you know, on 11/24/63, Duncan insisted to the FBI that LHO DID LIVE at 1026 N. Beckley, and that this "Oswald" had no automobile - he came to the gas station on foot! https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0143b.htm Now, maybe (maybe) LHO did not live at 1026 N. Beckley, but Duncan's above story - which you cited! - makes it very likely that LHO really did live there. Furthermore, the fact the FBI completely made up a phony refutation a month later is very powerful evidence that on 11.24.63, Duncan told the FBI the truth - LHO really did come to the Humble Gas Station directly across from 1026 N. Beckley at least twice to make long distance pay phone calls. Moreover, Duncan believed that LHO really did live at 1026 N. Beckley and on 11/24/63, said so to the FBI! In the second story you posted, "John Adams" living at 1026 N. Beckley, clearly believed that he been introduced to the accused assassin, also living at 1026 N. Beckley, by the name "Harvey Lee." You have speculated that perhaps "John Adams" misheard or mis-remembered that name. While that is theoretically possible, you have no evidence that "Adams" was mistaken about the name "Harvey Lee". You have based your speculation on the phonetic similarity to another previous roomer - Herbert Leon Lee. However, you neglected to tell your readers that Herbert Leon Lee did not use the name "Herbert." No, instead he went by "Leon" Lee, a name far less likely to be mistaken as "Harvey Lee." https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/shreveporttimes/obituary.aspx?n=herbert-quotleonquot-lee&pid=128925162#fbLoggedOut Finally, "John Adams" described overhearing "several" (at least three) phone conversations - at least one of which turned heated - between "Harvey Lee" at 1026 N. Beckley and an unknown party in Russian. Those conversations were between real people, but you have speculated they did not involve the accused assassin. Fair enough. It is your right to speculate all you like. But you have produced not one tiny drop of evidence that any other person in residence at 1026 N. Beckley between the middle of October and November 22, 1963 even spoke Russian, let alone that they were later mistaken for "Harvey Lee" using the phone! "Harvey Lee" absolutely did converse with his wife in Russian all the time! But besides "Harvey Lee", there is not the slightest shred of evidence that either "Leon" Lee or anyone else living at 1026 N. Beckley even could have made those calls in Russian.
  4. David, If our "Oswald's" visit to Sylvia Odio on 9/26/63 was at the behest of the FBI, then presumably his assignment was connected to the other two men. I've never seen any particularly persuasive evidence that our "Oswald" was actually in the service of the FBI in the fall of 1963. ' Who was "Oswald's" FBI handler/contact that fall? Warren C. de Brueys, maybe? Carlos Pena insisted that de Brueys and LHO not only drank together at the Habana Bar in New Orleans in August of 1963, but knew each other "very, very well." That is probably true. However, I have long suspected that the LHO with de Brueys was not our "Oswald", but someone else instead, maybe the real LHO. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32246608.pdf I can't believe James Hosty was our "Oswald's" FBI handler/contact - there is not any evidence for it, and powerful evidence against it. (As far as we can tell, the two did not meet face-to-face until 11/22/63!) However, I do find it plausible that our "Oswald's" handler/contact (CIA? ONI? unknown at this moment) was in touch with the FBI that fall, and the FBI was able to keep tabs on our "Oswald", but at a degree or two of separation. Of course, if I'm right, then the FBI was dependent on this unknown agency for their "Oswald" information. And of course, that meant the FBI was (stupidly) vulnerable to being manipulated or framed by unknown operatives from this unknown agency. What evidence do you have that our "Oswald" was directly in contact with a FBI agent/handler that fall?
  5. Paul B., If we accept the theory by Bill Simpich, Peter Dale Scott and others, namely that the visits by someone calling himself "Lee Oswald" to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates in Mexico City on 9/27 and 9/28 represented a "legitimate" U.S. intelligence operation (ie: not related to the assassination), then it is certain that the Odio episode on September 26 and 27 represented the work of the assassination conspirators. "Leopoldo's" phone call to Sylvia Odio on that Friday night clearly implicated the patsy as a future assassin. Therefore, "Leopoldo" was working directly for someone who was part of the assassination conspiracy. So, yes, in the most literal sense, these two separate incidents, 1,000 miles apart on the same day represent the work of two different groups for two different purposes: the Mexico City charade was by unwitting American intelligence officials in pursuit of some (undisclosed) U.S. operation, but the Dallas/Odio episode was by witting (American intelligence officials, presumably) to frame "Oswald" as a potential JFK assassin. Bill Simpich used the term "piggybacked" to describe how the murder plot was grafted onto the "legitimate" Mexico City operation. I suspect that is generally correct, which would explain why the extant transcripts of the phone calls by someone calling himself "Lee Oswald" to the Cuban and Soviet consulates are not sinister - instead, they read as if they were not to be taken at face value. They seem to hint that something else was going on. John Newman argued decades ago that the transcript of the October 2 call by ("Lee Oswald") is almost certainly an artifact - it is the one at which CIA officials would later point as evidence that this ("Lee Oswald") was up to no good , colluding with commies. Whether one accepts Newman's analysis or not, a "legitimate" Mexico City operation coincident with the Odio episode means that two separate U.S. intelligence teams were at work for two different purposes. In theory, on September 27, 1963 neither team may have been aware of the other. However, we can conclude that by October 9 or 10, the assassination team conspirators (at the very latest) planned to "piggyback" the murder plot onto the "legitimate" Mexico City operation.
  6. Ed, Exactly when and why was the (theoretical) "Oswald lived at 1026 N. Beckley" story created? Before or after the assassination? Why did the DPD go there and search it on the afternoon of 11/22/63 if it had no connection to our man? You've produced some intriguing evidence, but I need to hear more. If our man was really living with his wife and daughters out in Irving at the Paine residence, then why this giant "1026 N. Beckley" charade?
  7. Jim, I am a little confused here: my post above was in response to David Joseph's good question asking how in the world did our "Oswald's" picture wind up on the visa application forms on Sylvia Duran's desk in the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City? While none of us know for certain (and since we all agree that our "Oswald" was not in Mexico City), I offered what I thought were two reasonable possibilities: 1. The impostor already had the "Oswald" photos with him, ready to go, and then attached them himself. In this scenario, neither Duran nor Azcue noticed the discrepancy. 2. The impostor really did submit photos of himself, but those photos were later switched (somehow) by U.S . intelligence assets/operatives before they entered the JFK investigation evidence stream. (Simply tear off the impostor's photo, and staple "Oswald's" photo in its place. Can't be that difficult, right?) I am open to other ideas, and I assumed the purpose of this forum was to explore any and all evidence. Thanks for posting the 1977 report with Estes.
  8. Paul B., It's technically true we don't know with absolute certainty where our "Oswald" was between late September and early October, and therefore he might not have been in either Mexico City or visiting Sylvia Odio in Dallas at her apartment. However . . . the Odio episode is very, very revealing, if we take the time to dissect it fully. Remember, it involves two parts: the visit to her apartment door in Dallas on Thursday, Sept. 26, PLUS a follow up phone call a day later. 1. During the actual visit, NOTHING was said or implied to Sylvia Odio about "Oswald" as a potential presidential assassin. While he was standing right there, no one said anything aloud, nor even hinted it! If this visit (in the company of two other men) was by someone only pretending to be our "Oswald" to further portray the patsy as a future assassin to potential witnesses, they could not have done a worse job. Nothing in anyone's behavior that night - when "Oswald" was standing right there! - indicated this "Oswald" was a future killer! That night, the framers - all three of them, if none of them were truly our "Oswald" - framed no one! A logical absurdity, if none were really our "Oswald." 2. It was only a day later during the follow-up phone call to Odio that "Leopoldo" revealed all the incriminating details about "Oswald" as a crazy potential killer of JFK. In other words, "Leopoldo" described "Oswald" as an assassin only when "Oswald" was not there to refute it! Leopoldo even explicitly stated to Odio that this "Oswald" was not knowledgeable of everything "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" had in mind for him: "You know our idea is to introduce him to the underground in Cuba . . ." Logically, we should conclude that the effect of the Odio episode was to implant in the witness's mind the belief that the "Oswald" she met in person was a potential assassin. But we must remember that effect required two parts: a physical visit (so that she could see "Oswald") and then the phone call (in which "Oswald" was described as a JFK hater/assassin.) Why was it done that way? Because our "Oswald" really did accompany "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" to the Sylvia Odio's door at 1024 Magellan Circle in the Crestwood Apartments in Dallas during the evening of Thursday, September 26, 1963. And he had to be kept ignorant of the patsy role that he'd already been selected to play.
  9. David asked: " Below that are the words of Duran and Azcue - both describing a person who was definitely not our Oswald.... so if this is the case, how did Oswald's photos get onto the applications Duran took...?? David, we don't know for sure, but the best guess is that the "Oswald" impostor had them with him, ready to go when he arrived for the first time on Friday, September 27 at the Cuban Consulate. As I recall, Sylvia Duran (Tirado) first gave him the forms to fill out with the requirement for a photograph. The "Oswald" impostor then left and returned some time later with the photo. (Yet the FBI was unable to locate a photo shop anywhere even remotely close to the Cuban offices at which the photo could have been taken - "Oswald's" departure and return to the consulate was a charade.) So why didn't the "Oswald" impostor readily produce the photo the first time? Well, I can't say for sure, but I bet it was too risky to pull a photo out of his pocket that wasn't him. She would have to staple it to the application forms right there, and she would probably look at the photo somewhat. The risk of scrutiny was reduced if our impostor took the form with him and then returned with the photo already stapled and ready to go. (Maybe a little crumpled or smudged, too.) Another possibility is that once U.S. Intelligence got their hands on copies of the "Oswald" visa application, they switched the original photo of the impostor with a photo of our "Oswald". Either way, our fall guy wasn't down in Mexico City, making an ass of himself at the Cuban and Soviet Consulates. Remember, the CIA told the Mexican DRF to torture Sylvia Duran (Tirado) . . . twice! . . . to make sure she would "identify" the man with whom she interacted was "Oswald." Azcue denied "Oswald" was that man right from the start, and Duran later told Anthony Summers that our Dallas "Oswald" was NOT the guy she saw/talked to/argued with at the Cuban Consulate on Friday, September 27, 1963. Just my guess, but then, not even the Warren Commission could say where the photo came from. They didn't even try.
  10. Bill, Clarify something for me: were any actual phone calls placed by the "Oswald" impostor to either consulate in Mexico City? Or, were the tapes of "Oswald's phone calls "(translated by Mr. and Mrs. Boris Tarasoff) created after the assassination and then hidden? Do the extant transcripts themselves represent real phone calls from the impostor on September 27, 28 and October 1, or are they artifacts, created later to replace the original transcripts? Why the hell do the extant transcripts read as if everyone involved was a moron?
  11. I agree. I tend also to agree with those who wonder if there was some other, "legitimate" intelligence operation in Mexico City using the visits to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates, one not originally intended to frame our man as a future presidential assassin? After all, what kind of murderous frame-up using the patsy's intercepted, taped phone calls to the Commies reads like a bad parody of Abbott and Costello?
  12. David wrote: " So I began to really wonder whether a real live person went to this embassy posing as Oswald, or was it possible that this was a cobbled together story using elements of truthful encounters with people in these places, just not Oswald and just not what they claim occurred." I have wondered the same, but for now, I tend to believe that a real person, intentionally posing as "Oswald", confronted both Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue in the Cuban Consulate on Friday, September 27. If that unknown man had not used the name "Oswald", then the Cuban officials almost certainly would not have made the connection later to our "Oswald"! We know that our "Oswald" wasn't there, and we have no reason to believe that the physical resemblance between the Mexico City Cuban Consulate impostor and our "Oswald" was so strong that it would have left an indelible impression on Duran and Azcue. Indeed, the physical likeness did not! They both later said the man they so memorably encountered was NOT our "Oswald"! No photo in Mexico City of anyone who might plausibly have been mistaken for our "Oswald" has ever surfaced. Instead, the impersonation counted on the name "Lee Harvey Oswald". That's what Duran and Azcue remembered. And therefore, the use of the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" means a deliberate, specific impersonation for some calculated purpose. Yet, as I asked earlier, are we certain that impersonation at that moment was solely to frame our "Oswald" as a future presidential assassin? If so, why in the world were the transcripts of the intercepted phone calls so . . . innocuous, so blah, so bland? What kind of murderous frame-up makes the patsy sound like a bad parody of Abbott and Costello?
  13. Ed, Thanks for posting this in its entirety. You certainly raised some good questions. Am I correct in inferring that our "Oswald" (whoever he was) never actually lived at 1026 N. Beckley? Moreover, his supposed "presence" there was really the result of a mash-up of both muddled memories and records of Herbert Leon Lee, plus the deliberate falsifications (both destruction and creation!) of records by witting police framers and opportunists such as Gladys Johnson or Earline Roberts? You've made a great point that FBI agent Hosty should absolutely have known "Oswald's" address by early November once he got the phone number from Ruth Paine. But officially, Hosty never went to 1026 N. Beckley before the assassination . . . Hosty was no fool. Can we conclude he went somewhere else? To what house or apartment did he truly go when checking on "Oswald"? I can't visualize a scenario in which the 1026 N. Beckley address was seized upon as a spur-of-the-moment improvisation by cops desperate to hide some other, more sensitive address for our "Oswald." Yet, this seems to be what you are implying. (I am not saying you are wrong, merely that I can't think of such a scheme.) If 1026 N. Beckley was a cover for some other address, then surely the plan to substitute that address for our "Oswald's" real address must have been in place or some time, right? Or not? Was it a hasty contrivance by somebody at DPD, frantically covering tracks? Also, I can't tell from your essay what you think about 214 Neely. Did our "Oswald" and his wife live there for seven weeks or so in March and April of 1963, or not? If so, why in the world did our "Oswald" deny it to Will Fritz? (Or, are you skeptical of Fritz's report? I don't trust Fritz, but this one makes no sense. It would seem Fritz wrote it because that's what "Oswald" said: he denied ever living at 214 Neely!) FWIW, as you may know, Joachim Joesten wrote that "Oswald'" mother told him that "Oswald" never lived at 214 Neely. Instead, "Oswald" mother claimed that Marina lived there with another man! Bizarre as that claim sounds, it might be psychologically possible - Marina would later claim to have been beaten by "Oswald" between November of 1962 and March of 1963, while she and he shared the residence at 604 Elsbeth, just around the corner from Neely. Did Marina leave Elsbeth in March of 1963 and move to Neely for a brief period that spring? Is that plausible?
  14. David, Am I correct in summarizing your thesis that there is no evidence at all that either our "Oswald" or anyone calling himself "Oswald" traveled to or from Mexico in any manner even remotely close to that described in the Warren Report? (That was my takeaway from reading your series on Mexico City some years ago.) I have long suspected that the person who appeared at the Cuban Consulate on Friday, September 27 was neither our "Oswald" nor the real LHO. Further, it has been argued (by others) that visit - approved by some level of U.S. Intelligence - was in furtherance of some unknown operation that may/probably had nothing to do with the impending assassination. Instead (goes this argument), that visit was then seized upon by the conspirators (also in U.S. Intelligence) as a way to implicate "Oswald" as a tool of the KGB by manipulating the transcripts of the ensuing wiretapped phone calls to the Soviet Consulate. While I personally am not sold on this theory, it might explain why the extant transcripts of the phone calls are not that ominous - if these calls were made by an impostor looking to frame "Oswald" as a future presidential assassin, he could have made them much more sinister. But still, as I said, the Mexico City "Oswald" phone calls/appearances are pretty mysterious.
  15. David, I agree. I, too, wondered about those some time ago. You are absolutely right that people wear these around public pools, showers, locker rooms, etc. Now, conceivably, he could have had them since his USMC days, but those things wear out pretty quickly, right? One other thing: after reading Lillian Murret's testimony, I was struck by her description of her nephew's appearance. She testified that "he was very poorly dressed." Also that "Lee didn't seem to have anything to wear . . . all he had on at the time was a T-shirt and pants, and I think he had only about two T-shirts with him." This is very reminiscent of the south Texas "Oswald" description from Oct. 3-5. Same guy? (The real LHO?) https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh8/html/WC_Vol8_0072a.htm
×
×
  • Create New...