Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Thomas Graves

For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Sandy Larsen, and other Critically-Minded Members

Recommended Posts

Copied and pasted here from Jon Simkin's excellent "Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald"  thread.

My questions and comments are in red. --  Tommy :sun 

 

 

One of the most interesting aspects of Jeff Morley’s book, “Our Man in Mexico”, is his account of Sylvia Duran, a Mexican employee in the Cuban consulate in Mexico City.

Are the following your paraphrased extracts, Mr. Simkin, or were they "lifted" from the book?  [5/21/17 edit: note the quotation marks]


At 11.00 a.m. on Friday, 27th September, 1963, Oswald told Duran that he wished to travel to the Soviet Union via Cuba. Duran told him that he would need a passport photograph to apply for a visa for Cuba. He returned an hour later with the photograph. Duran then told him he would need to visit the Soviet embassy to get the necessary paperwork. This he did but Vice Consul Oleg Nechiperenko [Don't mean to nitpick, but weren't Kostikov and Yatskov allegedly with Nechiporenko at the time?] informed him that the visa application would be sent to the Soviet embassy in Washington and would take about four months. Oswald then returned to the Cuban consulate at 4.00 and lied to Duran about his meeting with Nechiperenko. Duran checked Oswald’s story on the phone [with Kostikov, right?] and after a brief argument he left the consulate. Six times Oswald needed to pass the newly installed LIERODE camera [Weren't they having technical problems with that camera at the time?  Wasn't that particular camera installed on 9/27/63?].

The CIA surveillance program worked and on Monday, 30th September, Anne Goodpasture recorded details of Oswald’s visits to the Cuban consulate. As Goodpasture noted, the two types of “security” information that most interested the CIA station concerned “U.S. citizens initiating or maintaining contact with the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic installations” and “travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens or residents.” (page 182)

The CIA tape of the Oswald call was marked “urgent” and was delivered to the station within 15 minutes of it taking place. Win Scott read Goodpasture’s report and next to the transcript of Duran’s call to the Soviet embassy, he wrote: “Is it possible to identify”.

It later emerged that the CIA station in Mexico was already monitoring Sylvia Duran. According to David Phillips and Win Scott, the CIA surveillance program had revealed that Duran was having an affair with Carlos Lechuga, the former Cuban ambassador in Mexico City, who was in 1963 serving as Castro’s ambassador to the United Nations. We also now know that Lechuga was involved in the secret negotiations with Lisa Howard on behalf of JFK.

Soon after the assassination of JFK Win Scott contacted Luis Echeverria and asked his men to arrest Sylvia Duran. He also told Diaz Ordaz that Duran was to be held incommunicado until she gave all details of her contacts with Oswald. Scott then reported his actions to CIA headquarters. Soon afterwards, John Whitten, the CIA head of the Mexican desk, called Scott with orders from Tom Karamessines that Duran was not to be arrested. Win told them it was too late and that the Mexican government would keep the whole thing secret. Karamessines replied with a telegram that began: “Arrest of Sylvia Duran is extremely serious matter which could prejudice U.S. freedom of action on entire question of Cuban responsibility.”

What did Karamessines mean by this? [Good question!] Why [or what?] did he not want the Mexicans to find out? What we do know is that John Whitten was also surprised by Karamessines’ order and initially opposed sending the message to Scott.

Duran, her husband and five other people were arrested. Duran was “interrogated forcefully” (Duran was badly [How badly?  Really badly? -(lol)] bruised during the interview). Echeverria reported to Scott that Duran had been “completely cooperative” and had made a detailed statement. This statement matched the story of the surveillance transcripts, with one exception. The tapes indicated that Duran made another call to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, 28th September. Duran then put an American on the line who spoke incomprehensible [ I thought it was just "nearly incomprehensible" ] Russian. This suggests that the man could not have been Oswald who spoke the language well.

Duran was released but was then rearrested and questioned about her relationship with Oswald. Despite being roughed up she denied having a sexual relationship with Oswald. Echeverria believed her and she was released. However, Duran later admitted to a close friend that she had dated Oswald while he was in Mexico City.

A week after the assassination Elena Garro reported that she had seen Oswald at a party held by people from the Cuban consulate in September 1963. The following week, June Cobb, a CIA informant, confirmed Oswald presence at the party. She also had been told that Oswald was sleeping with Duran. Win Scott reported this information to CIA headquarters but never got a reply. (page 241)

Why did the CIA want Sylvia Duran kept out of this story? One released document reveals that a Mexican source on the CIA payroll suggested that it would be very easy to recruit Duran as a spy. (page 210) Did Karamessines via Phillips recruit Duran as a spy? If so, Win Scott and John Whitten were kept out of the loop. Why? Was there an unofficial CIA operation involving Duran and Oswald? To be more correct, someone posing as Oswald. [Edit: Or maybe Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, but some intel ops by the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and / or Mexico and Cuba were "piggybacked" on each other in such a way that "required" an imaginary Oswald to be there?]

It later emerged that when Duran was interviewed by the Mexican authorities soon after the assassination she described the man who visited the Cuban consul's office as being "blond-haired" and with "blue or green eyes" [Hmm .. Just like Nikolai Leonov!]. Neither detail fits in with the authentic Oswald. But these details had been removed from the statement by the time it reached the Warren Commission.  [Are transcripts of the Mexican interrogations available to us?  IDK, but I rather doubt it.]

Duran was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. This testimony is classified.  However, in 1979 Duran told the author, Anthony Summers that she told the HSCA that the man who visited the office was about her size (5 feet 3.5 inches). [Holy Toledo!  What a coincidence!  Blond-haired, blue-eyed Leonov was only 5' 6" ! ] This created problems as Oswald was 5 feet 9.5 inches. When Summers showed Duran a film of Oswald taken at the time of his arrest, Duran said: "The man on the film is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City."

Win Scott died on 26th April, 1971, while he was negotiating with the CIA about publishing his memoirs that included an account of Oswald’s time in Mexico. Scott told Helms that he would not be talked out of publishing the book.

When Anne Goodpasture heard the news of Scott’s death she went straight to Jim Angleton’s office [I'm probably wrong, but wasn't Goodpasture in Mexico City at the time?]  to tell him that Scott had classified documents in his home safe (Scott had tapes and photos of Oswald). Angleton went straight to Mexico City and took control of this material).

 

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Thomas Graves - I'm asking this as a student as I want to learn something here.  Is John Simkin's posts, and the book he refers to, pro "Oswald was down there" and you're basically rebutting those claims that he wasn't?  I just want to make sure I understand what I'm reading here.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

To Thomas Graves - I'm asking this as a student as I want to learn something here.  Is [sic] John Simkin's posts, and the book he refers to, pro "Oswald was down there" and you're basically rebutting those claims that he wasn't?  I just want to make sure I understand what I'm reading here.  Thanks.

Michael,

In that post I was kinda multi-tasking if you will.  I'll start explaining / defending myself in a few minutes after I've had another cup of coffee and listened to AC/DC's "Rock N Roll Train" a couple more times to get the "juices" flowing.....  I mean I mean I mean seriously dude I just got up. Well, about an hour ago, truth be told.  Pulled an all nighter.  Well, until about 4 AM, truth be told..

But thanks for asking. 

"Now where did I put that jar of cheapo house brand instant caffeinated coffee, gosh darn it?........"

I do promise to get back to you after I've thought up a few plausible  .... "rationalizations".  More than enough time for my good buddy to jump in and say something highly enlightening if he wants to.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

To Thomas Graves - I'm asking this as a student as I want to learn something here.  Is [sic] John Simkin's posts, and the book he refers to, pro "Oswald was down there" and you're basically rebutting those claims that he wasn't?  I just want to make sure I understand what I'm reading here.  Thanks.

Michael Walton,

I'm leaning more and more towards believing that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, and that certain elements of the KGB, the CIA, and the Cuban Consulate / Embassy conspired with each other, or maybe piggybacked each other's operations in some complex Mad Magazine-like "spy vs spy"  game, to make it appear that he had.

You are probably now thinking: "Can you explain why you feel this way, Tommy?"

No, not in any great detail.  I haven't worked it all out yet.  (lol)

Suffice it to say that the fact Duran's and Azcue's descriptions of the "Blond Oswald" who had (or had not) visited them on Friday, September 27, 1963, were not only implausible to begin with (describing Nikolai Leonov!), but varied so much over the years (at one point during her HSCA testimony Duran said the "Blond Oswald" weighed about the same as a guy in the HSCA proceedings who weighed 200 lbs !  And when a HSCA lawyer who was questioning her said (in so many words), "Now earlier, out of the court room, you told us this guy was wearing a sports jacket", and she basically contradicted him and said, "No, he wasn't so elegantly dressed" or words to that effect. When we remember that Cuban Consul Azcue had claimed that "Blond Oswald" was wearing a dark blue "Prince of Wales" jacket with stripes, I think what the HSCA lawyer let slip out of the bag is kinda telling about the veracity (or lack of such) of both Duran and Azcue, and opens the possibility that no Oswald, blond or otherwise, visited the Cuban Consulate in late September, 1963.

Kinda thinking out loud here, now, ... I think the almost-identical after-the-assassination descriptions Nechiporenko and Leonov  gave of their "Oswald encounters" (on Saturday and Sunday,  September 28th and 29th, respectively) in which Oswald was made out as being "highly unstable, brandishing a loaded revolver" were fabricated in order to suggest that Oswald was emotionally predisposed to killing people (i.e. Tippit and JFK), and also as an attempt to corroborate what Nosenko had told CIA in February, 1964 -- that Oswald was so doggone unstable when he arrived in the U.S.S.R. that the KGB didn't want to have anything to do with him. Which is very interesting.  Because Golitsyn, who defected 6 months before Nosenko (and whom I believe was genuine -- I'm talking about Golitsyn here) had already told CIA that KGB's Department 13 interviewed all defecting U.S. military personnel to learn of any military secrets they might have.

Now this doesn't necessarily mean that I believe the KGB recruited Oswald to kill JFK.  But it does raise the interesting question of why in the heck the KGB wanted us to believe they hadn't even routinely interviewed Oswald for military secrets.  

I can think of a few possibilities:

1 )  They didn't interview him.  Not because they suspected he was crazy, but because they suspected that he was actually a CIA or ONI "plant" sent to the U.S.S.R. to give the KGB / GRU false information about the U.S. military.  (But why not interview him anyway, not "let on" what you suspect his true motives are, and give him some false info in return?)

2 )  They did interview Oswald but didn't want the CIA to know that.

Because:

 A )  They got some really juicy info from him, like a description of the new height-finding radar we were using in conjunction with the U2, etc, and KGB didn't want CIA to know that KGB knew that.

B )  They didn't get squat from him (because he was "crazy" and just couldn't remember, etc), and after the assassination the KGB was afraid the U.S. would nuke the U.S.S.R. if it became known that the KGB (and specifically Department 13 !) had not only contacted Oswald when he arrived in Moscow, but had actually interviewed him.  (I don't know exactly when Golitsyn told CIA about Department 13's normal operating procedures as regards recently-arrived U.S. military defectors, but it's reasonable to assume that he might have kinda brought it up at some point before November 22, 1963, so I guess this isn't a particularly plausible excuse on KGB's part for the simple fact that the U.S. hadn't quite gotten around  to nuking the U.S.S.R. when Nosenko defected on February 4, 1964.  (Hmmm ... Was the KGB worried about what the Warren Commission might uncover?)

C )  Out of KGB's concern that if they admitted in, say, February of 1964, that the KGB had interviewed Oswald, that they would be revealing top secret "sources and methods", and it might even come out that their foreign assassinations section -- Department 13 -- was the department doing the interviewing.

 

But I'm rambling, I suppose, and I am getting tired.

Time for another cup of that cheapo instant coffee ....

--  Tommy :sun

Oh yeah, all of the above plus the fact that neither the Ruskies nor the Mexicans were ever able to produce the communications Nechiporenko and Leonov claimed they'd sent to the authorities on 9/28/63 and 9/29/63, respectively, about this "unstable, dangerous Oswald guy" they'd met with.

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not well read on Oswald in Mexico but i find Mark Lane's claim that David Phillips stated he didn't think Oswald went to Mexico (There should be a tape of this statement somewhere at the end of their USC debate) very interesting. I've looked also at the evidence purporting to cover his journey's there and back and it appears suspect.

A common view appears to be that he DID go to Mexico City and an equally common view is that he was impersonated both in person and on the phone to the Embassies. I would like to know from those who hold both of these views what they beleive he went to Mexico for, or at least why he thought he was going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point in time my "opinion" is that Oswald did go to Mexico City and that the CIA was aware of it at the time - however my guess is that all the aspects of his time there certainly don't match the record constructed after the fact. A number of things bother me about his purported visits to the Cuban facilities, less to the Russian.  The passport photo thing is a real problem, also the fact that Phillips also told the FBI in a memo that as of early 64 the CIA still had photos of everyone entering the Cuban facility  at the time Oswald was being reported to have met with an individual the FBI was checking out (they were trying to check some of the many claims about Oswald contacts there) and the individual in question had not entered the building  at that time. The period in question covered Oswald's reported appearances meaning that the CIA should have had Oswald's photo - which suggests they may have had a photo of someone impersonating Oswald. I'm also struck by the Hosty's story that his FBI friends in MC had Oswald under surveillance around the city. After talking to Hosty over time I believe he was sincere about that and operationally there would be every reason for both the FBI and CIA to be monitoring Oswald if he was there - we know from earlier incidents that the first thing the CIA did if they monitored a suspicious American contacting the Cubans was to hand it off to the FBI and Americans were tracked and detained for making offers of information to the Cubans, even in 1963.  We also know that MC station had an AMOT trained mobile surveillance team, given the flap over unknown American contacting the Cubans (and that was a big deal; Phillips lied in his book) its hard to think that nobody went looking for him.  Bottom line is that I'm afraid its much like the shooting in DP, we have bits and pieces and we lack other bits and pieces and we try to get really specific about exactly what did happen. But the bottom line is that, as with many other things, events in MC got "spun" to fit the lone nut story line after the fact and while we can poke holes in it that doesn't mean we can reconstruct what actually went down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I am not well read on Oswald in Mexico but i find Mark Lane's claim that David Phillips stated he didn't think Oswald went to Mexico (There should be a tape of this statement somewhere at the end of their USC debate) very interesting. I've looked also at the evidence purporting to cover his journey's there and back and it appears suspect.

A common view appears to be that he DID go to Mexico City and an equally common view is that he was impersonated both in person and on the phone to the Embassies. I would like to know from those who hold both of these views what they beleive he went to Mexico for, or at least why he thought he was going.

Hi there Eddy,

At the moment, I am of the mind that some folks were playing dirty tricks on James Jesus Angleton. These people, I theorize, were trying to keep JJA off guard, off balance and chasing his tail in order to keep him from detecting the real plot. I am thinking that one leg of the plot came through a stove-piped channel, from the Eastern Establishment, down through the pipes in order to avoid the CIA Chain of command, but still use CIA assets and resources, through guys like Hunt and Liddy, and with DAP taking an active part when things needed some TLC.

I believe LHO had to have gone to MC at some point, and evidence was generated for that at some point, in case it was needed. As it comes to us, the MC venture can be said to be false, even if LHO happened to be in MC somewhere in that timeframe. I don't believe that Sylvia Duran met the DPD LHO.

The purpose of the manufactured evidence was, along with the DAP/LHO/AV Dallas meeeting, done in order to keep the Anti-Castro Cubans convinced that a plot was underway that would lead to the invasion of Cuba. The evidence of MC was buried, not to avoid WW3 as is often said; but to double-cross the Cubans.

That is kind of where I am at at this point Eddy,

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

At this point in time my "opinion" is that Oswald did go to Mexico City and that the CIA was aware of it at the time - however my guess is that all the aspects of his time there certainly don't match the record constructed after the fact. A number of things bother me about his purported visits to the Cuban facilities, less to the Russian.  The passport photo thing is a real problem, also the fact that Phillips also told the FBI in a memo that as of early 64 the CIA still had photos of everyone entering the Cuban facility  at the time Oswald was being reported to have met with an individual the FBI was checking out (they were trying to check some of the many claims about Oswald contacts there) and the individual in question had not entered the building  at that time. The period in question covered Oswald's reported appearances meaning that the CIA should have had Oswald's photo - which suggests they may have had a photo of someone impersonating Oswald. I'm also struck by the Hosty's story that his FBI friends in MC had Oswald under surveillance around the city. After talking to Hosty over time I believe he was sincere about that and operationally there would be every reason for both the FBI and CIA to be monitoring Oswald if he was there - we know from earlier incidents that the first thing the CIA did if they monitored a suspicious American contacting the Cubans was to hand it off to the FBI and Americans were tracked and detained for making offers of information to the Cubans, even in 1963.  We also know that MC station had an AMOT trained mobile surveillance team, given the flap over unknown American contacting the Cubans (and that was a big deal; Phillips lied in his book) its hard to think that nobody went looking for him.  Bottom line is that I'm afraid its much like the shooting in DP, we have bits and pieces and we lack other bits and pieces and we try to get really specific about exactly what did happen. But the bottom line is that, as with many other things, events in MC got "spun" to fit the lone nut story line after the fact and while we can poke holes in it that doesn't mean we can reconstruct what actually went down.

I was unaware of Hosty's report on the matter. As relayed by you, his report would appear to leave open the possibility that the FBI may have been given false information by the CIA. At this point in time would the FBI have possessed independently verifiable information on Oswald? I understand there was blurring of loyalties within the two agencies ranks. Is it possible the CIA ran an operation whilst keeping the FBI hierarchy misinformed? I am accepting your assessment of Hosty's sincerity. Am I right to be wary that he has an accurate picture of the events in MC?

I find Michael's argument above plausible with regard to there being a need for Oswald to be in Mexico City to lend credibility to the subterfuge, but that doesn't chime with my scepticism that he got there and back as per the official explanation. If he went with 'others' and came back with 'others', it perhaps explains the need for a false travel story?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2017 at 2:19 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Copied and pasted here from Jon Simkin's excellent "Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald"  thread.

My questions and comments are in red. --  Tommy :sun 

 

 

One of the most interesting aspects of Jeff Morley’s book, “Our Man in Mexico”, is his account of Sylvia Duran, a Mexican employee in the Cuban consulate in Mexico City.

Are the following your paraphrased extracts, Mr. Simkin, or were they "lifted" from the book?  [5/21/17 edit: note the quotation marks]


At 11.00 a.m. on Friday, 27th September, 1963, Oswald told Duran that he wished to travel to the Soviet Union via Cuba. Duran told him that he would need a passport photograph to apply for a visa for Cuba. He returned an hour later with the photograph. Duran then told him he would need to visit the Soviet embassy to get the necessary paperwork. This he did but Vice Consul Oleg Nechiperenko [Don't mean to nitpick, but weren't Kostikov and Yatskov allegedly with Nechiporenko at the time?] informed him that the visa application would be sent to the Soviet embassy in Washington and would take about four months. Oswald then returned to the Cuban consulate at 4.00 and lied to Duran about his meeting with Nechiperenko. Duran checked Oswald’s story on the phone [with Kostikov, right?] and after a brief argument he left the consulate. Six times Oswald needed to pass the newly installed LIERODE camera [Weren't they having technical problems with that camera at the time?  Wasn't that particular camera installed on 9/27/63?].

The CIA surveillance program worked and on Monday, 30th September, Anne Goodpasture recorded details of Oswald’s visits to the Cuban consulate. As Goodpasture noted, the two types of “security” information that most interested the CIA station concerned “U.S. citizens initiating or maintaining contact with the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic installations” and “travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens or residents.” (page 182)

The CIA tape of the Oswald call was marked “urgent” and was delivered to the station within 15 minutes of it taking place. Win Scott read Goodpasture’s report and next to the transcript of Duran’s call to the Soviet embassy, he wrote: “Is it possible to identify”.

It later emerged that the CIA station in Mexico was already monitoring Sylvia Duran. According to David Phillips and Win Scott, the CIA surveillance program had revealed that Duran was having an affair with Carlos Lechuga, the former Cuban ambassador in Mexico City, who was in 1963 serving as Castro’s ambassador to the United Nations. We also now know that Lechuga was involved in the secret negotiations with Lisa Howard on behalf of JFK.

Soon after the assassination of JFK Win Scott contacted Luis Echeverria and asked his men to arrest Sylvia Duran. He also told Diaz Ordaz that Duran was to be held incommunicado until she gave all details of her contacts with Oswald. Scott then reported his actions to CIA headquarters. Soon afterwards, John Whitten, the CIA head of the Mexican desk, called Scott with orders from Tom Karamessines that Duran was not to be arrested. Win told them it was too late and that the Mexican government would keep the whole thing secret. Karamessines replied with a telegram that began: “Arrest of Sylvia Duran is extremely serious matter which could prejudice U.S. freedom of action on entire question of Cuban responsibility.”

What did Karamessines mean by this? [Good question!] Why [or what?] did he not want the Mexicans to find out? What we do know is that John Whitten was also surprised by Karamessines’ order and initially opposed sending the message to Scott.

Duran, her husband and five other people were arrested. Duran was “interrogated forcefully” (Duran was badly [How badly?  Really badly? -(lol)] bruised during the interview). Echeverria reported to Scott that Duran had been “completely cooperative” and had made a detailed statement. This statement matched the story of the surveillance transcripts, with one exception. The tapes indicated that Duran made another call to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, 28th September. Duran then put an American on the line who spoke incomprehensible [ I thought it was just "nearly incomprehensible" ] Russian. This suggests that the man could not have been Oswald who spoke the language well.

Duran was released but was then rearrested and questioned about her relationship with Oswald. Despite being roughed up she denied having a sexual relationship with Oswald. Echeverria believed her and she was released. However, Duran later admitted to a close friend that she had dated Oswald while he was in Mexico City.

A week after the assassination Elena Garro reported that she had seen Oswald at a party held by people from the Cuban consulate in September 1963. The following week, June Cobb, a CIA informant, confirmed Oswald presence at the party. She also had been told that Oswald was sleeping with Duran. Win Scott reported this information to CIA headquarters but never got a reply. (page 241)

Why did the CIA want Sylvia Duran kept out of this story? One released document reveals that a Mexican source on the CIA payroll suggested that it would be very easy to recruit Duran as a spy. (page 210) Did Karamessines via Phillips recruit Duran as a spy? If so, Win Scott and John Whitten were kept out of the loop. Why? Was there an unofficial CIA operation involving Duran and Oswald? To be more correct, someone posing as Oswald. [Edit: Or maybe Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, but some intel ops by the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and / or Mexico and Cuba were "piggybacked" on each other in such a way that "required" an imaginary Oswald to be there?]

It later emerged that when Duran was interviewed by the Mexican authorities soon after the assassination she described the man who visited the Cuban consul's office as being "blond-haired" and with "blue or green eyes" [Hmm .. Just like Nikolai Leonov!]. Neither detail fits in with the authentic Oswald. But these details had been removed from the statement by the time it reached the Warren Commission.  [Are transcripts of the Mexican interrogations available to us?  IDK, but I rather doubt it.]

Duran was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. This testimony is classified.  However, in 1979 Duran told the author, Anthony Summers that she told the HSCA that the man who visited the office was about her size (5 feet 3.5 inches). [Holy Toledo!  What a coincidence!  Blond-haired, blue-eyed Leonov was only 5' 6" ! ] This created problems as Oswald was 5 feet 9.5 inches. When Summers showed Duran a film of Oswald taken at the time of his arrest, Duran said: "The man on the film is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City."

Win Scott died on 26th April, 1971, while he was negotiating with the CIA about publishing his memoirs that included an account of Oswald’s time in Mexico. Scott told Helms that he would not be talked out of publishing the book.

When Anne Goodpasture heard the news of Scott’s death she went straight to Jim Angleton’s office [I'm probably wrong, but wasn't Goodpasture in Mexico City at the time?]  to tell him that Scott had classified documents in his home safe (Scott had tapes and photos of Oswald). Angleton went straight to Mexico City and took control of this material).

 

--  Tommy :sun


Tommy,

Here is my current thinking:

First, I believe Oswald when he said in his interrogation that he didn't go to Mexico City. This may sound odd, but I trust what he said over what most the others have said. But to be more certain about that, I really need to spend time studying the evidence that he actually traveled there and back. I have been told there are lots of problems with that evidence, and for now I am accepting that assessment.

I think there is little doubt that the Mexico City charade was a CIA operation. I have a hard time believing that the CIA didn't have fake surveillance photos and recording of Oswald ready to go. My current belief is that, had Oswald been shot dead as planned, those photos and recordings would have been sent to Washington. But since he was taken alive, the Kostikov subplot was aborted. The intended photos and recordings were put in Win Scott's safe, and faulty ones were sent instead.

Later -- after Oswald was killed and LBJ had decided to blame Oswald alone -- the Kostikov subplot was restored and executed with the help of Ruth Paine.

(I may add more later. Right now I need to pick up my daughter from school.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I was unaware of Hosty's report on the matter. As relayed by you, his report would appear to leave open the possibility that the FBI may have been given false information by the CIA. At this point in time would the FBI have possessed independently verifiable information on Oswald? I understand there was blurring of loyalties within the two agencies ranks. Is it possible the CIA ran an operation whilst keeping the FBI hierarchy misinformed? I am accepting your assessment of Hosty's sincerity. Am I right to be wary that he has an accurate picture of the events in MC?"

.............

Hosty would only have had access to second hand information coming directly from FBI associates in MC and from other Dallas agents who had indeed served there previously. No way of knowing exactly how accurate and of course it would only have been fragmentary at best.  However we do know from actual documents that it was standard practice for the CIA to inform FBI of Americans who had visited the Cuban facilities in MC - given that travel was illegal and that Cuba was considered a Communist nation, such individuals were immediately persons of interest.  We also know from the records that the FBI routinely monitored a number of Americans living in MC who had been suspect or known to have Communist associations. If Oswald was in MC and contacting both the Russians and Cubans Oswald should have drawn far more attention from the FBI - which he may well have given Hosty's slip on Nov. 23 telling a Secret Service agent that Oswald had been under surveillance and observed meeting with subversives.

As to a blurring of loyalties between the agencies, some of that is exaggerated in print. What is clear is that internally within both there was a great deal of compartmentalization, and each looked on the other more as a source of information that a partner. Interestingly though there was on joint operation going on in 1963, named AM/SANTA, and it sent FPCC members who had been turned into Cuba for intel collection, using the Cuban consulate in MC to enable travel.  Some of the CIA names involved in that operation also show up in Oswald's file. And that operation, initially highly successful, seems to have stopped abruptly for no known reason at the end of 1963.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×