Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

[Paul Trejo]

On 11/13/2017 at 3:22 PM, David Lifton said:

IMHO: Jack Ruby was strictly "after the fact" and has nothing to do with "Jewish mobsters."

DSL

David,

This is also the opinion of Seth Kantor, news reporter in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area in 1963, who had known Jack Ruby for years.

Seth Kantor gave a thorough portrait of Jack Ruby in his book, Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978).  

Besides that -- it is fairly well known that Italian mobsters controlled Jack Ruby in his younger days (e.g. Al Capone) -- and the Italian mob was the likely sponsor of two very upscale bordellos that Jack Ruby operated in posh neighborhoods in Dallas -- documented by Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker in his book on famous criminals in Dallas.

Jim Garrison was right -- "the mob had neither the guts nor the brains to carry out a paramilitary operation like the JFK assassination."  For a job of that precision, one would do best with a man with a lifetime of Army experience.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

21 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul, I think Silvia may have had reason not to tell the truth about who visited her. She later confided to a priest that one of the men was a JURE member, Eugenio Cisneros was his name, if I remember correctly. But I think we've had this discussion before...

Mathias,

You have a very mistaken impression, sir.

Sylvia Odio testified: (1) that the men at her doorstep were strangers to her; (2) that she never let them into her house; (3) that she knew for a fact that they were not JURE; and (4) that she was afraid of the pushy one.

Now -- as for Eugenio Cisneros -- he was a family friend of the Odios.  Sylvia used to date him in Cuba.  Eugenio and his friend Angelo Murgado were often inside Sylvia Odio's home, as dinner guests and so forth.

It was absolutely NOT Eugenio Cisneros with Lee Harvey Oswald at her doorstep during the final week of September, 1962.

Finally, Sylvia Odio told her priest no such thing.  The ACTUAL source of that story was Sylvia's good friend, Angelo Murgado.   He thought he was doing the HSCA a favor.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

So, your CT amounts to Sylvia Duran's original statement being a snap judgment without much thought -- and then, months later, upon further reflection and examination of the photographs, she changed her mind.

 

Paul,

Actually it was years later, not months, that Sylvia Duran changed her mind. And that happened only only because she was given additional information from which to draw a conclusion.

 

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

So, in your opinion, the numerous beatings that she suffered at the hands of the Mexican Police in the interim had nothing to do with it!

 

Yes, that's right. The Mexican Police tried to get Sylvia Duran to admit to conspiring with the Cuban government and Oswald in a plot to kill President Kennedy. They failed at doing so despite the beatings.

It is my opinion that Duran continually told the truth exactly as she saw it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Craig Carvalho wrote:  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.

LOL, speak for yourself Craig. It's obvious to me that the CIA was creating the illusion that the assassination was Cuban sponsored.

Sandy,

Stop!   You're both mistaken!

While we do know exactly what the CIA was running in Mexico City during this time period with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald -- it had nothing to do with the JFK Assassination!

The facts of the case, IMHO, were carefully documented by Bill Simpich from recent FOIA releases of CIA documents in his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

The CIA began a Top Secret CIA Mole Hunt to find the CIA/FBI Insider who had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald over the most wire-tapped phone on the planet in 1963, and linking the name of wanted KGB assassin Valery Kostikov with Oswald's name.

This was a big deal to the CIA.  Bill Simpich documented every move by the CIA in Mexico City -- including David Atlee Phillips, Anne Goodpasture and Win Scott.   They knew for a fact that it wasn't Oswald -- so who was it?

It's a lot of reading -- so just read Chapter Five.  It's FREE for the taking on the Mary Ferrell web site.  There's no excuse for ignoring it.

 

Paul,

Bill Simpich's mole hunt theory is apparently an alternative to the theory that I espouse, that Mexico City was all about creating the illusion that Cuba was behind the assassination.

Let me ask some questions:

1. Does Simpich's theory explain why Oswald was accused of taking a $6500 payment from the black man with red hair at the Cuban embassy? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
2. Does Simpich's theory explain why Oswald was reported by Elena Garro to have attended the infamous twist party, also attended by the Durans and the black man with red hair who had paid Oswald the $6500? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
3. Does Simpich's theory explain why Oswald was impersonated in those telephone calls? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
4. Does Simpich's theory explain why there were no surveillance photos of Oswald included in the set provided by the CIA, but there WAS a photo of a guy who looked like Nikolai Leonov, a senior KGB officer stationed at the Soviet Embassy? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
5. Does Simpich's theory explain why Win Scott indicated that J.C. King knew who was in photos he'd sent of Mystery Man, when he wrote in his memo to King, "a certain person who is known to you?" (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)

 

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

Bill Simpich's mole hunt theory is apparently an alternative to the theory that I espouse, that Mexico City was all about creating the illusion that Cuba was behind the assassination.

Let me ask some questions:

1. Does Simpich's theory explain why Oswald was accused of taking a $6500 payment from the black man with red hair at the Cuban embassy? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
2. Does Simpich's theory explain why Oswald was reported by Elena Garro to have attended the infamous twist party, also attended by the Durans and the black man with red hair who had paid Oswald the $6500? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
3. Does Simpich's theory explain why Oswald was impersonated in those telephone calls? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
4. Does Simpich's theory explain why there were no surveillance photos of Oswald included in the set provided by the CIA, but there WAS a photo of a guy who looked like Nikolai Leonov, a senior KGB officer stationed at the Soviet Embassy? (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)
5. Does Simpich's theory explain why Win Scott indicated that J.C. King knew who was in photos he'd sent of Mystery Man, when he wrote in his memo to King, "a certain person who is known to you?" (The theory I believe DOES explain this.)

 

I would like to add that the mole hunt does not prove that Angleton or Goodpasture didn't know who impersonated Oswald. I wish someone would counter my argument, presented many times here, that there is an alternate explanation, one that fits your theory Sandy. Namely, that Angleton planted the mole hunt to provide cover in the future for the CIA operations in MC. 

[David Josephs]

Paul, within your theory... why does the mystery man phot need to be included in the WCR at all.

Just to counter ODUM and Mrs. Oswald?

Thet photo associated with Oswald seems almost like Goodpasture et al thumbing their nose at HQ...

Wring date, wrong man... and they knew it.  My problem then is why let Alvarado come forward at all days afterward?  He is most certainly a Phillips asset designed to support your idea... lay at Castro’s feet.  Let Dallas speculate a bit then cut it off by envoking MX.

It would only concern FBI if Oswald was elsewhere doing their work... Odio and 2 cubans...

Hoover gets 10/10 and knows the CIA is “double dealing” but they can’t counter by saying where Oswald really was... so the 3 amigos are born....  but at the time, Hoover hesitantly plays along...  he never actually corroborated the CIA. He just didn’t push too hard overtly. 

As I see it that is...

[James DiEugenio]

13 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Jim,

if the picture was not taken while Oswald was in Mexico why did Win Scott consider it so sensitive that he kept it in his safe?

We do no know what was in his safe Mathias or what the value of anything there was.

You might ask yourself if the tapes Scott had were really of Oswald, why were they stolen by Angleton within a day or so after Scott's death? And then disappeared.

And if the photo was really of Oswald in Mexico in front of the proper embassy, why was it not shown to Slawson when he asked for it?

In fact, for Slawson, Scott made up some BS technical excuses as to why  they did not have a photo of Oswald entering or exiting either embassy. He said they did not have the money, manpower or proper lighting to cover the embassies full time.  When in the Lopez Report, these are all exposed as being false.

That would all have been eliminated if he had flashed them the photo.

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Craig Carvalho]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Craig:

 

Why leave out what they said?

They pictured him as a tragic figure who was saying the end was near and was waving around a handgun because the FBI was going to kill him.

Do you buy that story?  Its the same story that was used on Tracking Oswald.  Did you buy that series?

And why are there no pics of him going inside or leaving the complex?

Do you understand the background to that book?  If you do not then you did not read our review of Tracking Oswald.

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.  

Edited November 18, 2017 by Craig Carvalho
Postscript

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said:

P.S. Member Douglas Caddy recently started a thread entitled, CIA had 'very intensive' interest in Oswald before assassination. Worth a look IMO.

Ha!  I'm sure the CIA did have intensive interest in Oswald before the assassination. He was, after all, one of their agents.

BTW, this has been proved. (The proof is in Douglass's book, pages 144 thru 146. Though Douglass refers to the proof as an "implication.") Plus there's a whole lot of supporting evidence, which Jim Hargrove keeps track of.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks for remembering, Sandy!

20 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, and he said that the CIA and FBI ignored his warnings.

16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs….

18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

20. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ha!  I'm sure the CIA did have intensive interest in Oswald before the assassination. He was, after all, one of their agents.

BTW, this has been proved. (The proof is in Douglass's book, pages 144 thru 146. Though Douglass refers to the proof as an "implication.")

That proof involves Ann Egerter’s HSCA testimony discussing the purpose of her boss J.J. Angleton’s Special Investigations Group (SIG).  She said, “We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel who were suspected one way or another.” SIG was clearly a counterintelligence unit.  Since CI/SIG had opened a 201 file on LHO in December 1960, her clear indication was that Oswald was employed by the Agency.  Others suggest some wriggle room here, claiming that a 201 file might be opened on an individual merely being “used” by the Agency.  Personally, I’m tired of all those fine distinctions CIA apologists continually use.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On 11/18/2017 at 1:55 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Ha!  I'm sure the CIA did have intensive interest in Oswald before the assassination. He was, after all, one of their agents.

BTW, this has been proved. (The proof is in Douglass's book, pages 144 thru 146. Though Douglass refers to the proof as an "implication.")

That proof involves Ann Egerter’s HSCA testimony discussing the purpose of her boss J.J. Angleton’s Special Investigations Group (SIG).  She said, “We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel who were suspected one way or another.” SIG was clearly a counterintelligence unit.  Since CI/SIG had opened a 201 file on LHO in December 1960, her clear indication was that Oswald was employed by the Agency.  Others suggest some wriggle room here, claiming that a 201 file might be opened on an individual merely being “used” by the Agency.  Personally, I’m tired of all those fine distinctions CIA apologists continually use.

Jim,

I'm astonished that there are serious researchers who don't accept that Oswald was a CIA agent. Granted a young, inexperienced one. But one nevertheless.

Have you considered maintaining a list longer than 20 entries? Even if only on your website? I find the Ann Egerter HSCA one to be definitive. A lesser one is the question, why won't Oswald's tax returns be released? (Though in that case it could be because of FBI income.)

Once one accepts Oswald as a CIA agent, nearly everything falls into place. For example, the Mexico trip is no longer a mystery.The big remaining mysteries in the plot are 1) who beside the CIA was behind the assassination; 2) who killed Tippet and why; and 3) who was supposed to kill Oswald. Also, I'd like to know where precisely the assassination plot ended and the coverup began. The coverup seemed to  have begun too quickly not to have been part of the plot.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Rob Couteau]

Ann Egerter’s full testimony implies that 201 files were only opened on those "who were suspected one way or another.” Does anyone know if there were any exceptions to this? If not, does that mean that Earle Cabell was also "suspected one way or another.”  Or does it imply that before, full trust is accorded, an asset's personality file is assembled to analyze whether he should be granted eventual trust? If you get my drift, there is a significant difference between these two parameters.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Rob Couteau

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Rob Couteau said:

Ann Egerter’s full testimony implies that 201 files were only opened on those "who were suspected one way or another.” Does anyone know if there were any exceptions to this?

Rob,

I recall reading an official document that showed that a high-level CIA official -- Angleton I believe -- considered using a 201 file in CI/SIG for a unusual, tricky reason. The document described his plan. I probably made a note of that but I can't find it now. But I do recall that, had that been the reason CI/SIG had a 201 file on Oswald, it would not have negated the conclusion that Oswald was a CIA agent.

 

14 minutes ago, Rob Couteau said:

If not, does that mean that Earle Cabell was also "suspected one way or another.”

Was there a CI/SIG 201 file open on Earle Cabell? Only if the file was in CI/SIG does it mean there was suspicion involved.

 

14 minutes ago, Rob Couteau said:

 Or does it imply that before, full trust is accorded, an asset's personality file is assembled to analyze whether he should be granted eventual trust? If you get my drift, there is a significant difference between these two parameters.

[Michael Clark]

31 minutes ago, Rob Couteau said:

Ann Egerter’s full testimony implies that 201 files were only opened on those "who were suspected one way or another.” Does anyone know if there were any exceptions to this? If not, does that mean that Earle Cabell was also "suspected one way or another.”  Or does it imply that before, full trust is accorded, an asset's personality file is assembled to analyze whether he should be granted eventual trust? If you get my drift, there is a significant difference between these two parameters.

 

Rob, can you post the testimony that indicates what you say? Jim's post seems to be saying that her group investigates suspect employees. She is not saying that 201 files are open on suspect employees. That is my read, and my understanding.