Jump to content
The Education Forum

LIENVOY monthly status report for SEPT '63 - no OSWALD


Recommended Posts

So one of the key clues to there having been a cover-up are the extemporaneous reports written at the time which does not take notice of important things until after November 22.

One example being there was not a single FBI report on Oswald having received a rifle, let alone ever actually seen with it...

Another are the calls attributed to Oswald on Sept 27 and 28, 1963... 

On October 8th, the day after Phillips arrives in Mexico City as Cuban Desk Chief, this summary report is prepared after reviewing the tapped calls...  now while the calls of the 27th - being in Spanish - are not at all attributed to Oswald, the calls on the 28th are...

Shouldn't we be seeing mention of the calls from the 28th which were so critical to Oswald?

 

 

Checking the NOV STATUS REPORT we do find mention of a call to the Soviet Embassy by an American... but if we remember, the call was first to the Soviet Military ATTACHE...
followed by ones to the Embassy.   Following is the NOV status report offering one mention of an English speaking man calling the Embassy...  whether this has anything to do with Oswald - which I am certain it did not - is not said.

Calls involving Oswald were supposedly made on Sept 27, 28 and Oct 1 & 3... with multiple contacts on most days...

And all it warranted was a single line about an American....

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

So one of the key clues to there having been a cover-up are the extemporaneous reports written at the time which does not take notice of important things until after November 22.

One example being there was not a single FBI report on Oswald having received a rifle, let alone ever actually seen with it...

Another are the calls attributed to Oswald on Sept 27 and 28, 1963... 

On October 8th, the day after Phillips arrives in Mexico City as Cuban Desk Chief, this summary report is prepared after reviewing the tapped calls...  now while the calls of the 27th - being in Spanish - are not at all attributed to Oswald, the calls on the 28th are...

Shouldn't we be seeing mention of the calls from the 28th which were so critical to Oswald?

5ab2a00e83955_63-10-08LIENVOYMONTHLYSUMMARYREPORT-NOOSWALDORAMERICAN.thumb.jpg.47bbe4a21af563927147cb10824b7569.jpg

 

Checking the NOV STATUS REPORT we do find mention of a call to the Soviet Embassy by an American... but if we remember, the call was first to the Soviet Military ATTACHE...
followed by ones to the Embassy.   Following is the NOV status report offering one mention of an English speaking man calling the Embassy...  whether this has anything to do with Oswald - which I am certain it did not - is not said.

Calls involving Oswald were supposedly made on Sept 27, 28 and Oct 1 & 3... with multiple contacts on most days...

And all it warranted was a single line about an American....

5ab2a181cfe6e_63-11-07LIENVOYMONTHLYSUMMARYREPORTOCTOBER1963-OSWALDORAMERICANMENTIONEDASSPEAKINGWITHSOVIETEMBASSYbutnotmilitaryattache.thumb.jpg.55f18c41a9bb2bc9a77cb738aafaf94a.jpg

Hi David,

THANKS for beginning with evidence instead of speculation.

I looked at every 2017 document release and the Mexico City traffic was prominent.   One of the main reactions I have to your post is: can you show how other Americans contacting the Cuban or Soviet embassies were handled differently?

 

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi David,

THANKS for beginning with evidence instead of speculation.

I looked at every 2017 document release and the Mexico City traffic was prominent.   One of the main reactions I have to your post is: can you show how another American contact at the Cuban or Soviet embassies were handled differently?

 

Jason

You'll excuse me for asking...  There are 33000 lines in the spreadsheet of the index... how did you get thru all of them already?
There are many with no date, no info at all...

Just curious really Jason....  as I go thru these every day and have been thru 1750 so far...

9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This was on October 8th?  

Which was allegedly a week later, after Oswald was gone from Mexico City?

Yes, a week after the Oct 1st call...we get a report of all the SEPT activity...

Jason, you're very welcome - I try to include the evidence in all my posts....

I went back to some earlier STATUS reports and found this from JULY 1963

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10052-10096.pdf

5ab2b3771f1f7_JulyLIENVOYstatusreportshowingwhattheydidwithEnglishspeakingpersons-smaller.jpg.a66e8a6e9a37bbe48e374c2384ff659c.jpg

 

It is not until the NOV report, written in JANUARY 1964 for events from NOV 1963 - do they mention Oswald...

There was no STATUS REPORT in DEC in the release...

5ab2b4e91779d_NOVEMBERLIENVOYstatusreportnowmentionsOswald-yetreportisfromJANUARY.._1964.thumb.jpg.bcaebeb2cc1f4e5bf897ed53b3c80c25.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

You'll excuse me for asking...  There are 33000 lines in the spreadsheet of the index... how did you get thru all of them already?
There are many with no date, no info at all...

Just curious really Jason....  as I go thru these every day and have been thru 1750 so far...

 

I did a project for Rex Bradford at the MFF and the History Department at Arizona State.  I think perhaps the main tool I used that others may lack is document research software that identifies changes from previously known documents.   So I only had to pay close attention to totally new information.   In many cases, as you know, the new document release reveals only a few words from previously known but partially redacted documents.  Details around the LITAMIL family of informants, are, for instance a big component of the newly released information.   So naturally I didn't read in detail every document.  Much of the data is repetitive within the new releases and when compared to previous releases, so I skimmed that.  Through research software I concentrated on new information in the released documents.   I've read around 6000 documents in their entirety and feel like I have a good command, possibly, of all the rest.

Thanks for your interest!   I'll consider the rest of your reply and answer shortly.

 

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

It is not until the NOV report, written in JANUARY 1964 for events from NOV 1963 - do they mention Oswald...

There was no STATUS REPORT in DEC in the release...

Hi again David.

Is this problematically inconsistent insofar as timing is concerned with the previous example you cite re: ALBERT KENNEDY?   

In the Albert Kennedy example you provide, May telephone tap activity is documented in a report captioned "JUNE", but actually written on 30July, right?    This implication is, as far is I can tell, that September activity attributed to Oswald would appear in the October report, actually expected to be written at the end of November.  But is it unreasonable to think that by the end of November 1963 routine monthly reports were suspended for more pressing concerns?

Of course, the Albert Kennedy report is in a document nominally describing June activity - but it actually describes MAY activity.  So, one thing we know is that there is no rigorous consistency in making sure reports nominally covering a certain month actually reference activity in only that month.  The June report talks about things that happen in both May and June.

I very well could be missing your point, but it seems to me that reporting activity in January attributed to Oswald in September/October is not so glaringly a big deal.  From 22 November on, the fine folks in the Mexico City station had a hurricane of activity and cable traffic, did they not?   A routine monthly report getting delayed by a month seems not very suspicious to me. 

Furthermore, remember we rely on access to documents specifically tagged JFK-related.   AFAIK we have no easy way to establish what the routine pattern was for reporting Americans who contact Soviet/Cuban embassies because the other contacts would not be tagged JFK related.  There's still a lot more out there, undiscovered.

 

Jason

(some specific and general evidence below)

1. From the "June" activity report you provide, which in fact documents May activity.

May_kennedy_mex.png

2. The "June" activity report you provide, which in fact documents May activity, is dated the end of July.
30jul63.png

3. A few releases of what I think is the same cable traffic...note dates:

8_oct_63_LHO_mex_city.png


Oct_63_LHO_Mex.png


DEC_63_LHO_cia_mexcity.png

 

4. From the Lopez Report, p. 80

From_the_lopez_report.png

5. From the Russ Holmes work file:

Russ_Holmes_work_file_LHO_MC.png

6.  According to HSCA memo:

from_HSCA_memo_LHO_mc.png

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

From 22 November on, the fine folks in the Mexico City station had a hurricane of activity and cable traffic, did they not?   A routine monthly report getting delayed by a month seems not very suspicious to me. 

I am thinking that after the 22nd, November, such a report could no longer be considered "routine". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

In the Albert Kennedy example you provide, May telephone tap activity is documented in a June report, actually written on 30July, right?

Not as I see it Jason... the SEPT report which includes mention of meetings after the 14th of Sept has a date of OCT 8.

The LIENVOY info from SEPT is contained in the OCT status report for SEPT.  The only month where there is a delay is the NOV status report which was finally put out in JAN 1964... a month late.... and includes info about OSWALD despite his not being there in NOV

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32371751.pdf

The June 11 19634 report for 1-31 MAY 1964....   there is no delay Jason...

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10413-10271.pdf  August 23, 1963 for JULY 1963

It would seem the first part of your post hinges on the reports being delayed....  can you readdress without that assumption?

-----------------

As for the rest of your reply... IDK what you're saying.  

1 - Oswald was never in Mexico.... that is my conclusion from the last 4+ years of work on the subject
2 - The point of the post is this:  Reports contemporaneously written when they were supposed to, BEFORE the assassination, do not contain the information as it was cobbled together AFTER the shooting.   It does no good to show in JAN 1964, that an American named OSWALD contacted the Soviet/Cuban Embassies in a report about NOV 1963.  

It goes a long way to see the report which includes Sept 27/28 (when we are told there were numerous calls with DURAN identifying the person as "the American"...) that does not mention an American at all...

To see an OCT report which boils down the events of Oct 1st to a non descript sentence....   Given what LIENVOY is expected to do when AMERICANS are encountered....   They were watching/listening for defection clues....  this is an AMERICAN wanting to go to CUBA or RUSSIA...  as you show, given the reports from mid Oct... one would think the status report on Oct would be more forthcoming with info about the AMERICAN...

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The June 11 1963 report for 1-31 MAY 1964....   there is no delay Jason..

Pardon me if we're speaking at cross purposes. 

First of all, I assume this is a typo, and you meant to type "The June 11 1963 report for 1-31 MAY 1963"...

1. Where is this "June 11 1963 report for 1-31 May 1963" that actually mentions Albert Kennedy's call to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City on 20 May 1963?

2. In sum, my point is that it looks like reports are delayed up to 2 months re: Americans calling the Soviet Embassy, and in any case the report which would otherwise be generated during the assassination timeframe was not unreasonably delayed by more pressing demands from Washington than the production of a routine monthly report.   

3. 8 October appears to be when first mention was made of Oswald contacting the Soviet embassy --- it wasn't saved until the routine monthly report, it was reported speedily by the standards of Albert Kennedy's May 20, 1963 contact with the embassy.  (it seems from documents we've seen on this thread that Albert Kennedy's contact with the Soviets was reported 70 days later on 30 July...)

 

Jason

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites

The October 8th report of Oswald contacting the Soviet embassy was speedy?

As the Lopez Report states, when an American spoke Russian inside the Soviet Embassy, the info was to be directly sent to HQ.  Because that denoted an operational interest. (Lopez Report, p. 133)

This did not happen in the Oswald case.  This info was delayed for over one week.

Jason may not think that was a violation of protocol.  But Phillips sure did.  How do we know this?  Because he started lying his ahead off about why it was delayed. First he said it was a delay in translation since he knew abut that delay since he read the cable.  But Eddy and Danny found out this was false since he did not sign the cable. (ibid, p. 128)  But further, they found out that Phillips could not have known this since he was not there at the time. (ibid)

Phillips also lied about the Oswald case concerning he camera coverage. This was his first excuse for there being no picture of Oswald in MC.  He said the cameras were out that day.  It turns out they were not. (ibid, pgs. 18, 40)

When all was said and done, Eddy and Danny decided to draw up a bill of indictment for Phillips on all the lies he told on the Oswald case. I kind of think that is special treatment myself.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The October 8th report of Oswald contacting the Soviet embassy was speedy?

...

Jason may not think that was a violation of protocol....

My point is confined to the evidence presented. 

Another American shown to contact the Soviet Embassy on 20 May 1963, is, possibly, only reported 70 days later on 30 July.  That's what the presented evidence on this thread indicates as far as I can tell.  If there's another case besides Albert Kennedy in May of 1963 to compare with Oswald, lets look at the cables to establish whether the reporting around Oswald was speedy or tardy.   Or, if there's evidence Albert Kennedy's case was reported earlier than Oswald's, that would strengthen the implied thesis of this thread that there was an unprecedented delay in reporting Oswald to Washington.

 

Jason 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're missing the forest for the chlorophyll ...  :cheers   but on the same page

I too have studied SOP patterns and compared them to how OSWALD's info was treated and gathered...  Point remains (and I'll show you below) the FBI in Dallas knew about Oswald being placed in Mexico by the CIA when in all reality he was at Odio and at the shooting range.  But the FBI could not have that after 11/22....  So Hoover and the FBI generated thousands of pages of evidence to bury the fact he never went to Mexico.  (kennedyandkings has my 6 parts on Mexico https://kennedysandking.com/content/author/361-davidjosephs?start=10  ) 

As we move forward Jason - any conclusions on the subject of whether he actually went or not? you know where I stand...

With specific regards to "the American" and reports on LHO during this time period....

  1. Oswald was not in Mexico in NOV, why would the Jan report on Nov say so?  A: This is the first Status report after the Assassination. 
  2. If the delay was actually present, the OCT report dated NOV 7 mentions "a contact"  despite now having the extra month THIS report, if Oswald was actually there and did all they said he did, would be in this report... or at least mentioned....  
    Any ideas why Exploitation of LIENVOY does not mention OSWALD by name along with the other contacts he had in Sept?  A: He wasn't there and not put there until after 11/22 
  3. You must then be aware of SA PECK's work... 
    Nov 4th and throughout Nov until the 23rd we get reports - including from the SOURCE OF THE MEXICO TRAVEL INFO, the GOBERNACION - that there is simply no info on LEE or any derivative thereof.
    591893a91d594_63-11-04FBIMexifile105-3702NARA124-10230-10426-Thoroughcheck11-4-63thru11-23OswaldnotseenorknowninMExico.thumb.jpg.526a436747ab9585aceb9e2cfb6b44e1.jpg
     
  4. We now also know that BRINGUIER was an FBI informant... so the entire Trade Mart fight we KNOW to be a set-up to gain exposure and potentially bona fides for Oswald's infiltration work for the FBI/CIA/ONI/???
     
  5. KAACK's report of Oct 31 is mostly about the New Orleans arrest...  the report does not address why there is no information about Oswald between 9/24 and the report's date.

    HOSTY receives the 10/16 memo from WIN SCOTT via his contact at I&NS Jeff Woosley (below) - the FBI now knows the CIA has put LEE OSWALD in Mexico... (I believe Hosty knew Oswald was in Dallas at ODIO)...  YET...  despite HOSTY and DALLAS knowing about Oswald, where he's been, there is no mention of the previous 35 days or Mexico.  The FBI took is seriously given the search for Oswald during Nov...

    img_10413_2_300.png

    58caec6690c0c_63-10-22FBIMexi105-3702-not1980-124-10230-10424-OCTOBER22-INSWoosleygivestheScottOct16infotoFBI.thumb.jpg.8afcc873809856e222958fb017f21378.jpg

    img_57690_178_300.png
Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

...

So Hoover and the FBI generated thousands of pages of evidence to bury the fact he never went to Mexico. 

...
 

Hi David,

If you have evidence that Hoover and the FBI generated thousands of pages of evidence, please provide it here.   I am worried that you will say something like "we know Oswald wasn't in Mexico, therefore any evidence indicating he was in Mexico is fabricated."   What is your evidence that Hoover and the FBI fabricated evidence?

 

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

As we move forward Jason - any conclusions on the subject of whether he actually went or not? you know where I stand...


 

The issue of whether Oswald was actually in Mexico is not critical to solving the assassination in my view.   The intended result of Oswald's real or imaginary Mexico trip is the critical clue, IMO.  I think the public is meant to see Oswald as someone who is a committed communist and possibly serving Moscow or Castro, insofar as the Mexico City trip was conceived. 

 

 

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

...

 

  1. We now also know that BRINGUIER was an FBI informant... so the entire Trade Mart fight we KNOW to be a set-up to gain exposure and potentially bona fides for Oswald's infiltration work for the FBI/CIA/ONI/?? ...

 

I agree that Oswald's activities in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 are being programmed in order to enhance Oswald's credentials as a communist.  In more detail, Oswald is showing a great love for Fidel Castro in 1963 for public consumption.  He is definitely turned to a Cuban orientation more so than his earlier incarnation as a kind of pseudo-intellectual generic Marxist.  I could be wrong because I haven't looked at this precise question closely, but IIRC, Oswald previous to 1963 is not so much interested in Cuba.  The Mexico City episode is in my view a continuation of the New Orleans Cuban-centric PR exercise.

I am not aware of any evidence that Oswald was doing "infiltration work for the FBI/CIA/ONI," so if you have some, please post it here.  I do very much believe that Oswald imagined himself working in an intelligence capacity.  Whoever was controlling him, they caused Oswald to believe he was James Bond.  A starving James Bond who can't afford healthcare for his kids and was always broke....

 

Jason

{I hope to respond to the rest of your points later.  I'm at work and can't easily (without breaking the rules) post documents.}

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason...

Please see the 6-part series on Mexico   (part 6 is still in the works and would be a chronology)

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index 

When you've had a chance to get thru the first 2 or 3 of these, we can talk again...

Since Oswald was not on any of these buses... you will see the creation/realization/alteration/destruction/replacement cycle of evidence repeatedly...

Jason, evidence was altered and created for the sole purpose of putting Oswald in Mexico...

Initially, the FBI puts Oswald on this bus home... the 2pm Oct 2 Transportes Fronteras bus...

Except all of this document was changed to put OSWALT on line 4, and change the original Nov date to Oct 3...
When it was discovered that this bus would not get him to Dallas in time, based on the connections, THEY DROPPED IT and picked a different way home...

Before they dropped it - March 12, 1964 - That document was accepted as proof of Oswald's travel home....

Except CE2453 shows that none of the info on this doc related to Oswald, date or time is real... and was changed by ARTURO BOSCH within hours of the assassination...

If you read the work you'll find ALL the bus lines' info was taken for Sept 26 thru Oct 3....

and finally, as I said, when they found this bus could not get him there, they needed other evidence....  the 434 miles from Laredo to Dallas is a 8-10 hour trip....
also included is the TEC appt evidence....

Yes Jason... the FBI with the help of a highly placed asset in the GOBERNACION (unnamed until my work) created the Mexico trip of Lee, Harvey Oswald.

   

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

Edited by David Josephs
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
×
×
  • Create New...