Mexico City: Fact Checking a Couple of Details

[Anthony Mugan]

Hello all

Can I ask for your thoughts on the following two elements of information that may potentially be significant in relation to understanding the Mexico City incident? Before going to far down a particular line of enquiry, I'd very much appreciate the opportunity to 'fact check' a couple of points which may end up being significant in my analysis.

1. The timing of the movement of FPCC / Cuba related documents away from Oswald's 201 file:

The first instance of this appears to be Hosty's 10th September report on Oswald's activities in New Orleans, which is date stamped has having been received by the CIA on the 23rd September. This was originally filed in the FPCC file and the later (after the assassination) moved to Oswald's 201. 

My question is it is beyond reasonable doubt that the file was placed in the FPCC file on the 23rd September? Secondly, is it possible to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, the precise date at which other FPCC / Cuba related documents were moved out of the 201 file prior to the 201 being used to inform the drafting of the 'smoking memos' on the 10th October? 

The reason for the question is that the 23rd September date would seem to suggest Egerter was rather anticipating events that would occurr over the next week or so?

 

2. The inclusion of State in the circulation list of one of the 10th October 'smoking memos':

As the FBI, INS and State all had roles to play in managing the Oswald case that circulation list seems reasonable. This therefore may sound like a bit of an odd question, but bear with me...

If you wanted to check if a Soviet intelligence officer based in Mexico City under diplomatic cover (specifically Valentin Bakulin) had actually traveled to San Diego under a German identity in July 1963, which organisations would you ask for information on that? INS seems like an obvious one (as well as relevant airlines etc.). Could State have any relevant information about that? I presume not but as a UK citizen I may be missing something about US systems, processes and procedures.

The reason is I'm trying to test out several possible scenarios and this factors into one of those possibilities...

Cheers

Anthony

[Bill Simpich]

 

100-300-011 was the FPCC file - we don't yet have access to that file - with luck, we will get it in the final releases.

If you look on MFF, you can see references to the contents of the file, and a few of these files are at MFF - most of them are not.

 

LIFIRE in Mexico City - a CIA unit - could tell you if Bakulin was booked for San Diego - there are not many INS files on MFF.

You would be looking at the passport unit at State - what I remember is the FBI going to this unit and looking for documents - not the passport unit proffering them.

As you probably know, my hypothesis is that there was an agreement to strip Oswald's 201 file of any pro-Cuban references before beginning the molehunt after the 9/28/63 phone call where someone impersonated Oswald - at least according to the transcript of calls that day.  I think this may have been done to keep SAS and JMWAVE out of the loop of LHO cables after that date.  I needed more data points - I hope you can find them.

 It will be great if you can either prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Agreement to strip Oswald’s biographical file of any pro-Cuban references before beginning the molehunt

The number one concern was that the LIENVOY operation had been discovered by Soviet or Cuban intelligence, blowing a highly valuable and sensitive asset of the United States. The impersonation could have been an effort by the Soviets or Cubans to rattle the Americans’ cage by letting them know that their tap operation had been found out, and then taking careful note of the American reaction.

However, the Mexico City station could not assume that the calls were an operation conducted by Soviet or Cuban intelligence. It was a live possibility that these calls were an inside job. Any analyst could easily deduce that American intelligence knew a lot more about Lee Oswald then the Soviets or the Cubans.

Due to the nature of the security problem, the logical prime suspects would be the CIA officers working in Cuban operations and the FBI’s double agents working with Bakulin. Also worthy of consideration were the Mexico City station and the domestic agencies responsible for handling Oswald – FBI, State, Navy. The immigration service also had a subsidiary role, as they were responsible for tracking Oswald’s wife Marina.

A decision was made for the Mexico City station to make no reference to Oswald’s visits to the Cuban consulate. All of Mexico City’s references to the Oswald case would use the LCIMPROVE indicator of an operation designed to counter the Soviets, rather than the TYPIC indicator that would refer to Cuban operations.

Oswald’s biographical file (known as his “201 file”) would be stripped of any reference to his pro-Cuban activities, as well as any reference to any attempt to obtain a visa. These documents were removed from the 201 file and placed inside Oswald’s FPCC 100-300-011 file tightly held by CI-SIG.[ 24 ]

Many documents still bear this original FPCC file number today, crossed out and replaced by the 201 number. This was done to create a plausible reason to prevent FitzGerald’s Cuban desk at HQ and Shackley’s Miami station from receiving any cables or dispatches about this molehunt. The Cuba operations officers had access to the August 1963 FBI report about Oswald based on his real name Lee Harvey Oswald, his actual slender build of “5 foot 9, 140 pounds”, and his current status as a US resident; as you will see, they would have known that the molehunt descriptions of Oswald were inaccurate.

[Anthony Mugan]

23 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

 

100-300-011 was the FPCC file - we don't yet have access to that file - with luck, we will get it in the final releases.

If you look on MFF, you can see references to the contents of the file, and a few of these files are at MFF - most of them are not.

 

LIFIRE in Mexico City - a CIA unit - could tell you if Bakulin was booked for San Diego - there are not many INS files on MFF.

You would be looking at the passport unit at State - what I remember is the FBI going to this unit and looking for documents - not the passport unit proffering them.

As you probably know, my hypothesis is that there was an agreement to strip Oswald's 201 file of any pro-Cuban references before beginning the molehunt after the 9/28/63 phone call where someone impersonated Oswald - at least according to the transcript of calls that day.  I think this may have been done to keep SAS and JMWAVE out of the loop of LHO cables after that date.  I needed more data points - I hope you can find them.

 It will be great if you can either prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Agreement to strip Oswald’s biographical file of any pro-Cuban references before beginning the molehunt

The number one concern was that the LIENVOY operation had been discovered by Soviet or Cuban intelligence, blowing a highly valuable and sensitive asset of the United States. The impersonation could have been an effort by the Soviets or Cubans to rattle the Americans’ cage by letting them know that their tap operation had been found out, and then taking careful note of the American reaction.

However, the Mexico City station could not assume that the calls were an operation conducted by Soviet or Cuban intelligence. It was a live possibility that these calls were an inside job. Any analyst could easily deduce that American intelligence knew a lot more about Lee Oswald then the Soviets or the Cubans.

Due to the nature of the security problem, the logical prime suspects would be the CIA officers working in Cuban operations and the FBI’s double agents working with Bakulin. Also worthy of consideration were the Mexico City station and the domestic agencies responsible for handling Oswald – FBI, State, Navy. The immigration service also had a subsidiary role, as they were responsible for tracking Oswald’s wife Marina.

A decision was made for the Mexico City station to make no reference to Oswald’s visits to the Cuban consulate. All of Mexico City’s references to the Oswald case would use the LCIMPROVE indicator of an operation designed to counter the Soviets, rather than the TYPIC indicator that would refer to Cuban operations.

Oswald’s biographical file (known as his “201 file”) would be stripped of any reference to his pro-Cuban activities, as well as any reference to any attempt to obtain a visa. These documents were removed from the 201 file and placed inside Oswald’s FPCC 100-300-011 file tightly held by CI-SIG.[ 24 ]

Many documents still bear this original FPCC file number today, crossed out and replaced by the 201 number. This was done to create a plausible reason to prevent FitzGerald’s Cuban desk at HQ and Shackley’s Miami station from receiving any cables or dispatches about this molehunt. The Cuba operations officers had access to the August 1963 FBI report about Oswald based on his real name Lee Harvey Oswald, his actual slender build of “5 foot 9, 140 pounds”, and his current status as a US resident; as you will see, they would have known that the molehunt descriptions of Oswald were inaccurate.

Thanks Bill

Yes it does look like quite a deliberate stripping out of the 201 to fit into what was then written in the 10th October memos. That 23rd September date stamp on the Hosty report might be very significant if we can reasonably conclude that was the start of that process, which seems reasonable at first sight.

Do you know if the passport unit at State would have been cc’d into the 10th October memo...they did have dealings with Oswald over his passport so that might be a possibility?

I’m tending to take the LCIMPROVE aspect of all this activity a bit more literally at the moment, but trying to put together some tests of a range of hypotheses, including the one you set out in State Secret. As it’s historical research rather than physics proof will almost certainly not be possible, but suspect it may be possible to assess the degree of match to actual events and documented facts...don’t hold your breath though as I want to get that pretty tight before sticking my neck out on a subject like this!

As an aside it’s interesting that some of files we’d really like to see such as that FPCC file and many Joannindes files are still classified...and in those two cases probably fairly critical to understanding the puzzle.

Many thanks

Anthony

 

[Bill Simpich]

I don't see any reason to include State's passport unit, for that matter, there was no pressing  reason to include State's "Office of Security" the security and intelligence unit also known as SY.   The follow-up, if any, had to be made at the top of State's decision-making channel at either the federal level (one memo) or the local level (other memo).

The task was to adhere to the Delimitations Agreement.  I think INS got copied on these 10/10/63 memos - as opposed to anyone else - because as you point out they might have had access to some good records that would aid their inquiry.

The Delimitations Agreement treated ex-Marines such as Oswald as a Navy and FBI case and of potential interest to the State Department as well: CIA draft memorandum for the record, author unknown, 11/27/76, p. 8, HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 35/NARA Record Number: 1993.08.12.14:43:41:870060.

See the Delimitations Agreement, p. 1, Reel 48 – Folder S –Delimitations Agreement, NARA Record Number: 1994.03.08.08:54:41:370005.

My reading is that Oswald’s position as an ex-Marine was as “inactive reserve” or as a “civilian” (not “active” or “retired”) which would have made him the Navy’s responsibility. While abroad, Oswald was the responsibility of the State Department, and arguably the FBI in Mexico as they did have a legat in Mexico City. After Oswald’s return, he was the FBI’s primary responsibility under the Delimitations Agreement. Id., p. 2.  Of course, that doesn't deter the CIA or other intelligence units from getting involved if he wanders into their turf.

Oswald was on “inactive reserve” when he entered the USSR: SA John Quigley report on Oswald, 8/15/63, p. 5, Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 17, Exhibit 826.

[Anthony Mugan]

On 6/22/2020 at 6:28 PM, Bill Simpich said:

I don't see any reason to include State's passport unit, for that matter, there was no pressing  reason to include State's "Office of Security" the security and intelligence unit also known as SY.   The follow-up, if any, had to be made at the top of State's decision-making channel at either the federal level (one memo) or the local level (other memo).

The task was to adhere to the Delimitations Agreement.  I think INS got copied on these 10/10/63 memos - as opposed to anyone else - because as you point out they might have had access to some good records that would aid their inquiry.

The Delimitations Agreement treated ex-Marines such as Oswald as a Navy and FBI case and of potential interest to the State Department as well: CIA draft memorandum for the record, author unknown, 11/27/76, p. 8, HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 35/NARA Record Number: 1993.08.12.14:43:41:870060.

See the Delimitations Agreement, p. 1, Reel 48 – Folder S –Delimitations Agreement, NARA Record Number: 1994.03.08.08:54:41:370005.

My reading is that Oswald’s position as an ex-Marine was as “inactive reserve” or as a “civilian” (not “active” or “retired”) which would have made him the Navy’s responsibility. While abroad, Oswald was the responsibility of the State Department, and arguably the FBI in Mexico as they did have a legat in Mexico City. After Oswald’s return, he was the FBI’s primary responsibility under the Delimitations Agreement. Id., p. 2.  Of course, that doesn't deter the CIA or other intelligence units from getting involved if he wanders into their turf.

Oswald was on “inactive reserve” when he entered the USSR: SA John Quigley report on Oswald, 8/15/63, p. 5, Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 17, Exhibit 826.

Thanks Bill

 

Yes, the routing makes sense for Oswald.

Can I ask if you have a link for the routing slip within the CIA CI Division for Hosty's 10th September memo on LHO? It's the one where it is dated as recieved by the CIA on the 23rd September 1963 and originally filed in the FPCC file and then that is crossed out and his 201 file number added. Been driving myself crackers trying to find it again with no success over the last few days...

Sorry to ask, probably me being daft with my search terms...

 

Thanks

[Steve Thomas]

On 6/22/2020 at 12:28 PM, Bill Simpich said:

The Delimitations Agreement treated ex-Marines such as Oswald as a Navy and FBI case and of potential interest to the State Department as well: CIA draft memorandum for the record, author unknown, 11/27/76, p. 8, HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 35/NARA Record Number: 1993.08.12.14:43:41:870060.

See the Delimitations Agreement, p. 1, Reel 48 – Folder S –Delimitations Agreement, NARA Record Number: 1994.03.08.08:54:41:370005.

My reading is that Oswald’s position as an ex-Marine was as “inactive reserve” or as a “civilian” (not “active” or “retired”) which would have made him the Navy’s responsibility. While abroad, Oswald was the responsibility of the State Department, and arguably the FBI in Mexico as they did have a legat in Mexico City. After Oswald’s return, he was the FBI’s primary responsibility under the Delimitations Agreement. Id., p. 2.  Of course, that doesn't deter the CIA or other intelligence units from getting involved if he wanders into their turf.

Oswald was on “inactive reserve” when he entered the USSR: SA John Quigley report on Oswald, 8/15/63, p. 5, Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 17, Exhibit 826.

Bill,

Don't forget Oswald's "Undesirable Discharge" from the Marines on September 13, 1960. I don't think he would have been on any Inactive Reserve's status.

One of the most informative things I've read in a while is CD 852

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11249

DOD Bartimo Letter of 24 Apr 1964 with Attachments

Starting on about the third page or so of this document is a copy of

Army Regulation 195-10 which spells out how the Army was supposed to liaison with other agencies. It talks about the Army, Navy, Air Force and FBI, but interestingly enough, leaves out the Secret Service.

Basically Army Regulation 195-10 is a How to Manual for conducting investigations of armed forces personnel: Who's got responsibility, who's got control, how the information flows, etc.

Look at Paragraph (9)(c)(1)(a) on the bottom of Page 5 of this CD. It says how Army Commanders are supposed to establish policies to establish "effective liaison" with other agencies and specifically mentions the ATTU.

The idea was not to step on each other's toes, and establish contact with an individual that some other agency was working, e.g. informants. I think in CIA jargon, it was called the “third party” rule.

As I sit here, I don't know if the FBI or the ATTU has such a Regulation they were supposed to be operating under, unless, as in the FBI’s case, it would be in the FBI Manual.

https://www.fbiexpert.com/fbi_manual_of_investigative_operations.php

Steve Thomas

 

[Bill Simpich]

 

Anthony - the link is below - Newman has all the routing slips neatly laid out in the back of Oswald and the CIA, if you don't have it, it's a good compendium.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=2166#relPageId=3&tab=page

[Anthony Mugan]

32 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

 

Anthony - the link is below - Newman has all the routing slips neatly laid out in the back of Oswald and the CIA, if you don't have it, it's a good compendium.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=2166#relPageId=3&tab=page

Thanks, Bill

[Andrej Stancak]

The article by Sebastain Carrasco "Who was the Man in Mexico City?"  landed in my email inbox today. The article discusses Mexico City in context of CIA activities from 1958 to 1964.

https://www.academia.edu/40178822/Who_Was_the_Man_in_Mexico?email_work_card=view-paper