Lee Henry Oswald

Thomas Graves · February 21, 2018

23 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

So, does this exonerate Angleton from the charge that he was the mastermind of the assassination and / or coverup, or could it be seen to implicate him even more so in a paranoiac-thinking kind of way?

-- Tommy

Paul,

I guess another good question would be, "Why in the heck was there a lapse of nine whole days between the "Kostikov" phone call and the sending out of the October 10 cable?"

-- Tommy :sun

Edited February 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves

Paul Trejo · February 21, 2018

23 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

So, does this exonerate Angleton from the charge that he was the mastermind of the assassination and / or coverup, or could it be seen to implicate him even more so in a paranoiac-thinking kind of way?

-- Tommy

Tommy,

I choose option (A). James Jesus Angleton had no clue about who Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald -- so he wasn't part of the JFK Kill Team.

Of course he was as paranoid as a squirrel, but that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. The CIA Mole Hunt to find the truth about the Impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on October 1, 1963, is, in my reading, the very exoneration of the CIA high-command in the JFK Assassination.

This was not intended for public consumption -- so its discovery a half-century later by Bill Simpich is, in my reading, a key event in US History.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 21, 2018 by Paul Trejo

Thomas Graves · February 21, 2018

31 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

I choose option (A). James Jesus Angleton had no clue about who Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald -- so he wasn't part of the JFK Kill Team.

Of course he was as paranoid as a squirrel, but that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. The CIA Mole Hunt to find the truth about the Impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on October 1, 1963, is, in my reading, the very exoneration of the CIA high-command in the JFK Assassination.

This was not intended for public consumption -- so its discovery a half-century later by Bill Simpich is, in my reading, a key event in US History.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

With all due respect, when I said "paranoiac-thinking kind of way," I was referring to those (IMHO) "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theorists who fervently believe JJA was wittingly involved in the assassination and/or the coverup.

-- Tommy :sun

Edited February 21, 2018 by Thomas Graves

Bill Simpich · February 21, 2018

Tommy,

I did something I rarely do a few years back - when I heard it was released, I wrote the Archives, ordered a copy of Egerter's depo, and then asked Rex to post it at MFF - here it is: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600&relPageId=52&search=egerter_AND DEPOSITION

Bill Simpich · February 21, 2018

Hi Paul and Tommy,

Reading the deposition doesn't convince me that Egerter didn't know that the two posts were different - at least, not based on her say-so.

Egerter's job was to run molehunts. The main role of CI-SIG was to prevent penetrations of the Agency by moles. It kind of took over the office, as Angleton focused on defensive CI maneuvers and pretty much abandoned using it as an offensive force.

I don't believe Egerter told the truth when she said that "Lee Henry Oswald" was a mistake. She never corrected the file entitled "Lee Henry Oswald" - Rocca did it in 1975 when the CIA was in hot water.

Note that the index cards for the HTLINGUAL program display “Lee Harvey Oswald” and Egerter’s name together.

Nor did she correct the 3 by 5 cards that were used to monitor the files - one said Lee Henry Oswald, another said Lee Harvey Oswald, and a third said Lee H. Oswald to account for the New Orleans/Dallas persona after his return from the USSR.

My belief is that "the impersonation of Oswald" was used to create a molehunt - which in turn became a "poison pill" for all those who were involved in the paper trail involving Oswald.

Jack Whitten, who had the original responsibility for the Oswald investigation, had it taken away from him by Angleton after 30 days. I think Whitten was compromised to some degree - his fingerprints were on the Oswald file. If you asked me if he played a role in the cover-up, I would say yes - simply because he kept quiet about his suspicions about Bill Harvey and other problems in the case.

But Angleton's team had a bigger problem, which led Angleton to play an active role in the cover-up after he became the lead on the Oswald investigation: Egerter had removed most of the documents from the 201 file and had put them under lock and key in her office. Those were the documents that told the full story.

Whitten's assistant Charlotte Bustos only had a few documents left in the 201 file. When Bustos wrote the twin 10/10/63 letters, she was relying on Egerter. Egerter gave Bustos contradictory information for the descriptions of Oswald in those two letters.

Although Bustos may have realized that there was some contradictory information in the two memos, she probably didn’t suspect a molehunt since she was directly relying on the remnants of the 201 file and whatever she was told by the coordinating officers Ann Egerter and Stephan Roll, chief Soviet analyst and Bill Bright’s ex-boss. It was not known within the CIA that CI/SIG’s role was to protect CIA’s internal security, much less to conduct internal molehunts. As an inspector general wrote in a history of CI/SIG during this era, “it would be very seriously damaging to the efforts of the CI Staff if it ever became known that it was engaged in any activities involving CIA employees.”

Angleton pursued leads that pointed to possible Soviet and/or Cuban complicity in the assassination, and ignored the evidence that pointed towards the anti-Castro Cubans or other right-wing associations.

Thomas Graves · February 21, 2018

32 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

Hi Paul and Tommy,

Reading the deposition doesn't convince me that Egerter didn't know that the two posts were different - at least, not based on her say-so.

Egerter's job was to run molehunts. The main role of CI-SIG was to prevent penetrations of the Agency by moles. It kind of took over the office, as Angleton focused on defensive CI maneuvers and pretty much abandoned using it as an offensive force.

I don't believe Egerter told the truth when she said that "Lee Henry Oswald" was a mistake. She never corrected the file entitled "Lee Henry Oswald" - Rocca did it in 1975 when the CIA was in hot water.

Note that the index cards for the HTLINGUAL program display “Lee Harvey Oswald” and Egerter’s name together.

Nor did she correct the 3 by 5 cards that were used to monitor the files - one said Lee Henry Oswald, another said Lee Harvey Oswald, and a third said Lee H. Oswald to account for the New Orleans/Dallas persona after his return from the USSR.

My belief is that "the impersonation of Oswald" was used to create a molehunt - which in turn became a "poison pill" for all those who were involved in the paper trail involving Oswald.

Jack Whitten, who had the original responsibility for the Oswald investigation, had it taken away from him by Angleton after 30 days. I think Whitten was compromised to some degree - his fingerprints were on the Oswald file. If you asked me if he played a role in the cover-up, I would say yes - simply because he kept quiet about his suspicions about Bill Harvey and other problems in the case.

But Angleton's team had a bigger problem, which led Angleton to play an active role in the cover-up after he became the lead on the Oswald investigation: Egerter had removed most of the documents from the 201 file and had put them under lock and key in her office. Those were the documents that told the full story.

Whitten's assistant Charlotte Bustos only had a few documents left in the 201 file. When Bustos wrote the twin 10/10/63 letters, she was relying on Egerter. Egerter gave Bustos contradictory information for the descriptions of Oswald in those two letters.

Although Bustos may have realized that there was some contradictory information in the two memos, she probably didn’t suspect a molehunt since she was directly relying on the remnants of the 201 file and whatever she was told by the coordinating officers Ann Egerter and Stephan Roll, chief Soviet analyst and Bill Bright’s ex-boss. It was not known within the CIA that CI/SIG’s role was to protect CIA’s internal security, much less to conduct internal molehunts. As an inspector general wrote in a history of CI/SIG during this era, “it would be very seriously damaging to the efforts of the CI Staff if it ever became known that it was engaged in any activities involving CIA employees.”

Angleton pursued leads that pointed to possible Soviet and/or Cuban complicity in the assassination, and ignored the evidence that pointed towards the anti-Castro Cubans or other right-wing associations.

Bill,

So I guess it boils down to whether or not the molehunt was real, or perhaps contrived by that evil, evil, evil James Jesus Angleton for some other purpose.

-- Tommy :sun

PS If CI/SIG's role of protecting CIA's internal security was such a big secret, what did non CI staff think that little group was doing all along?

Edited February 21, 2018 by Thomas Graves

Bill Simpich · February 22, 2018

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm sure you don't want me to suggest what you think. For example, that Angleton was "good, good, good"?

I will say that I am sure about one thing - by Angleton's own admission, the man was deeply troubled. He said on his deathbed that he would see his fellow officers in hell.

The whole point of CI/SIG is that to insulate other CIA officers from discovering its function.

That's why it was effective - and why its security was so high.

The need to protect CI/SIG, and Staff D, LIENVOY and LIFEAT, and numerous other internal CIA secrets helped drive the cover-up, as an internal accelerant to wanting to leave the lone-nut story alone. All the institutional forces gathered to put a stranglehold on an effective investigation.

Thomas Graves · February 22, 2018

56 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm sure you don't want me to suggest what you think. For example, that Angleton was "good, good, good"?

I will say that I am sure about one thing - by Angleton's own admission, the man was deeply troubled. He said on his deathbed that he would see his fellow officers in hell.

The whole point of CI/SIG is that to insulate other CIA officers from discovering its function.

That's why it was effective - and why its security was so high.

The need to protect CI/SIG, and Staff D, LIENVOY and LIFEAT, and numerous other internal CIA secrets helped drive the cover-up, as an internal accelerant to wanting to leave the lone-nut story alone. All the institutional forces gathered to put a stranglehold on an effective investigation.

Bill,

With all due respect, I guess I should have put it in the form of a rhetorical question. (lol)

My bad.

-- Tommy :sun

PS Just curious -- Do you believe there was a legitimate molehunt (or two) going on at the time, or not?

Thanks.

PPS My next "leading question" for you, Bill:

Why would thin, 5' 7", blond, blue-eyed, very thin faced, 30 year-old KGB officer Nikolai Leonov be used by James Jesus Angleton in the impersonation of Oswald, which impersonation you believe was used to create a molehunt, which fake molehunt, in turn, became a "poison pill" for all those who were involved in the paper trail involving Oswald?

Or (as I believe may have been possible) did somebody force Azcue and Duran to describe, in their 1978 HSCA testimonies, the invisible 9/27/63 impostor in such a way as to implicate KGB-boy Leonov?

If so, could the person who did the abovementioned coercing have been ... (gulp) ... Fidel Castro?

Edited February 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves

Paul Brancato · February 22, 2018

3 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Hi Paul and Tommy,

Reading the deposition doesn't convince me that Egerter didn't know that the two posts were different - at least, not based on her say-so.

Egerter's job was to run molehunts. The main role of CI-SIG was to prevent penetrations of the Agency by moles. It kind of took over the office, as Angleton focused on defensive CI maneuvers and pretty much abandoned using it as an offensive force.

I don't believe Egerter told the truth when she said that "Lee Henry Oswald" was a mistake. She never corrected the file entitled "Lee Henry Oswald" - Rocca did it in 1975 when the CIA was in hot water.

Note that the index cards for the HTLINGUAL program display “Lee Harvey Oswald” and Egerter’s name together.

Nor did she correct the 3 by 5 cards that were used to monitor the files - one said Lee Henry Oswald, another said Lee Harvey Oswald, and a third said Lee H. Oswald to account for the New Orleans/Dallas persona after his return from the USSR.

My belief is that "the impersonation of Oswald" was used to create a molehunt - which in turn became a "poison pill" for all those who were involved in the paper trail involving Oswald.

Jack Whitten, who had the original responsibility for the Oswald investigation, had it taken away from him by Angleton after 30 days. I think Whitten was compromised to some degree - his fingerprints were on the Oswald file. If you asked me if he played a role in the cover-up, I would say yes - simply because he kept quiet about his suspicions about Bill Harvey and other problems in the case.

But Angleton's team had a bigger problem, which led Angleton to play an active role in the cover-up after he became the lead on the Oswald investigation: Egerter had removed most of the documents from the 201 file and had put them under lock and key in her office. Those were the documents that told the full story.

Whitten's assistant Charlotte Bustos only had a few documents left in the 201 file. When Bustos wrote the twin 10/10/63 letters, she was relying on Egerter. Egerter gave Bustos contradictory information for the descriptions of Oswald in those two letters.

Although Bustos may have realized that there was some contradictory information in the two memos, she probably didn’t suspect a molehunt since she was directly relying on the remnants of the 201 file and whatever she was told by the coordinating officers Ann Egerter and Stephan Roll, chief Soviet analyst and Bill Bright’s ex-boss. It was not known within the CIA that CI/SIG’s role was to protect CIA’s internal security, much less to conduct internal molehunts. As an inspector general wrote in a history of CI/SIG during this era, “it would be very seriously damaging to the efforts of the CI Staff if it ever became known that it was engaged in any activities involving CIA employees.”

Angleton pursued leads that pointed to possible Soviet and/or Cuban complicity in the assassination, and ignored the evidence that pointed towards the anti-Castro Cubans or other right-wing associations.

Bill - in your opinion does the existence of a mole hunt, which the impersonation of Oswald was used to create, indicate that Angleton didn’t know who the impersonator was?

B. A. Copeland · February 22, 2018

3 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm sure you don't want me to suggest what you think. For example, that Angleton was "good, good, good"?

I will say that I am sure about one thing - by Angleton's own admission, the man was deeply troubled. He said on his deathbed that he would see his fellow officers in hell.

The whole point of CI/SIG is that to insulate other CIA officers from discovering its function.

That's why it was effective - and why its security was so high.

The need to protect CI/SIG, and Staff D, LIENVOY and LIFEAT, and numerous other internal CIA secrets helped drive the cover-up, as an internal accelerant to wanting to leave the lone-nut story alone. All the institutional forces gathered to put a stranglehold on an effective investigation.

Tommy certainly has a way with words I tell you....great to see more of your thinking and fleshing out around here Bill.

Bill Simpich · February 23, 2018

Why would thin, 5' 7", blond, blue-eyed, very thin faced, 30 year-old KGB officer Nikolai Leonov be used by James Jesus Angleton in the impersonation of Oswald...

************* Why indeed? I don't know of any evidence that Angleton used anyone to impersonate Oswald. The fact that Leonov was leaving the Soviet consulate on October 2 was picked up by CBS reporter Ed Rabel as a possible Oswald impersonator. The time is linked with the date that Goodpasture was hiding as the sighting of the Mystery Man ...but Goodpasture switched the date of October 2 with October 1 in an attempt to artificially glue together the Oswald phone call of October 1 with the Mystery Man sighting of October 2. I see no evidence that the sighting of Leonov was anything more than coincidental.

which impersonation you believe was used to create a molehunt...

************* Nope - neither the sighting of the Mystery Man or Leonov led to the creation of a molehunt, in my opinion.

I believe that what led to the molehunt was the phone calls of "Oswald and Duran" on Sept. 28 and a follow-up phone call by "Oswald" on October 1.

which fake molehunt, in turn, became a "poison pill" for all those who were involved in the paper trail involving Oswald?

************** I don't believe that the molehunt was fake. I believe that the molehunt was real. As Morley lays out in the Ghost, numerous CIA agents and informants were fluttered during October 1963, after the alleged visit of Oswald.

Or (as I believe may have been possible) did somebody force Azcue and Duran to describe, in their 1978 HSCA testimonies, the invisible 9/27/63 impostor in such a way as to implicate KGB-boy Leonov?

************** I remember Duran saying she thought the man they saw was short - I remember Azuce saying he was wearing a blue Prince of Wales suit. Is that the kind of suit Leonov was wearing? What is your theory about why somebody would coerce anybody to say Leonov was impersonating Oswald? I follow the shortest path - someone impersonated Oswald in order to make everyone who handled Oswald look guilty and increase the number of 1) suspects and/or 2) blame for JFK's death. That's the coercion that I see.

If so, could the person who did the abovementioned coercing have been ... (gulp) ... Fidel Castro?

************** My belief is that Castro was the focus of numerous assassination attempts - and that he was in the midst of negotiations with JFK for rapproachement. Castro and Angleton got hung out to dry just like Oswald did. The only difference is that Angleton had something to hide - his surveillance of Oswald since 1959.

Thomas Graves · February 23, 2018

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

.....

"I remember Duran saying she thought the man they saw was short - I remember Azuce saying he was wearing a blue Prince of Wales suit. Is that the kind of suit Leonov was wearing?" -- Simpich

In 1978, Duran implied that "Oswald" (or "Invisible Oswald," if no one at all impersonated Oswald face-to-face on Friday, September 27) was real short when she said that he was about the same height as her (she was 5' 3.5"). She also said that he was blond-haired. In 193, she told DFS agents that the dude had blue eyes. (Leonov, whom I believe is still alive, has blue eyes.)

As you know, Azcue described him as being about 30 years old, as wearing a Prince of Wales suit that was basically blue with some "reddish" in it," as having blond or dark-blond hair, and as having a very thin face.

As you know, Leonov was at that time a suit-wearing, thirty year-old, very short (5' 7"), thin (see photo, below), blond-haired, very thin-faced KGB colonel with "Third Secretary" diplomatic cover in Mexico City.

Related image

A "Prince of Wales" suit is all about the distinctive, small-check pattern of the jacket, not the cut of the jacket per se.

Can you prove from those two lousy, not-very-close-in CIA photos that Leonov wasn't wearing a jacket with small checks and wide-spaced, narrow, reddish "highlight" stripes on October 2, 1963, Bill?

Lardini Prince of Wales check blazer

Note: Prince of Wales jackets often have "highlight" stripes in them that are of a different color than the basic color of the jacket.

Prince of Wales with Viola Milano tie. Proud to be your tailor ! #roosen #leuven #elegance #menswear #suit #madetomeasure #fashion #style #sartorial #mtm #handmade #tailor #tailormade #bespoke #dapper

Here's Azcue's HSCA testimony:

Mr. PREYER. Well, in the photographs on the application, and also in the passport, Oswald appears to have on a tie and a sweater. How was he dressed when he came to the Embassy, to the consulate?
Senor AZCUE. I always imagine him or visualize him as wearing a suit, coat and pants, trousers, with a pattern of crossed lines, not very clear design. Blue, some reddish. I never conceived of him or visualized him wearing a light sweater. When I saw this photograph in April of this year, I also noticed that the clothing he was wearing was not the same.
Mr. PREYER. So that the clothing he was wearing in the photographs was not similar to that which he was wearing when he actually visited you in the Embassy.
Senor AZCUE. I am almost in a position to assure that.
Mr. PREYER. When he returned with the photographs and with his application, visa application form, and his passport pictures, would you have looked at the pictures on the visa application and on the passport?
Senor AZCUE. No, I did not see the photograph, nor did I witness the preparation of the form. I did not see the photograph at that time. I only saw this photograph last April, when they came to Cuba.
Mr. PREYER. So that at the time of processing his visa and the passport, you never looked at the photographs, you never compared them with the Man standing before you.
Senor AZCUE. No, I was never present during the preparation of this form nor of the affixing of the photograph.

(The applications were signed by the new consul, Miribal, whom Leonov was still training.)

-- Tommy :sun

Edited February 23, 2018 by Thomas Graves

Bill Simpich · February 24, 2018

Tommy,

You are trying to prove that Azcue saw Leonov impersonating Oswald on 9/27/63. That is your burden, not mine.

What I am saying is that I don't think you have enough evidence. What do you have? That Leonov wore a Prince of Wales suit, as described by Azcue? And was short, as described by Duran? And the blond hair - which is described by many people as anyone who has less than coal-black hair in Latino culture (which I don't fully understand - and LHO's hair looks pretty black to me).

Those are three interesting items. Do you have more?

If that's all you have...given that nobody has stated that the man in the embassy on 9/27 was Leonov...and the ID of a fake-Oswald on 9/27 and 9/28 is rebutted by the back-and-forth testimony of Duran, the contrary testimony of Mirabel, the contrary testimony of Yatskov, Kostikov and Nechiporenko re the man they saw on 9/27 and 9/28, and the statements allegedly made to the Cubans by Guillermo Ruiz and Antonio Garcia...

I don't think you have anywhere near enough to convince most anyone that Leonov came to the Cuban consulate on 9/27. The photo of Leonov on 10/2/63 doesn't prove anything that I am aware of.

I'm not saying you lose either - but neither side has enough to prove even whether LHO was in Mexico City or not, much less prove that Leonov impersonated Oswald. Do you have more?

Thomas Graves · February 24, 2018

4 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Tommy,

You are trying to prove that Azcue saw Leonov impersonating Oswald on 9/27/63. That is your burden, not mine.

What I am saying is that I don't think you have enough evidence. What do you have? That Leonov wore a Prince of Wales suit, as described by Azcue? And was short, as described by Duran? And the blond hair - which is described by many people as anyone who has less than coal-black hair in Latino culture (which I don't fully understand - and LHO's hair looks pretty black to me).

Those are three interesting items. Do you have more?

If that's all you have...given that nobody has stated that the man in the embassy on 9/27 was Leonov...and the ID of a fake-Oswald on 9/27 and 9/28 is rebutted by the back-and-forth testimony of Duran, the contrary testimony of Mirabel, the contrary testimony of Yatskov, Kostikov and Nechiporenko re the man they saw on 9/27 and 9/28, and the statements allegedly made to the Cubans by Guillermo Ruiz and Antonio Garcia...

I don't think you have anywhere near enough to convince most anyone that Leonov came to the Cuban consulate on 9/27. The photo of Leonov on 10/2/63 doesn't prove anything that I am aware of.

I'm not saying you lose either - but neither side has enough to prove even whether LHO was in Mexico City or not, much less prove that Leonov impersonated Oswald. Do you have more?

Bill,

With all due respect, maybe you haven't had time to read all of my posts. (You never were able to follow my instructions for spotting "Neck Scratcher" / possible David Sanchez Morales in the heavily segmented James Doyle film. Just too rushed to give it another shot after you'd confused "Neck Scratcher" for another gray-suit-wearing guy, I guess.)

I also speculate that not only did Oswald not go to Mexico City, but that nobody at all impersonated him at the Cuban consulate. It's possible that both Duran and Azcue were forced, not by the evil, evil, evil CIA, but by the Mexican Police and / or that very nice man, Fidel Castro, to describe "him" like Nikolai Leonov.

-- Tommy :sun

And not only that, Bill, but you're either not a very thorough reader or, you've got a poor memory, or you're being a little... (gasp) ... intellectually dishonest here.

In your post you said that I only "have" three things which suggest that the impersonator (or the non-existent impersonator; see above) was Leonov: 1) he was described by Azcue as wearing a blue suit (with some kind of hard-to-describe lined pattern in the jacket, and with reddish highlights), 2) that he was short, and 3) that he was blond-haired (blond-haired, Bill, otherwise why would Azcue have described "him" as being "blond or dark-blond"?).

I have pointed out several times on this forum that Duran not only said, in so many words, that "he" was quite short (and blond (haired),of course), but that "he" had blue eyes (despite what Webster-like physical characteristics Fain and Bright managed to slip into Oswald's files, you and I both know that Oswald didn't have blue eyes), and that Azcue said that he was about thirty years of age, that he was thin, and that he had a very thin face.

But I guess you missed all of that several times, huh?

Or maybe you just don't remember?

PS Oh yeah. And that "diplomat"-like blue suit. With the pattern of crossed lines and the reddish highlights and all ...

-- Tommy :sun

Edited February 24, 2018 by Thomas Graves

Bill Simpich · February 24, 2018

Tommy,

Eyewitness IDs are among the shakiest kind of evidence that is out there - in my opinion, you have an unwieldy platform to make your case for Leonov. Sorry, I am not obliged to agree with you. I asked as politely as I could if you had other evidence - after your insults, I'm sorry I asked.

I did eventually find Morales in the film, by the way, but I didn't see the need to tell you that - just like I don't see the need to agree with you or read your back posts.

I was wondering why everyone was cutting you out of their conversations - one more insult and the same will happen with me. Let's just leave it right here for now.