Bill Simpich

In my revised series on the Legend Makers, I am convinced that Ekdahl was the central father figure in Oswald's life, and led him to study electricity and hence his radar work.

But where is the report about LHOs relative "EDWARD PIC's mother-in-law without naming such... she was a refugee from Hungary living in Yorkville..."

And where do you see the insinuation there might be an EBASCO-KORTH relationship?

Wikipedia United States-based designer and constructor of energy infrastructure, most notably nuclear power plants.

Thank you!

Here is an interesting FBI memo written by Robert Barrett from 3/15/63, entitled Crime Conditions in the Dallas Division.  It names Jack Revill as FBI T-1, who wants his identity confidential.  

Revill reported to Barrett that a close relationship continued between Gannaway and private detective Robert B. Denson - even though Denson had recently been convicted in the Tyler federal court for wiretapping.  

The word was that Gannaway was going to retire soon and go into the private detective business with Denson.  Denson ran the Tri-State Detective Agency.  

Denson was later hired by the Ruby defense team.  He would shoulder reporters aside and ask them not to photo him - but both he and Belli denied that he was Belli's bodyguard.

When Karen Lynn Bennett testified on 12/23/63 at a Ruby bail hearing, she was followed out the door by defense attorney Tom Howard and Denson.

Greg Doudna and everyone - 

I've thought about some more, and I am more or less back to my original conclusion - Connally was in the midst of passing his matters to Korth, and he referred the Oswald matter to Tompkins for "appropriate action", according to the Kerr book, which I believe you now have a copy of.  Maybe there was some funny business to ensure Korth didn't see a copy - maybe not.

I also found a document sending it to Tompkins for "appropriate action" - it even looks like the note has a "C" in Connally's handwriting on the bottom.

Part 12 went up today - I think it's the best one yet.   I discuss how the Oswald sightings in the last week are tied to the Paines - I think one of the goals was to make the Paines look bad too. 

The Jack Lawrence story and the Cliff Shasteen stories are particularly intriguing - Jack was an Air Force guy, and I believe his job was to spread confusion.

I come to the conclusion that the 11/9/63 Oswald letter was done by him, and his objective was to be seen by the Paines, the FBI and the Soviets as an espionage asset - he needed the government to see him as an asset if he was ever going to get his GI Bill benefits.

All I have to do now is finish the epilogue, it should be done in a couple weeks.

All feedback encouraged and appreciated.

Jim,

You and John Armstrong do wonderful research.  These documents are terrific.

Did you notice that Oswald and friends are listed under TAD?  That's Temporary Additional Duty.

TAD refers to military travel or other assignment at a location other than the traveler's permanent duty station.

In other words, Oswald could have stayed in Japan when the ship left on 9/14/59, but still be listed with his duty station.

It's possible that I am wrong - but that sure is what it looks like to me.

My suggestion is that you put at least as much focus on analysis, and submit your findings to the toughest scrutiny.

I applaud you for posting these documents on the Ed Forum.  Do you have other possible double sightings like this one?

When you do display these documents - like you did here - everyone benefits.

Greg, I am an agnostic on Mexico City.  I am concerned about Ruth coming up with the "relics" such as the "Walker note" which she mailed to Marina that was inside a book that she said she didn't know was there; or the items from Mexico City that she didn't know were there for 10 months.  It is circumstantial - at some point, it adds up.

I feel like the Paines' defense attorney - I'm still researching them, see Parts 11 & 12 of my book on the Oswald legend, which I'm rewriting.  I think they got wrapped up in something they didn't fully understand.  Like you, I do not think that Ruth and Michael are bad people.   I think they're like most of us - complicated.

Kirk, the Minox has always been an enormous problem - whether it belonged to Lee (probable) or Michael (possible) - it is a spy camera.  Ruth Paine's brother-in-law John Hoke of AID wrote a whole book with a section featuring the Minox - I bought a used copy over the internet and can't find it - but it's $5 right now on Amazon!  Her sister Sylvia Hoke was naval intelligence/Air Force intelligence/CIA.  Her father William Hyde was vetted for the CIA to be used as an asset in Vietnam.  At some point, these things add up.

Here's something I wrote up about the Minox that I may publish soon - the Paines knew FBI agent Bardwell Odum well enough to call him "Bob" - not a good sign, as seen below - all the more reason to ask you all for feedback.

Oswald’s Minox III camera:  If it belonged to Michael Paine - and was given back to Michael Paine – Why is it still in the National Archives?

The night of the assassination, Dallas detectives Guy Rose and Richard Stovall found a Minox III camera among the three cameras at Oswald’s possessions at the Paine residence.  The camera is listed in the Dallas police inventory as a “small German camera and black case on chain and film”, and was also photographed.   The other two cameras listed are a “Stereo Realist” that took 3-D photos and a Russian 35 mm camera with a brown case known as a Cuera-2.   A subsequent inventory properly described as a “Minox camera”, generally used by spies.^[1]                                                              

Ruth Paine’s brother-in-law John Hoke was an accomplished photographer and wrote a book that included a section on the importance of the Minox camera for spying purposes.^[2] A great deal of evidence was carted off to Washington DC on the night of the assassination, brought back to Dallas a few days later, and then brought to Washington again on the 27^th.  By the time all this shuffling was over, much of the evidence was missing and the chain of custody for many of these items was destroyed.             

Who owned this spy camera - Oswald or Michael Paine?  It rapidly became a public relations battle among the agencies.  Some wanted to make Oswald look like a Soviet spy.  The FBI did not.  When the inventory got into the FBI’s hands, the Minox camera was transformed into a light meter.^[3]                                            

The agent that prepared the critical inventory sheet of evidence in Washington DC that performed this feat of legerdemain identified himself as “WRH”.^[4]  WRH was Wallace R. Heitman of the Dallas FBI field office, and the partner of Paine’s friend Bard Odum.^[5]    Participants in this inventory were New Orleans SAC Warren de Brueys and SA Vince Drain, who hand-carried the evidence to Washington, DC.^[6]   This was just the beginning of the manipulation of the first-day evidence – of the 451 items placed in Heitman’s custody by the Dallas police in the days following the assassination, only 251 items were returned by the FBI to the DPD.^[7]

Dallas detective Guy Rose told the Dallas Morning News:

        (The FBI) were calling it a light meter, I know that.  But I know a camera when I see it…The thing we got at Irving out of Oswald’s seabag was a Minox camera.  No question about it.  They tried to get me to change the records because it wasn’t a light meter.  I don’t know why they wanted it changed, but they must have had some motive for it.^[8]

        FBI agent Thomas Lenihan in Washington told Dallas SAC Gordon Shanklin that De Brueys’ first inventory in Dallas showed a Minox camera on 11/26, but that it changed to a light meter in the inventory in Washington.^[9] Even when FBI espionage chief William Branigan demanded that Dallas SAC Gordon Shanklin clear up this confusion, Shanklin simply reiterated that it was a light meter on 1/28/64.^[10]  On January 30, Hoover sent out a memo telling his subordinates to end this confusion now.^[11]

           One of the key agents on the Paine case was Bardwell Odum, described by Hosty as one of the “closest friends” of the chief of the Dallas FBI office.^[12]  Michael Paine admitted being introduced to Bardwell Odum before November 22 – referring to him in a familiar manner as “Bob” - though he doesn’t say how.^[13]  With immaculate timing, Odum called up the Paines on Jan. 30, 1964, two days after Shanklin’s claim that the Minox was a light meter and not a camera. Odum asked Ruth Paine if they ever owned a Minox camera. 

               It turns out that Michael did have a Minox camera, sitting in a can in the garage.  This camera was somehow missed in all of the garage searches conducted by the Dallas police in what may have been the most important property searches ever conducted in the history of Texas.  Michael Paine provided a Minox camera, serial number 27259, entered into evidence on 1/31/64.  The FBI finally had a Minox camera that matched the evidentiary record and that didn’t belong to Oswald.^[14] Michael Paine had now admitted to owning what is known as a spy camera.

              Odum logged Michael’s 27259 camera in as a Minox III.^[15]  By definition, a serial number 27259 is a Minox II, as Minox II cameras have serial numbers that go up to 31500.^[16]  Michael Paine has said that his Minox was returned to him later that year.^[17]  But a Minox III remains in the National Archives, with the date that Paine turned in a camera -1/31/64 – and FBI agent Bardwell Odum’s initials scratched on the side.^[18]  If Paine got his camera back, why is that one sitting in the Archives?

             The Minox III in the Archives is inoperable, and the Archives has thus far refused to give anyone permission to attempt to open the camera and document the serial number inside.^[19]  Since Paine says that the FBI gave him his camera back, it certainly looks like Oswald’s camera is sitting in the Archives with Odum’s initials and a phony date on it.  When analyzing Hoover’s willingness to falsify evidence to support the campaign to characterize Oswald as a lone nut and not a spy, the Minox III sitting in the Archives should be considered Exhibit A.

Greg, 

Jim's position is not my position - I think the Paines were manipulated into being Oswald's babysitters, wittingly or unwittingly - he thinks they took a more active role.  But Jim's question is an important one:   "Just like Mike reversing field on seeing Oswald with a weapon. Just like Mike saying the Minox found was his."

The backstory is that after 30 years of Ruth saying we would have never let Oswald keep a rifle under our roof - in 1993 Michael said that he knew about the presence of the rifle the entire time.   Similarly, after many years of speculation of why Oswald owned a spy camera like the Minox - Michael turned around after the assassination and said that he owned the Minox, not Oswald.   Either man owning a Minox is a significant development in this case, but to top it off it does not appear Michael's claim of ownership is credible.

we are up to part 6 - this week and next week we will focus on a big discussion about mary bancroft- allen dulles - and the de mohrenschildt - paine connection.

Yes, Tony Summers conducted this interview with Duran and showed her the film of LHO in  New Orleans in 1979, the year after her testimony before the HSCA.

I should add that there was a CIA-driven smear of Duran after the assassination.

Elena Garro, one of the foremost playwrights in Mexico - and the ex-partner of the famed poet and diplomat Octavio Paz -  came up with a story that Duran and Oswald were sleeping together in Mexico City.

Thank you.

That's what I was looking for, a considered summary.  I will study it - no comments on that subject until after I have reviewed it.

Jerry Rose, a great researcher who I regret never meeting before his recent death, was one of the first people to study the question of whether LHO went to Mexico.

Rose's article was in 1985, not in 1977.   The Anthony Summers interview with Duran was in 1979.

The reason for my immediate concern about your analysis because Silvia Duran is "one of the most important witnesses there is" - if she is not a truth teller, that puts an entirely different cast on her statements and testimony.

Jerry, like all of us, has made mistakes along the way - his mistake here was that he should have cited page 350 of Anthony Summers' book, not page 376.  Here is Summers' verbatim description of his 1979 interview with Duran:

"Today the consul's assistant, Sylvia Duran, points out sensibly that the passing of the years has blurred her recollection of Oswald.

"She emphasizes that, back in 1963, it never occurred to her that the Dallas Oswald and the Embassy Oswald might be different people...

"Sylvia Duran did see the fleeting television film of Ruby shooting Oswald and noticed nothing to make her feel the victim was different from the man she had encountered.

"Astonishingly, no official investigators have ever asked to her to study either that footage or a longer film of Oswald which has been readily available ever since the assassination.

"In 1979 I made arrangements for Duran to see the filmed interview of Oswald made in New Orleans a few weeks before the Mexico episode.

"She was thus able to see and listen to Oswald addressing the camera for some minutes.

"Duran's reaction was disturbing.  She said, 'I was not sure if it was Oswald or not...the man on the film is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City.'

"Asked what struck her as different, Duran replied, 'The man on this film speaks strongly and carries himself with confidence.  The man who came to my office in Mexico City was small and weak and spoke in a trembling voice.'  Duran found herself thoroughly confused.

"The investigator can build no certainties on Duran's new bouts.  Yet she supplies one further detail, and it increases the suspicion that her visitor was bogus.

"In her notes on the incident, Duran writes that the man at the consulate was a diminutive fellow - at the most about 5 feet 6 inches tall.  That is short for a man, the sort of detail a woman might indeed remember.

"Duran told Assassinations Committee staff that Oswald was 'short...about my size.'  Duran is a little woman herself, only 5 feet 3 1/2 inches.

"This is noticeably shorter than the real Oswald's height of 5 feet 9 1/2 inches.

"Duran and her former boss both remember the Oswald at the consulate as being blond haired.  She also thinks he had 'blue or green eyes'.  If she is right, neither detail fits with the authentic Oswald."

David, I'm going to try this one more time.   And then I'm going to stop.

I am an agnostic on your argument that LHO was never in Mexico.  It's not my case to make.  I don't have a case.

Pretend I know nothing about your argument - which is basically the case.  Make the argument for a fifth grader.

I will say one thing - when Silvia Duran was interviewed by Tony Summers years later, and carefully shown some photos and film, she came to the conclusion that the LHO shot by Jack Ruby was not the man she saw in Mexico City on September 27.  That is an item that I don't think you know about.  See this Jerry Rose article - you might have seen it - "The Trip That Never Was - Oswald in Mexico", endnote 5.

What's out of character for me is not offering comradely criticism earlier to a colleague who is not squarely addressing the evidence. 

I don't know the history of your debate with Jeremy Bojczuk, or have a dog in that fight, but I was stunned when you accused him of "standard COINTELPRO techniques for disrupting forums" when he tried to discuss the "quality of evidence" in making one's case. 

It's one thing to fight with an Ed Forum member about differences about politics or evidence.  It's another to say that.

I have been waiting to see the evidence on which you base your belief that Ochoa and others dummied up the case about Oswald.   The two signatures on the visa application are one good example.  I still have hope.

So please - without rhetorical flourishes or those very confusing two-tone overlays - what are the five best pieces of evidence proving Oswald was never in Mexico?  Can you provide that analysis?

If you can't offer your analysis concisely and clearly, the problem speaks for itself.  

David,

Your Duran argument hinges on your belief that she is deliberately lying about Oswald.

Could you briefly state the five best pieces of evidence that illustrate your theory that LHO never went to Mexico City?

(I thought the two different LHO signatures on the visa form would be one of them - but that could have been done for a variety of reasons.)

David,

Could you try again, I don't follow you.

1.  Your opening argument that "Oswald wasn't there"  is irrelevant to the question of why you think Duran is not telling the truth on any subject.   This commentary is very confusing and unhelpful.

2.  It remains confusing when you write "she doesn't know how many copies there were or if she gave a copy to the man before her...."  What are you referring to?  Can you cite your source?

3.   You write:  "Would it have been consistent with the procedures in the consulate or you to have allowed him to take one or both of the applications typed up outside the Consulate?"  Same problem.

It goes from there.  I assume you are saying that because she forgot certain procedures that is evidence of lying.   That is a big burden you haven't met at this point.

David,

What evidence do you have that Silvia Duran is not telling the truth on any subject?

I watch her record carefully.  So far, she seems to me to be on the mark.

CIA officers complained about her not being one of their agents.

I know that her sister-in-law Lydia was a CIA source in Bolivia - KLAMBROSIA-29.

She was in a relationship with the married man Carlos Lechuga - AMLAW-3 - while the CIA was trying to convince Lechuga's wife and ultimately Lechuga to defect.

I have always viewed Silvia Duran as someone who was  being spied on.

Anthony,

My next comment asks you to consider and address the recent problems that Mexico City was having with the security of LIENVOY - 

I bring this up because you write:

"Why would the interception of a phone conversation between an American citizen and the Soviet Embassy give rise to a concern about the security of LIENVOY?"

1.  The station was very concerned about LIENVOY's security as of September 1963

On August 6, 1963, the station wrote a memo focusing on a report "identifying and trapping of a (US) citizen who was offering his services to the Cuban embassy...posing as a Cuban embassy official to trap him into revealing his intentions."  The station was concerned that such a strategy might reveal the existence of LIENVOY to the Cubans.

On September 28, 1963 - a man and a woman were recorded on the LIENVOY line - yet the record of that call was entirely suppressed by the CIA station.  Why?   My supposition is that the Agency was concerned that now the Cubans knew about LIENVOY, and feared there was a leak, and didn't want that to be generally known.

On October 1, 1963, a man calling himself Lee Oswald called back, and referred to his call on Sept 28.  That call was reported.  But not the Sept 28 call.  Why?

2.  Two of the four LIENVOY taps on the Cuban embassy were disconnected on September 23 - three days before LHO's alleged arrival in Mexico City

Two of the four LIENVOY taps on the Cuban embassy were disconnected on 9/23/63.  The LIENVOY taps were on cultural attache Teresa Proenza's line 14-13-26, and also on 14-42-37.  There is a reference to "three Cuban lines", but redactions prevent us from knowing what the third line was.  I see no signs of a LIENVOY tap on Sylvia Duran's line, 11-28-47.  

The Mexico City memo said that 25-07-95 was disconnected because Ramon Sinobas had gone back to Cuba, and the 14-92-14  line wasn't being used either.  I have seen Raul Aparicio use the 14-92-14 line, who was the Cubans' PR man.  (Sources on all this in State Secret, Chapter 4)

3.  The person who called the Soviet consulate on September 28 and October 1 was the same person - & may have been a Spanish-speaker

The September LIENVOY report, written by Scott on 10/8/63,. also mentions that there were "two leads from LIENVOY of operational interest in September 1963".  Neither of these calls were the Sept 28 call from "Duran and Oswald" to the Soviet consulate is not mentioned.https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=53528&relPageId=4

However, the October LIENVOY report does mention that "MEXI-6453 reported a (October 1) contact by an English-speaking man with the Soviet embassy in Mexico City.  This was forwarded to Headquarters for further dissemination".   This, of course, was the phone call where a man identified himself as "Lee Oswald", speaking in broken Russian before resorting to English.  Why do these reports ignore on what I assess as a September 28 Duran-Oswald call? 

Even if you disagree with their identities, it seems clear that this call was mistrusted from the day it was made, and was held very closely as a secret. 

It was revealed to the FBI on October 16 that Lee Henry Oswald had been at the Soviet embassy on Sept 28, with the FBI indicating an "extremely sensitive source" - the phrase usually used for LIENVOY.

The October 1 call, however, was trumpeted far and wide throughout the Agency and to other governmental agencies.  Even though it is unquestioned that Tarasoff identified that the September 28 caller and the October 1 caller were the same person.

Ostensibly, as of October 8, Scott did not consider these Sept 28 and Oct. 1 LIENVOY calls as "operational".   He only considered the October 1 call as operational, and only after he had received the October 10 memo from Headquarters. 

There is also a note from author Ron Kessler stating that:   “…both the Mexican monitors (according to Arehart, outside staff agent) said caller (who called himself Oswald) had difficulty making himself understood (as I recall) in both English and Russian".   In other words, the caller's native tongue may have been Spanish.


 

Anthony,

I am appreciating the work you are doing!  It's very important.

Which is why I don't understand why you persist in getting started on the wrong foot - and haven't fully addressed it when I bring it up.

You write that "the (Tilton) operation was around a disinformation operation using forged FPCC documents".

It's just not that simple.

September 18:  Tilton's promise on this date was to "not initiate the production of any fabricated material" - that is simply not the same as his plan to "also plant deceptive information" in a "foreign country" where FPCC has "some support".

The false claim that LHO was a card-carrying Communist Party member was planted in Mexico City by the man who went to the Cuban consulate. - and it echoed the claim in the 9/10/63 Hosty memo that LHO was a communist, received by Anderson on 9/13/63.

"Fabricated material" is clearly a reference to fabricated "quantities of propaganda in the name of the (FPCC)".   It is not same as planting "deceptive information".

The fabrication effort involved obtaining stationery and mailing lists.   

Planting deceptive information is a wholly different effort, that engages in a variety of techniques.

September 26:  The letter of this date affirms that the need to wait is focused on obtaining stationery and mailing lists in order to engage in "similar techniques" such as "anonymous leaflets".

It gives no signal that CIA will not plant deceptive information.   

October 4:  This letter makes it clear that Victor Vicente of the FPCC will obtain the stationery and mailing lists - again, no signal that the CIA's hands are tied "in connection with their consideration of plans to counter the activities of FPCC in foreign countries."

It's a bad idea to merge the two - you are sailing towards an iceberg by doing it.

I have additional comments, but want to flag this first and ask you again to address it.  Thanks!

Hi Anthony,

Can we go back to the 9/18/63 document and what it says...

"Pursuant to a discussion with the Liaison Agent, Tilton advised that his Agency will not initiate the production of any fabricated material concerning the Committee without first consulting with the Bureau, bearing in mind that we wish to make certain the CIA activity will not jeopardize any Bureau investigation."

That has nothing to do with the hypothesis I am offering.  My hypothesis is about the portion of the letter that states:

"CIA is also giving some thought to planting deceptive information which might embarrass the Committee in areas where it does have some support."

My hypothesis is that Tilton and company had the ability to subtly influence Oswald to go to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and try to get to Cuba that way.

They knew it wouldn't work, because LHO needed a sponsor like someone from the CPUSA to back his play.  He also had no shot at getting there by the following Monday!

They may have also convinced him to believe that he could only stay 15 days after he got his visa in New Orleans (see LHO's Nov 9 letter) - that's why he left on Oct 2, 15 days after he got his visa in New Orleans on Sept. 17.

in fact, the 15 days didn't start to run until after he crossed the border on Sept 26.  He could have stayed until Oct 11!  So he was all fired up and in a big rush - for no good reason other than operating on bad information.

As I've said many times - until there is better evidence - I don't think LHO was a CIA agent - he was what the CIA refers to as an unwitting co-optee.  He was being manipulated.   

Why do people duck this conversation?  I chalk it up to wanting the romance of LHO as a CIA agent.  I think this is more practical - and, in a sense, even more romantic!

LHO had it in his head in mid-September that he wanted to go to Mexico City.  It wasn't Tilton's job to stop him - it was his job (or someone else's) to manipulate Oswald. 

This might be helpful too...

Right before the 10/10 memos were created, the alarm that Oswald was a security risk was turned off

Meanwhile, the very men who dreamed up the notion of luring Oswald to Mexico City received one of the 10/10 memos. Even though the 10/10 memos were destined only for Soviet desks, the FBI copy was forwarded to the Nationalities Intelligence division which focused on Cuban affairs - and then directly into the hands of FBI supervisor Lambert Anderson. The words “Nat Int”, “Anderson”, and “Wannall” (Anderson’s boss) can be seen on the FBI’s copy of the memo. Ordinarily, there was no reason to forward this memo to Nationalities Intelligence - they did not work the Soviet beat. But, as we have seen from the beginning, Lambert Anderson was one of the two men at FBI headquarters who was specifically charged with handling the Oswald file and who had run the joint agency anti-FPCC operation. The other was FBI counterintelligence supervisor Marvin Gheesling, who had placed Oswald on the security watch list four years earlier when he went to the Soviet Union.

The day before the 10/10 twin memos were created, Gheesling took Oswald off the security watch list after talking with Lambert Anderson. Both Gheesling and Anderson had signed off on a watch list document placed in Oswald’s file on August 13 after Oswald was arrested in New Orleans for breach of the peace while leafleting for the FPCC. Gheesling wrote that once he learned that Oswald was arrested, he told Anderson that Oswald should be taken off the security watch list because he had inadvertently forgot to remove his name after Oswald’s return from the Soviet Union.[ 38 ] Anderson confirmed that someone had told him that the security flash had been removed because it was no longer necessary once Oswald had returned to the United States.

One immediate problem with both of their stories is that their boss Bill Branigan wrote on 11/22/63 that the very reason Oswald was put on the watch list was to ensure that “any subsequent arrest in the U.S. was brought to our attention”. So why take him off the list after he was arrested?

An even more intriguing problem, with Gheesling’s story in particular, is that he wrote that he removed Oswald’s name from the security watch list on October 9 right after he learned about Oswald’s arrest. Gheesling’s explanation flies in the face of the aforementioned watch list document showing that both Gheesling and Anderson knew about Oswald’s arrest around August 13. Gheesling’s name and initials “wmg” are also on other memos discussing Oswald and his arrest dated August 21 and August 23.

The probable solution is that Anderson got wind of a tip. On October 8 Anderson received a Sept. 24 report of Oswald’s arrest, which revealed Oswald’s request to speak with an FBI agent and share quite a bit of information while in jail.[ 39 ] My conclusion is that on the 9th the two men came to some kind of mutual understanding that Oswald was helpful to the FBI, and saw no reason to keep him on the security watch list. “Anderson” of “Nat. Int.” is written on the watch list file, underneath the date of October 10. As a result, no alarms went off at the FBI when the 10/8/63 memo about Oswald being in Mexico City and trying to contact Kostikov arrived on the 10th. Any alarm that might have sounded about Oswald being a security risk appears to have been deliberately turned off by Gheesling and Anderson.

The intriguing question is whether Gheesling and Anderson took Oswald off the security watch list based solely on the report about Oswald's cooperation with the FBI, or whether they had also been tipped off that a molehunt was about to begin with Oswald's file. The timing would suggest that both factors were in play.

If the officers in the Cuban division had received a copy of either one of the twin 10/10 memos, they would now know that the Cuban angle on the Oswald story had been methodically erased from the paper trail between CIA HQ and Mexico City. That would have been a key tipoff that an investigation had begun.

Patch worn by John S. Tilton when
he was running the assassination-driven
Phoenix Program in Vietnam.

Although none of the officers in the CIA’s Cuban division got a copy of either of the 10/10 memos, it does appear that Anderson got a copy of one of them. Anderson could have easily told Tilton. If that happened, then the CIA’s Cuban division officers could have learned about the 10/10 memo from Tilton. These officers had a number of ways to obtain this confirmation, but the Tilton route would have been one of the simplest. The only problem with this aspect is that it seems unlikely that Tilton would be willing to be a conduit to any organizers of a plan to kill the President, given that his role in the anti-FPCC operation was a matter of record within the Agency.

Anthony, I appreciate anyone who reads my book and deals with what I found.  Not many people have done it.

I wrote the book primarily for researchers, to encourage greater exploration.  So let me follow up - I'm not defensive - but I'm still digging.

I don't agree with your supposition.

Tilton had two objectives mentioned in the 9/18/63 memo - you only address one.

One was- yes - to fabricate documents and distributing propaganda through appropriate cut-outs.

But the other was that "CIA is also giving some thought to planting deceptive information which might embarrass the Committee in areas where it does have some support."

You did not address the issue about "planting deceptive information" in "areas" - like Mexico - where FPCC "does have some support".  That's what I think Tilton was up to.

Hosty made two points about Oswald and communism in his 9/10/63 memo

Take a look at Serial 36:  In two short paragraphs, Hosty said that Oswald was a subscriber to the Worker, New York’s Communist newspaper, and that he had a track record of distributing pamphlets in Dallas on behalf of the aforementioned Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Two weeks later - the Oswald character - Oswald or not, I'm agnostic on that issue - shows up in front of Silvia Duran at the Cuban consulate and presents a card showing that he is a card-carrying Communist and documents showing that he is an FPCC activist.

The Oswald character is repeating the two central contentions of the Hosty memo re Oswald's communist connection.

Look at the HQ file 105-82555, serials 34 (Lee Oswald memo), 35 (Marina Oswald memo) and 36 (Hosty's general memo)

Hosty hid the existence of the security flash in his one-page memo on LHO.

There''s something really wrong with this Hosty memo of 9/10/63 (Serial 34).  He doesn't acknowledge the existence of the security flash - he fails to check the appropriate box.  This is critically important!    He sends this memo hiding the security flash to Anderson - you can see Anderson's name in the right hand side of the document.  

But...at the same time...although the pages are jumbled, the security flash for Lee Oswald is firmly in place.  The preceding two pages (pp. 122-123) are both reviewed by Anderson.  Anderson undoubtedly saw the security flash at that time.  The context makes it clear Anderson is reviewing both files together.

It looks like Anderson had all these serials on Oswald, communism, and the security flash by Sept. 13 - not the 16th

The FBI receives the files on Sept 13, according to this stamp.  Anderson's name is underneath, he may have reviewed it that day.  The following page, documenting LHO's arrest in New Orleans, is signed by Anderson with no date.  There is a reference to the HQ file being received dated 9/16/63.  The final page is the security flash, with a scribble next to it that is indistinct.   Everything indicates Anderson received these three serials and reviewed them on the 13th, not the 16th.  

This business of not mentioning the security flash is important.  Why didn't the security flash go off when the Oswald character went to Mexico, or when he returned?  Because he was using the name H. O. Lee, and his name had not yet hit the documents.   This is another indication that Hosty, Anderson and Tilton were up to something regarding Oswald - even if he didn't know he was being used, or how he was being used.

On Sept. 17 - the Oswald character in New Orleans managed to get a visa saying Harvey Oswald Lee on it - not Lee Harvey Oswald.

So when he crossed into Mexico on Sept 26 and back to the US on Oct 2 - no security flash went off.  

If the security flash had not been turned off on Oct. 9 - Oswald would have been carefully watched on Nov. 22

Gheesling turned it off on October 9 - the day that the first memo about Oswald in Mexico City reached the FBI - and the day before the twin 10/10/63 memos that identified Lee Oswald by name - and with two different descriptions!

By turning it off, it protected Oswald from being placed on the Security Index - if LHO had been on the Security Index, security would have been all over him in Dallas on 11/22/63.

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

Greg - I think I agree with you about the typist.  I went thru the typist problem in my head earlier, and it's the simplest explanation.  No one was hiding the intention of sending it to Korth.

The Kerr thing is more of a problem - although you are right in that Kerr is relying on his memory 25 years later - think about Kerr's memory in 1963 - he could never have forgotten about Oswald at that point, and the details of the conversation.  That was his central connection with the assassination.

I'm going to think about it some more.  Thank you for your meditation on all this!

Greg,

Thanks to you as well for your careful approach towards to what I consider a conundrum.  Nellie thinks John was involved in Oswald not getting reinstated - sounds like John does too.   

But what is John's involvement?  He wasn't Secretary of the Navy at the time of the original discharge in August 1960.

He wasn't Secretary of the Navy in early 1962, when the issue re-emerged following LHO's 1/30/62 letter.   He said I have no power to do anything.  How is John involved?

Nellie keeps it very vague.  Misplaced anger?   John told LHO "I can't do anything."

There are at least two basic ways to look at this:  The Kerr Mistake,  and Hide-It-From-Korth.  Both have serious problems.

1.  The Kerr Mistake.  He spoke to Korth, not Connally.  That leads us to two scenarios, one innocent, one not.

a.  If Kerr spoke to Korth - Korth had a conflict of interest in this matter - common for lawyers.  The lawyer's approach to this would be to kick it back to Connally.  Connally fibbed to Oswald and sent it directly to Tompkins - but why is the cc missing on the version of the letter that went to Oswald? 

There was room on the letter for the cc.  Was it considered "bad form" for some reason to include the cc?  The practical thing to do is to include the cc, so LHO has the address of the right man and is not tempted to write a follow-up letter to Connally.  Not the end of the story.

b.  Or Korth may have decided he had no conflict, decided no upgrade, and sent it directly to Tompkins - again, why is the cc missing on Oswald's letter?  Not the end of story.

2.  Hide-it-from-Korth.  There is no proof that Korth saw either set of these discharge review docs in early 62 or July 63 that I can find - still looking.

This whole question comes back to the Secretary of the Navy - clearly Korth - in July, 1963.  Again - there is no proof that he sees this new set of discharge review papers, either.   The form letter says the decision was reviewed by the Secretary of the Navy.   But Undersecretary Paul Fay signs the papers - instead of Korth.

I found these posts indicating

1) Nellie Connally said  "John Connally was involved in not reinstating LHO's discharge back to Honorable"; what does "involved" mean?

2) that Connally signed his dishonorable discharge papers; still looking for those papers

3) Connally felt LHO's anger at him was misplaced; that could mean anything

4) Connally researched the case for years and concluded LHO acted alone - and believed that LHO was shooting at him and hit JFK by accident.

JFK got hit at least twice, and at least once in the head - Connally got hit once - I find his opinion bewildering.

These came from two sources, courtesy of Alistair Briggs on the Ed Forum three years ago:

"Nellie told Larry King in 2003 that John Connally was involved in not re-instating LHO's discharge back to Honorable IIRC. Nellie also felt LHO was shooting at her husband & hit JFK by accident."

Here is a section from the book 'From Love Field (our final hours with president John F Kennedy)' written by Nellie Connally and Mickey Herskowitz. First published 2003."

"Enough has been written about that horrible time, and
the Warren Commission itself, to fill a thousand volumes.
Suffice it to say that the weight of the evidence we know
about convince both John and me that Oswald -- a twenty-
four-year-old stock clerk who had been hired a month before
to work in the Book Depository -- had acted alone: a fact
supported by a little investigation we conducted on our own
almost ten years later.

When then-President Nixon appointed my husband
as secretary of the treasury in 1973, John found himself in
charge of our nation's major intelligence branches. With
an obvious personal interest in the case and a stake in an
unbiased outcome, he pored over every classified document,
every memo, every report prepared on the subject. Along
with his other duties, he spent months researching every scrap
of evidence and found nothing to change his mind. As he said
on the twentieth anniversary of the tragedy in 1983, "Nobody
in America can keep a secret that big for that long."

More chilling to us personally was the fact that Oswald's
dishonorable discharge papers had been signed by none other
than Kennedy's then-secretary of the Navy, John Connally.
We learned Oswald had written letters protesting that decision,
but if his anger had been directed at John, it was misplaced.
At the time of Oswald's discharge, my husband was back in
Texas, busily campaigning to be its next governor.

We'll never know if Oswald knew his imaginary
anatgonist was in the same car as the President he hated, but
the idea that John might have been a target still sends chills up
and down my spine."

 

 

Greg, much appreciation for running down this line of discussion!

Andrew Kerr - historian and legal counsel to the Navy - may still be alive - if so he is almost 100 - it may be a relative...

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/january/converting-merchant-ships-missile-ships-win

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1987/06/14/lest-we-forget/9a2fd83e-c0ef-4030-8668-e03a1468c9f5/ is a review of Kerr's oral history by the Washington Post in 1987 - 

But, in any case, although I like what I could read of Pierre Sundborg's book Tragic Truth - he has a theory that LHO was shooting at Connally, that's the premise of his entire book.

Kerr wrote a brief about LHO for Connally - discussed it with Connally for half an hour - I believed Kerr got it right, it was Connally who made the decision. to pass on upgrading the discharge and told him that to pass it on to the Assistant Director of Personnel Tompkins, who wrote a 3/7/62 letter to LHO saying that the Secretary of the Navy kicked it to him.

I'm willing to be wrong, all right - but not based on Sundborg's work, if i have to weigh it on Kerr's memory and Sundborg's supposition.