Craig Carvalho

David, I didn't see this post until today when going back to find Paul T.'s post. In it you write... "So I ask a basic question... if, on Oct 1st the CIA took a photo of Oswald in Mexico at these consulates.... and the CIA wants to connect him with KOSTIKOV, how would his photo be detrimental to the effort?" This is an assumption on your part David, not without some validity I will admit. Truth be told, we still don't know exactly what operation the CIA, (specifically Angleton), may have been running in Mexico City during this time period. To me, this is the key element that is missing, especially in light of the fact that it occurred before the assassination. It would explain why the CIA wanted Oswald's participation, whether wittingly or unwittingly, kept "out of the loop"... even from Win Scott. As to your question regarding DeMohrenshildt... after emigrating to the U.S. in 1938 DeM began working for the Shumaker Co. in New York. The chief of export there was a man by the name of Pierre Fraiss. Fraiss was connected to French intelligence. The two of them became friends, and soon DeM was working directly for Fraiss collecting information on people involved in pro-German activities. This "side-line" required DeM to travel extensively within the U.S.. Part of this intelligence operation involved contacting domestic oil companies urging them to sell oil to the French at competitive prices against German oil supplies during WWII.

Hello Paul, sorry for the delay. I began to write a response to your query last night, but it got late, (I start my day at 3 a.m.). There are two aspects to this Paul... the paper trail and the monitoring. The CIA's first official notification of Oswald's defection came in the form of a telephone call on Monday, November 1, 1959 from FBI CIA liaison officer Sam Papich to Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence (ADDOCI), James Angleton. Why Papich would choose Angleton's direct office line is another subject of some controversy, but we may certainly assume that the monitoring began immediately thereafter. During the Warren Commission's investigation the CIA had maintained that it was unable to pinpoint the date(s) of their receipt of the many Oswald memorandums being digested by the various agencies that would have a "need to know" in the first week following Oswald's defection. We now know that U.S. consular Richard Snyder's second, lengthier memo on Oswald, that arrived at the Sate Department on November 6, was at the CIA by Friday, November 13. Although the document's cover sheet is missing, it does include a documents list which was parenthetically dated, "[Received in CIA on 13 Nov 59]". In the upper right hand corner of the document is written "'O'Neal". The chief of CI/SIG at that time was James Angleton's boss Birch D. O'Neal. Paul - if there are any dates or documents that you have a particular interest in I will do my best to provide you with any available info I have. Regards, Craig C.

Paul, You and I share a common interest in this case. However, I would have to agree with the idea that the CIA was responsible for the Mexico City charade, (not with any particular group here mind you). ALL of Oswald's activities both during and after his defection, were being closely monitored by the CIA. Let me be more specific. James Angleton was monitoring Oswald, and kept his 201 file under close wraps within the CI/SIG. This explains a lot. It explains why there "appeared" to be a 16 month gap between the time Oswald defected, and the opening of his 201 file. It also explains why Win Scott's "official" cable to CIA HQ regarding Oswald in Mexico City fails to mention Oswald's visit to the Cuban consulate, an oversight that Scott's close colleague, David Atlee Phillips could not explain to the HSCA. Oddly enough it was Phillips who drafted it. In Scott's memoir, which was finally released to his son Michael, (heavily redacted), after a protracted legal battle, Scott writes of Oswald's visit to Mexico City... "Every piece of information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald was reported immediately after it was received... These reports were made on all his contacts with both the Cuban Consulate and with the Soviets." Scott sent along with the cable two requests 1.) that a "trace" be made on Oswald, 2.) a photograph of Oswald. If the surveillance cameras weren't working during Oswald's visit(s), then why would Scott request his photograph? The response the Mexico City station chief received from Langley purported to be "...the latest headquarters information...", yet it said nothing of Oswald's activities in New Orleans just weeks prior to his arrival in Mexico... activities that both the FBI and CIA were aware of. The photograph, which would have been Phillips' responsibility to compare with the surveillance film, never arrived. And lastly, it would explain the CIA's initial claim to the Warren Commission that they knew nothing of Oswald's trip to Mexico until after the president's assassination. For four years Oswald had been carefully watched by both the FBI and the CIA, yet for some reason, someone, wanted it kept a secret even before the assassination. That man was James Jesus Angleton.

Sandy, Do you believe that the CIA, or members of that organization, would risk all they had to assassinate a sitting U.S. president without assurances that the man who would take his place would follow through with their plan? If what you are saying is true, the CIA wound up worse off then they were when Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960... no Cuba, and a treasonous conspiracy to commit assassination within their own ranks. P.S. Makes Oswald's mode of transportation seem rather irrelevant when you step back and take a look at the big picture.

Sandy, What you are referring to goes back to the JCS's proposed NORTHWOODS operation, which president Kennedy quickly dismissed. While I can understand the logic of your premise, my question to you would be this... why then did it fail to provide the intended result after Kennedy's assassination?

Hello Paul, 'What Hoover was talking about was French espionage activities in the US in 1963.' 'Presumably however, what Hoover was referring to was the presence of a Corsican assassin linked to the French OAS, the very group that tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle and stage a coup d'etat in France in 1962.' There are many possibilities Paul. It could be a combination of more than one instance. As Hoover suggests in the memorandum there were more than the two mentioned. I could elaborate, but seeing as how few here believe Oswald participated in JFK's assassination it would be futile to further implicate him in another. I was merely pointing out a coincidence.

David, When I joined my first forum I had already spent more than three decades researching this case. I thought, wow, this will be great. I'll have somewhere to share information with other like-minded people. I admit I was being naive. These forums all ultimately have their agendas. That's why I don't post here much, as you can see from my low post count. I was once told by a very well known researcher to avoid these types of settings, and for the most part I do. I guess I just can't help but getting a kick out of listening to the "experts" weigh in on this stuff now and again... LOL! Edit to add: Just so there are no hard feelings I will comment on one of your documents above... even though I have no credibility at this point... just kidding. The one where Hoover is complaining about the CIA withholding French espionage activities in the U.S. ... guess who collaborated with both the OSS and French intelligence here in the U.S. during WWII... none other than Oswald's good friend George DeMorehnshildt, (pretty sure I got the spelling right on that). Coincidence?

Paul, those photos along with Win Scott's unpublished manuscript were removed from Mexico City in 1971, just two days after Scott's death, by James Angleton. When Angleton was fired by DCI Colby in 1975 every file Angleton had on the JFK assassination was destroyed.

David, In my posts on this topic I have given the names of two mid/high level U.S. government officials who gave sworn testimony to congressional investigators regarding photos of Oswald in Mexico City. You ignored them. I offered a photo of Oswald inside the Cuban consulate given to a CBS reporter in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. You sidestepped it by saying there was no proof of Oswald being "outside" the Cuban consulate, (nice try). I offered evidence of three Soviets officials who have not only confirmed Oswald's visit to the Soviet embassy, but who also gave specifics regarding Oswald's state of mind at that time. You challenged their veracity without even taking into consideration my explanation as to why it was in their best interest to be truthful, (either way). Filling a page on a forum with lots of documents, (which I have already seen), does not impress me, nor does it prove your point(s). To borrow a phrase from you... You can't learn what you don't want to know.

DJ - You can WANT him to have been in Mexico City..... but desire sadly does not make it true. David, You could completely erase the FACT that Oswald was in Mexico City, and it wouldn't change a thing regarding the events that occurred in Dallas. Mexico City was a side-show event. Bottom line is... You can WANT Oswald to be innocent... but desire sadly does not make it true. Nor does making Bill Simpich your personal Lord and Savior lend legitimacy to the Oswald apologist's cause. With all due respect to Mr. Simpich, he's just another guy, with another theory. He is no different from any of the rest of us here who have spent many long hours, days, weeks, and years studying this case..

This is an excellent point. It's actually sad that we should even have to waste our time going over it, but... If Oswald was never in Mexico City, then he could never have met with these Soviet officials. Can we at least agree on that? So why then would they each confirm his visit to the Soviet embassy, when they could have distanced themselves and their country from the alleged assassin, and "laid bare" the alleged CIA plot to frame LHO? All it would have taken was for them to say... "someone calling himself Lee Oswald visited, but it was not the man arrested in Dallas", and they could have hung their CIA adversaries out to dry. Here is why... OSWALD WAS IN MEXICO CITY. I don't care how he got there. A train, a plane, an automobile, or his tricycle. He was there. The Soviets knew it, and they weren't about to get caught in a lie by denying it. They were in enough trouble. Why did the CIA create the controversy over Oswald's trip to Mexico that we are now bashing each other over? Before the assassination it's purpose was to conceal an ongoing operation. Following the assassination it helped conceal the CIA's long hidden "operational interest" in the alleged assassin.

The photo at the top of my last post was given to CBS reporter Ed Rable in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. Azcue claims the photo was taken inside the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, and shows the man who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald. I have taken the liberty to flip the photo to give those of you interested a better profile to match against the Oswald photo taken while in DPD custody.

There were photos taken of Oswald at the Cuban embassy. However, in reviewing the available documents, it appears that the CIA ignored this information as reported to HQ by MC station chief Win Scott. For reasons yet unknown Langley chose to focus only on Oswald's trip to the Soviet embassy. This is where the alleged photo of Oswald would originate from. Two men stationed in MC during the 1960's told congressional investigators they had seen photos of Oswald at the Cuban embassy in MC. Stanley Watson, deputy chief of station in MC under Scott, and Joseph Piccolo, a counterintelligence officer, have both testified to seeing the photos. It is interesting to note that within 48 hours of Scott's death in 1971, non other than James Angleton himself arrived in MC to retrieve Scott's manuscript of his yet unpublished memoir, along with other files and documents. There are many who regard Angleton as America's greatest spymaster. I have my doubts, as did Clare Edward Petty.

Just finished Newman's books, Oswald and the CIA, and Countdown to Darkness. Also, Jefferson Morley's, Our Man in Mexico. I have his latest, The Ghost, on pre-order. While I have studied this case case for over forty years, I am only now beginning to focus on exactly what the CIA knew about Oswald prior to the assassination. The big question for me is why the CIA would suppress information within it's own ranks regarding Oswald's activities prior to 11/22/63. I would specifically cite the sanitizing of Mexico City station's alert to HQ regarding Oswald's visit to the Cuban embassy , and their omission of key information in their reply to MCS's request for a trace, (Oswald's known activities in New Orleans weeks before). And who arrives in D.C. from MC following this request, and during the drafting of the response... none other than David Atlee Philips. To round things out, James Angleton arrives in MC the day after Win Scott's death, and arranges for the confiscation of Scott's memoir and all related documents from his home.

Regarding your second post, while I will not be able to attend the JFK Lancer event, I was wondering if you could share your view(s) in brief in regards to Angleton's mole hunt and what role Oswald played in it? Perhaps the most expedient way to do so would be for me to ask two questions. Do you believe Angleton's mole hunt was genuine? Was Oswald's defection the result of his recruitment as a CIA "dangle", or perhaps the result of Angleton's desire to use Oswald as a distraction in the Popov arrest? Best Regards, Craig C.

This is great news Douglas. Thanks so much for posting it here. I will definitely be visiting your website for further details.

Hello Michael, Wonderful to see the younger generation showing an interest in this topic. A word of advice. Read everything you can get your hands on... and make up your own mind. Best of luck to you!

Hello Paul, Let me explain that last sentence a bit further. Oswald was a Marxist. When he applied for his visa passport before going to the Soviet Union, the first country he listed as a point of interest was Cuba. When he confronted the U.S. consul in Moscow and stated that he was a Marxist, the consul, Richard Snyder, replied rather sarcastically that he would find life in the U.S.S.R. rather lonesome as one. This remark seemed to go without notice by Oswald. Put simply, Cuba, IMO, was always Oswald's ultimate destination. The last part of my sentence refers to Oswald "unwittingly assisting" those who manipulated him. I believe that in any conspiracy to assassinate president Kennedy, those who controlled Oswald, controlled the conspiracy. "Oswald was a useful idiot." - William Kent, CIA operative, and close associate of David Atlee Philips

Since I last posted here I have read two of John Newman's books, Oswald and the CIA, and Countdown to Darkness. I am currently waiting on Jefferson Morley's, Our Man in Mexico, and his yet to be released, The Ghost, (a study of James J. Angleton). My suspicions are leading me toward the possibility that Angleton's mole hunt was a sham. I do believe there was in fact a mole, but that Angleton knew who the mole was and did not want him discovered. My theory is, in part, that Angleton had someone approach Oswald acting as a Soviet agent to recruit and help plan his defection to the U.S.S.R.. I believe Oswald remained under the impression that he was working for the K.G.B. up until his departure from Mexico City. Mexico City, IMO, was the ultimate betrayal from Oswald's point of view. This was perhaps the tipping point at which Oswald finally realized he had been duped... "I'm just a patsy". With his dream of going to Cuba now all but extinguished, this betrayal, I believe, was his motive for committing the assassination and unwittingly assisting, once again, the puppet masters who manipulated his strings.

Hi Paul, this is Craig Carvalho. Sorry for the overdue response to your last reply. I actually started typing a lengthy answer in the topic when I realized I had written to the wrong Paul... LOL! As to your question... Of all the groups that had the motive, means, and opportunity, I see the mob as the main suspect/benefactor in the assassination. Certainly there were others, especially those operating on the fringes, who may have been involved, (Oswald and Ruby are prime examples). But if I had to name specific individuals... again they would be Marcello and Trafficante. Many would say that the mob was not sophisticated enough... I would agree. But when you factor in their relationship with the CIA and the sensitive information they must have gained access to, (Roselli being a main source through the CIA Miami station), I believe they could have pulled it off. If what I believe to be true is true... that the president/AG initiated a plan to eliminate Walker via the CIA/organized crime, and the mob recruited Ruby to assist Oswald in the attempt, they had the one thing most necessary to succeed... a way to silence RFK and any investigation that would follow. Oswald was silenced by Ruby, and Ruby was silenced for fear of retribution by Walker and the John Birchers. I hope this clarifies my POV a bit. Thanks for your encouragement Paul. I do appreciate it. Regards, Craig C.

Sandy, I believe organized crime, (specifically Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante), instigated the plot to kill president Kennedy. IMO, Walker had nothing to do with the assassination. Oswald had been used by the CIA in the attempt on Walker. Trafficanti was most likely aware of this through his own direct contact with the CIA, (Castro plots), as well as Johnny Roselli's ties to the CIA. Oswald was known to Marcello through Oswald's uncle, Charles Dutz Murret. Oswald's activities in New Orleans were known to both Marcello and the DRE. The DRE also had ties to Marcello and would be a prime source for a second gunman in any such plot. Ruby had ties to both Trafficante and Marcello. Ruby traveled to Cuba through New Orleans to visit Louis McWillie, a known associate of Marcello, who in turn brought Ruby to see Trafficante while Santos was being held in Cuba. Ruby was used by his mob contacts via the CIA to supply Oswald with a hiding spot, (Ruby's Vegas Club), for nearly three hours following Oswald's attempt on Walker. This would account for Oswald's unknown whereabouts between the hours of 9 p.m and 12 a.m. on the night of April 10th. This issue was raised by Allen Dulles in a closed hearing of the Warren Commission in regards to Marina Oswald's sworn testimony. This might also explain Ruby's strange behavior following Oswald's midnight press conference late Friday/early Saturday morning, (also note Ruby's correction of Henry Wade regarding the FPCC). Standing before Ruby, and the world, was a confessed Marxist, a communist sympathizer, and the accused murderer of a police officer and the president of the United States. But Ruby's actions suggest something quite different. Immediately following the press conference Ruby goes on a lengthy, manic search for evidence of involvement by the far-right, more specifically the John Birch Society. Why? Why is Ruby on the one hand so quick to help establish Oswald's ties to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, yet at the same time so quick to seemingly dismiss him as the president's lone assassin? What possible connection could there have been between a man with Oswald's background and the far-right, and what prompted Ruby to make such a connection? During Ruby's Warren Commission testimony not only did he name the John Birch Society as the source for his reluctance to tell his entire story, he also named Edwin Walker as being at the top of that organization. What did Ruby know that could have brought violence against him or his family members? And more importantly, what did Oswald know that made it imperative for Ruby to silence him?

Sure Sandy, It is difficult at times to relate everything one has in mind. I'll do my best. Could the Kennedy administration/CIA have put in motion plans to eliminate Edwin Walker? If so, is it reasonable to assume that organized crime would have been privy to this... perhaps even a part of the plan, (Ruby)?

The point, Paul B., is that the CIA-did-it CTers have had 50 years to prove their case. Fifty years and literally hundreds of researchers -- if not thousands. My Walker-did-it CT is relatively new and untested -- with only a tiny handful of people who are interested in it at all. It's going to be a shock to the CT community when the Walker-did-it CT is revealed as the actual solution to the JFK assassination, once the JFK Records Act is fulfilled on Thursday 26 October 2017. Only one more year. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, If the Far Right and Walker killed Kennedy, then why has the CIA in particular and US Government in general been hiding the facts for more than 50 years? It makes no sense for the government to spend so much effort protecting a dead general. Or a live one for that matter. Sandy, While I do not agree entirely with the "Walker-did-it" scenario, I have always felt that the attempt on Walker's life, which has been largely glossed over by the research community, precipitated JFK's assassination. I also believe this is where Ruby's involvement with Oswald may have began. While the the Kennedy administration had been accused of dragging it's feet on civil rights, it's hand was being forced in dealing with the Walker issue for some time prior to the attempt on the general's life. This issue would be critical to JFK's re-election bid in 1964, and was at least in part his reason for visiting Dallas in November of 1963. JFK relieved Walker from his command in Germany for his indoctrination of far-right, segregationist propaganda. Following the riots at the University of Mississippi, which Walker had organized and coordinated, Attorney General Robert Kennedy indicted Walker on charges of sedition. This maneuver failed after a grand jury acquitted Walker. RFK then attempted to have Walker committed to a mental facility for a 30-day evaluation which also was rejected by the courts, and terminated after only 5 days. While Walker's bid for the governorship of Texas was an abysmal failure, Walker did command quite a following. During an appearance before 15,000 people in California there were even rumblings regarding a possible run for the presidency. This may seem far-fetched, but if we look at our present situation, some 50+ years on, I can envision legitimate concern among those who wished to protect our country from the type of civil unrest Walker was capable of inciting/commanding. We know that following the shake up at the CIA, JFK appointed John McCone as director. McCone, known his superior organizational skills, knew little to nothing about the intelligence community. While McCone was busy analyzing and re-organizing the agency, it was RFK, (second only to the president himself), for all intents and purposes who sat at the helm. As attempts to neutralize Fidel Castro were intensifying there was, I believe, a divide between the president and his brother regarding the use of organized crime figures to carry out these plans. The AG was furious when he found out that the CIA had enlisted the help of organized crime in this venture. Not surprising when you consider the aggressive stance and bold moves his office had taken against them. However, I believe JFK took a more balanced approach. While the president certainly supported/encouraged the AG's actions, I believe JFK was more of a realist vs. Bobby who often tended to view these issues from a more idealistic POV. I mention this only for the purpose of introducing organized crime into a string of events which would have allowed them to eradicate their most intense rival, and essentially blackmail the government into total silence during it's investigation of the assassination. Oswald, and Oswald alone, would have to be found responsible. All other evidence would be ignored or debunked. The question(s) then becomes... how much of a threat could Walker be to national security, or at the least, to the re-election of a sitting president? And... to what lengths would the Kennedy administration go in using the CIA, and it's cohorts, in order to ensure the "domestic tranquility" of the nation during the upcoming '64' election? Craig C.

Yes Paul. I realized this after viewing the link posted here in this topic. Quite a revealing video. I can remember Mr. Veciana's interview he did many years ago, (I forget which documentary it was part of), where he refused to identify or confirm Phillips' role as Maurice Bishop. Gives one hope that the truth may still come to the surface.