Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:

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.

LOL, speak for yourself Craig. It's obvious to me that the CIA was creating the illusion that the assassination was Cuban sponsored.

 

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎13‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 5:26 AM, David Lifton said:

[...]

My hypothesis --and this is from recollection--went as follows:

(a) Oswald had a handler, and was reasonably obedient, and followed instructions.

(b) In the case of Mexico City, some person--perhaps the handler, or perhaps some associate--accompanied Oswald to one of the diplomatic facilities.

(c ) Photos were taken, and included the image of the handler--which was a major error.  I stress: a major error.

[...]

DSL

11/12/2017 - 8:20 p.m. PST; Revised, 9:20 p.m. PST

David,

this is from "The Last Investigation", page 295:

Quote

"In another intriguing revelation, the former Deputy Chief remembered being called into Win Scott's office one day. [...] There he was shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald. Two or three people were in the photo [...] and the discussion centered on who Oswald was and who the other people were. [...] the photo was considered sensitive enough for Win Scott to keep it in his private safe."

 

[James DiEugenio]

On November 14, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Craig Carvalho said:

  6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

And, of course, there’s also the fact that three Soviet intelligence officers—Nechiporenko, Yatsov (sp), and Kostikov, personally met with Oswald on Saturday morning, 9/28, and there’s no question in their mind that it was Oswald with whom they met.

 

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. 

 

Craig:

 

Why leave out what they said?

They pictured him as a tragic figure who was saying the end was near and was waving around a handgun because the FBI was going to kill him.

Do you buy that story?  Its the same story that was used on Tracking Oswald.  Did you buy that series?

And why are there no pics of him going inside or leaving the complex?

Do you understand the background to that book?  If you do not then you did not read our review of Tracking Oswald.

[David Lifton]

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

David,

this is from "The Last Investigation", page 295:

 

Mathias: 

Thanks very much.  No, I did not know about this.

I'm surprised that Gaeton would have this in his book, published years ago, and that this passage did not receive significant followup questioning and commentary, after his book was published.    It would appear that this is exactly the sort of thing that I conceived of back in the early to mid 1970s, and discussed with CBS producer Harry Moses.

But let me back up a bit.  In the passage you quoted, who is the "former Deputy Chief" and when did this revelation occur?  In other words: when did he "remember" this, and when --and in what format--was it provided to the HSCA?  In a letter?  A memo? A deposition?  If you know more, I'd sure like to know.

Thanks.

DSL

11/17/2017 - 6:40 p.m. PST

[Mathias Baumann]

10 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Mathias: 

Thanks very much.  No, I did not know about this.

I'm surprised that Gaeton would have this in his book, published years ago, and that this passage did not receive significant followup questioning and commentary, after his book was published.    It would appear that this is exactly the sort of thing that I conceived of back in the early to mid 1970s, and discussed with CBS producer Harry Moses.

But let me back up a bit.  In the passage you quoted, who is the "former Deputy Chief" and when did this revelation occur?  In other words: when did he "remember" this, and when --and in what format--was it provided to the HSCA?  In a letter?  A memo? A deposition?  If you know more, I'd sure like to know.

Thanks.

DSL

11/17/2017 - 6:40 p.m. PST

David,

unfortunately the name's not mentioned, so I assume it is classified. Fonzi got this information from Ed Lopez, but it's not clear from the context when exactly this happened.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

I see Sylvia Duran's testimony as being consistent from start to finish. Here is my reconstruction of what happened, based on her historical testimony:

1. Duran heard the news that an American who had lived in Russia and taken a Russian wife had killed Kennedy. (She heard other stuff as well, not specified in her testimony. Perhaps, for example, that he was an FPCC leader.) She deduced from Oswald's story that he was the guy she'd seen at the consulate.
2. The following day she saw Oswald's picture in the newspapers, and sometime later the video of Ruby killing him.
3. It didn't occur to Duran that the Dallas Oswald might be a different Oswald than the one she helped. The pictures looked close enough. The Oswald she saw had blond hair (according to both her and Azcue) but not a bright blond. (Azcue called it a dark blond.) The hair of blond people can look darker in photos, and vice versa.  (See photos below.)
4. The HCSA specifically asked how she came to connect Dallas Oswald to Consulate Oswald. She said it wasn't because of his picture or his name, but rather because of his story. The reason she didn't say this to the WC is because they didn't ask.
5. The reason Duran changed her mind about Dallas Oswald being Consulate Oswald -- to Anthony Summers -- is because she could see in a long interview film of Dallas Oswald that he carried himself significantly differently than Consulate Oswald.

Sandy,

So, your CT amounts to Sylvia Duran's original statement being a snap judgment without much thought -- and then, months later, upon further reflection and examination of the photographs, she changed her mind.

So, in your opinion, the numerous beatings that she suffered at the hands of the Mexican Police in the interim had nothing to do with it!

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

...Some people DID see Oswald, for instance the Russians at the embassy. And another witness said he saw Oswald at the hotel in the company of several Cubans, one of whom "had come from Florida" (source: "The Last Investigation").

Mathias,

It is imperative to regard the SOURCE.   A highly trained intelligence operative with nothing to gain or lose is a good SOURCE.  For example, Nechiporenko in 1993 makes a good SOURCE.

The scandal rag reporters who claimed to have seen Oswald at sex orgies in Mexico City with Sylvia Duran were poor SOURCES.

The guy who said he saw Lee Harvey Oswald accept a big wad of cash from a red-headed Negro at the Cuban Embassy, in order to kill JFK (and then later recanted his story) was a poor SOURCE.

Mexico City is like most big cities -- it has a lot of corruption.  It has its own National Enquirer and scandal magazines.  When Lee Harvey Oswald was still alive in a Dallas jail cell, the Mexico City scandal press was churning out dozens of articles for morning, news and evening editions.

Mind your SOURCE.   Not every Mexican story about Lee Harvey Oswald was true.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎13‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 10:22 PM, David Lifton said:

Michael:

IMHO: Jack Ruby was strictly "after the fact" and has nothing to do with "Jewish mobsters."

I can elaborate. . . (and did, once, on the pages of Ramparts Magazine, decades ago). . but no time just now.

 

DSL

David,

what do you make of Ruby's association with Lucien Rivard? He helped him get out of prison when Castro had arrested him. Don't you think it's possible Ruby may in some way have been involved in the drug deal the Mexican police foiled in October 1963 in Laredo? Rose Cheramie also talked of a drug deal that was to take place in Texas (Galveston?). Maybe there's a connection here? Heroin to pay the assassins?

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Craig Carvalho wrote:  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.

LOL, speak for yourself Craig. It's obvious to me that the CIA was creating the illusion that the assassination was Cuban sponsored.

Sandy,

Stop!   You're both mistaken!

While we do know exactly what the CIA was running in Mexico City during this time period with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald -- it had nothing to do with the JFK Assassination!

The facts of the case, IMHO, were carefully documented by Bill Simpich from recent FOIA releases of CIA documents in his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

The CIA began a Top Secret CIA Mole Hunt to find the CIA/FBI Insider who had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald over the most wire-tapped phone on the planet in 1963, and linking the name of wanted KGB assassin Valery Kostikov with Oswald's name.

This was a big deal to the CIA.  Bill Simpich documented every move by the CIA in Mexico City -- including David Atlee Phillips, Anne Goodpasture and Win Scott.   They knew for a fact that it wasn't Oswald -- so who was it?

It's a lot of reading -- so just read Chapter Five.  It's FREE for the taking on the Mary Ferrell web site.  There's no excuse for ignoring it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Mathias Baumann]

5 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

It is imperative to regard the SOURCE.   A highly trained intelligence operative with nothing to gain or lose is a good SOURCE.  For example, Nechiporenko in 1993 makes a good SOURCE.

The reporters who claimed to have seen Oswald at sex orgies in Mexico City with Sylvia Duran were poor SOURCES.

The guy who said he saw Lee Harvey Oswald accept a big wad of cash from a red-headed Negro at the Cuban Embassy, in order to kill JFK, was a poor SOURCE.

Mexico City is like most big cities -- it has a lot of corruption.  It has its own National Enquirer and scandI al magazines.  When Lee Harvey Oswald was still alive in a Dallas jail cell, the Mexico City scandal press was churning out dozens of articles for morning, news and evening editions.

Mind your SOURCE.   Not every Mexican story about Lee Harvey Oswald was true.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

the fact that the hotel guest mentioned "Cubans" makes him especially credible I think. We know that Oswald was in the company of Cubans just days before when he visited Silvia Odio. And since Oswald couldn't have reached Mexico by bus if he was indeed at Silvia Odio's it stands to reason that his companions took him there by car. Don't you think that's a reasonable assumption?

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

...This is from "The Last Investigation", [by Gaeton Fonzi, 1993] page 295:

 "In another intriguing revelation, the former Deputy Chief remembered being called into Win Scott's office one day. [...] There he was shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.  Two or three people were in the photo [...] and the discussion centered on who Oswald was and who the other people were. [...] the photo was considered sensitive enough for Win Scott to keep it in his private safe."

Mathias,

Yes, I remember this interesting fact of history.   It is concrete evidence -- in my reading -- that Bill Simpich (2014) was completely correct in identifying a Top Secret CIA Mole Hunt that began on October 1, 1963, to find the Telephone Impersonator of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City's Embassy Compound, who tried unsuccessfully (according to the CIA) to link the names of Lee Harvey Oswald with wanted KGB assassin Valery Kostikov.

Without Bill SImpich's work -- nobody but nobody can solve the JFK Assassination.   Nobody.

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

27 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

the fact that the hotel guest mentioned "Cubans" makes him especially credible I think. We know that Oswald was in the company of Cubans just days before when he visited Silvia Odio. And since Oswald couldn't have reached Mexico by bus if he was indeed at Silvia Odio's it stands to reason that his companions took him there by car. Don't you think that's a reasonable assumption?

Mathias,

"We" know no such thing.

Lee Harvey Oswald was most likely in the company of a Cuban-American from Kansas, and a Mexican-American from Los Angeles.  The former went by the anti-Fidel "war name" of Lorenzo, and the latter went by the "war name" of Angelo.

They were not Cubans at all, and we know this from Sylvia Odio herself.  Sylvia and Annie Odio both agreed that the first Latino was "sort of Cuban looking," and the second Latino was "ruddy, hairy, and Mexican looking."  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Mathias :

You did not provide the full context of the Fonzi quote.

 FYI, the DP in MC was Alan White, (which was allegedly not his real name which was Easby.)

You may want to ask yourself why this info was not listed in the Lopez Report on pages 90-108 where they review this type of evidence.

 Well, Fonzi explains why on that same page.

Because White/Easby did not recall where the picture was taken, or if it was taken before or after the JFK murder.  So what is it worth as evidence?  BTW, White/Easby was pretty cooperative with Ed and Dan, he actually exposed Goodpasture's lies to them, so if that was all he could recall, then I think its credible.

This is why he is not listed in that section in the Lopez Report, which goes on for 18 pages, 90-108. The key to this is about half of the stories are traced to Scaleti.  When Ed and Dan got to her, she said she did not recall seeing any picture of LHO. (ibid pgs. 108-111)

Still surprises me how few people have read that excellent report. 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Mathias Baumann]

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

"We" know no such thing.

Lee Harvey Oswald was most likely in the company of a Cuban-American from Kansas, and a Mexican-American from Los Angeles.  The former went by the anti-Fidel "war name" of Lorenzo, and the latter went by the "war name" of Angelo.

They were not Cubans at all, and we know this from Sylvia Odio herself.  Sylvia and Annie Odio both agreed that the second Latino was "ruddy, hairy, and Mexican looking."  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, I think Silvia may have had reason not to tell the truth about who visited her. She later confided to a priest that one of the men was a JURE member, Eugenio Cisneros was his name, if I remember correctly. But I think we've had this discussion before...

[Mathias Baumann]

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mathias :

You did not provide the full context of the Fonzi quote.

 FYI, the DP in MC was Alan White, (which was allegedly not his real name which was Easby.)

You may want to ask yourself why this info was not listed in the Lopez Report on pages 90-108 where they review this type of evidence.

 Well, Fonzi explains why on that same page.

Because White/Easby did not recall where the picture was taken, or if it was taken before or after the JFK murder.  So what is it worth as evidence?  BTW, White/Easby was pretty cooperative with Ed and Dan, he actually exposed Goodpasture's lies to them, so if that was all he could recall, then I think its credible.

This is why he is not listed in that section in the Lopez Report, which goes on for 18 pages, 90-108. The key to this is about half of the stories are traced to Scaleti.  When Ed and Dan got to her, she said she did not recall seeing any picture of LHO. (ibid pgs. 108-111)

Still surprises me how few people have read that excellent report. 

 

 

Jim,

if the picture was not taken while Oswald was in Mexico why did Win Scott consider it so sensitive that he kept it in his safe?