New Information on Oswald in Mexico City

[Bill Simpich]

Jim,

My position is the same as always - I don't know if Oswald was in Mexico City or not.  The evidence is wobbly on that point, to put it mildly.

Whether or not Oswald was there - the piggy-backing theory remains the same.  

I believe the evidence shows that Duran, Kostikov and company spoke to someone calling himself on Oswald on September 27-28, up till the late morning of the 28th, when the man calling himself Oswald left the Soviet embassy.  At that point, I believe that person had given up or competed his task.

The phone calls after that are what I call the piggy-backing.  I believe that those phone calls are faked, by someone piggy-backing on the story being told by the man visiting the Soviet and Cuban consulates and introducing himself as Oswald and showing what he claimed to be Oswald's passport.

[Joseph McBride]

I believe it's clear from all the evidence that neither of the two Oswalds was the

person masquerading for LHO in Mexico City.

[Paul Jolliffe]

14 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

I believe it's clear from all the evidence that neither of the two Oswalds was the

person masquerading for LHO in Mexico City.

I agree.

I tend also to agree with those who wonder if there was some other, "legitimate" intelligence operation in Mexico City using the visits to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates, one not originally intended to frame our man as a future presidential assassin? 

After all, what kind of murderous frame-up using the patsy's intercepted, taped phone calls to the Commies reads like a bad parody of Abbott and Costello?

[Paul Jolliffe]

33 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

Jim,

My position is the same as always - I don't know if Oswald was in Mexico City or not.  The evidence is wobbly on that point, to put it mildly.

Whether or not Oswald was there - the piggy-backing theory remains the same.  

I believe the evidence shows that Duran, Kostikov and company spoke to someone calling himself on Oswald on September 27-28, up till the late morning of the 28th, when the man calling himself Oswald left the Soviet embassy.  At that point, I believe that person had given up or competed his task.

The phone calls after that are what I call the piggy-backing.  I believe that those phone calls are faked, by someone piggy-backing on the story being told by the man visiting the Soviet and Cuban consulates and introducing himself as Oswald and showing what he claimed to be Oswald's passport.

Bill,

Clarify something for me: were any actual phone calls placed by the "Oswald" impostor to either consulate in Mexico City? Or, were the tapes of "Oswald's phone calls "(translated by Mr. and Mrs. Boris Tarasoff) created after the assassination and then hidden? Do the extant transcripts themselves represent real phone calls from the impostor on September 27, 28 and October 1, or are they artifacts, created later to replace the original transcripts?  

Why the hell do the extant transcripts read as if everyone involved was a moron?

[David Josephs]

On 1/17/2020 at 5:17 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

Bill,

Clarify something for me: were any actual phone calls placed by the "Oswald" impostor to either consulate in Mexico City? Or, were the tapes of "Oswald's phone calls "(translated by Mr. and Mrs. Boris Tarasoff) created after the assassination and then hidden? Do the extant transcripts themselves represent real phone calls from the impostor on September 27, 28 and October 1, or are they artifacts, created later to replace the original transcripts?  

Why the hell do the extant transcripts read as if everyone involved was a moron?

I look forward to Bill's reply....

We do know that FBI agents do hear a tape and do state it was not Oswald....  I do believe tapes of people talking to each other were brought for transcribing....  most of the phone calls were in Spanish btw, and that terrible, broken Russian as Tarasoff describes....

You will also notice the CIA tries to distance itself from the Sept 27th transcript...  the actual one being at a different time and about different things than what we are told

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by David Josephs

[Matt Allison]

So I believe the pictures below were given by the Cuban government to the HSCA. The one on the left certainly appears to be Nikolai Leonov. Considering that he was well known to the Cuban government, I'm not sure what message Castro was telegraphing by giving it to the HSCA and saying it was from their surveillance of Cuban embassy visitors.

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Matt Allison
space

[David Josephs]

 

25 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

So I believe the pictures below were given by the Cuban government to the HSCA. The one on the left certainly appears to be Nikolai Leonov. Considering that he was well known to the Cuban government, I'm not sure what message Castro was telegraphing by giving it to the HSCA and saying it was from their surveillance of Cuban embassy visitors.

I used to have background on the person on the right, but I don't remember the details, so can someone fill that in?

Hey there Matt...

Guy on the left is LEONOV as you said (CIA can't spell for sh!t)...       

 

I think that's Jon Voight on the right...

[Paul Brancato]

On 1/16/2020 at 12:15 PM, David Josephs said:

And Hoover tells us in so many words the entire thing was a CIA scam... 

So Hosty in a public forum... or his boss in a rare authentic moment to one of his Sr Staff....

French espionage activities in the USA - I’ve never seen this before. Astounding. Hoover calls Oswald in MC a false story - that I knew.

French espionage in US - two possibilities come to mind. First is Souetre in Dallas. But as that’s not really espionage I’ll go with DeVosjoli, who was working with Angleton prior to his defection to the US. About what? Soviet infiltration into the French Intelligence services. Golitsyn has Angleton’s ear, and he reported the same thing, along with other allegations of a soviet penetration, most notably Harold Wilson. One has to wonder what DeVosjoli has to do with JFK’s assassination. Well, one thing for sure - DeVosjoli left DC by car immediately after the JFK hit and drove to Acapulco, or Dallas (most recently heard PD Scott allege this alternative destination) to see Colonel Frank M Brandstetter in one place or the other, a member (if we are to believe his two biographies) of Jack Crichton’s 488th Military Intelligence Detachment. Brandy and DeVosjoli had become close during their stay in Havana when Castro’s revolutionary forces took over that city. French Intelligence may have had Soviet moles. But another thing they had were connections to DeGaulle’s militant opposition and to French and Corsican assassins. Here we come back to Souetre.

 I can’t help but think of Hoover’s memo to George Bush of the CIA. Bush and Crichton were clearly in cahoots, probably as off the shelf financial backers of Operation 40, but also in the Texas Republican Party. Hoover’s memo sounds like a warning to George Bush, basically saying I know what you did, so don’t screw with me. 

I might as well mention here that Oswald may not have been in Mexico City or visiting Silvia Odio. It’s false logic to say it was one or the other. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Paul Brancato

[James DiEugenio]

I agree with Paul, I think it was DeVosjoli.  Although no one can be sure.

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited January 18, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Jolliffe]

11 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

French espionage activities in the USA - I’ve never seen this before. Astounding. Hoover calls Oswald in MC a false story - that I knew.

French espionage in US - two possibilities come to mind. First is Souetre in Dallas. But as that’s not really espionage I’ll go with DeVosjoli, who was working with Angleton prior to his defection to the US. About what? Soviet infiltration into the French Intelligence services. Golitsyn has Angleton’s ear, and he reported the same thing, along with other allegations of a soviet penetration, most notably Harold Wilson. One has to wonder what DeVosjoli has to do with JFK’s assassination. Well, one thing for sure - DeVosjoli left DC by car immediately after the JFK hit and drove to Acapulco, or Dallas (most recently heard PD Scott allege this alternative destination) to see Colonel Frank M Brandstetter in one place or the other, a member (if we are to believe his two biographies) of Jack Crichton’s 488th Military Intelligence Detachment. Brandy and DeVosjoli had become close during their stay in Havana when Castro’s revolutionary forces took over that city. French Intelligence may have had Soviet moles. But another thing they had were connections to DeGaulle’s militant opposition and to French and Corsican assassins. Here we come back to Souetre.

 I can’t help but think of Hoover’s memo to George Bush of the CIA. Bush and Crichton were clearly in cahoots, probably as off the shelf financial backers of Operation 40, but also in the Texas Republican Party. Hoover’s memo sounds like a warning to George Bush, basically saying I know what you did, so don’t screw with me. 

I might as well mention here that Oswald may not have been in Mexico City or visiting Silvia Odio. It’s false logic to say it was one or the other. 

Paul B.,

It's technically true we don't know with absolute  certainty where our "Oswald" was between late September and early October, and therefore he might not have been in either Mexico City or visiting Sylvia Odio in Dallas at her apartment.

However . . .

the Odio episode is very, very revealing, if we take the time to dissect it fully.

Remember, it involves two parts: the visit to her apartment door in Dallas on Thursday, Sept. 26, PLUS a follow up phone call a day later.

1. During the actual visit, NOTHING was said or implied to Sylvia Odio about "Oswald" as a potential presidential assassin. While he was standing right there, no one said anything aloud, nor even hinted it!

If this visit (in the company of two other men) was by someone only pretending to be our "Oswald" to further portray the patsy as a future assassin to potential witnesses, they could not have done a worse job. Nothing in anyone's behavior that night - when "Oswald" was standing right there! -  indicated this "Oswald" was a future killer! That night, the  framers - all three of them, if none of them were truly our "Oswald" -  framed no one!

A logical absurdity, if none were really our "Oswald."

2. It was only a day later during the follow-up phone call to Odio that "Leopoldo" revealed all the incriminating details about "Oswald" as a crazy potential killer of JFK. In other words, "Leopoldo" described "Oswald" as an assassin only when "Oswald" was not there to refute it! 

Leopoldo even explicitly stated to Odio that this "Oswald" was not knowledgeable of everything "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" had in mind for him: "You know our idea is to introduce him to the underground in Cuba . . ."

Logically, we should conclude that the effect of the Odio episode was to implant in the witness's mind the belief that the "Oswald" she met in person was a potential assassin. But we must remember that effect required two parts: a physical visit (so that she could see "Oswald") and then the phone call (in which "Oswald" was described as a JFK hater/assassin.) 

Why was it done that way?

Because our "Oswald" really did accompany "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" to the Sylvia Odio's door at 1024 Magellan Circle in the Crestwood Apartments in Dallas during the evening of Thursday, September 26, 1963. And he had to be kept ignorant of the patsy role that he'd already been selected to play. 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Paul Jolliffe

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Paul B.,

It's technically true we don't know with absolute  certainty where our "Oswald" was between late September and early October, and therefore he might not have been in either Mexico City or visiting Sylvia Odio in Dallas at her apartment.

However . . .

the Odio episode is very, very revealing, if we take the time to dissect it fully.

Remember, it involves two parts: the visit to her apartment door in Dallas on Thursday, Sept. 26, PLUS a follow up phone call a day later.

1. During the actual visit, NOTHING was said or implied to Sylvia Odio about "Oswald" as a potential presidential assassin. While he was standing right there, no one said anything aloud, nor even hinted it!

If this visit (in the company of two other men) was by someone only pretending to be our "Oswald" to further portray the patsy as a future assassin to potential witnesses, they could not have done a worse job. Nothing in anyone's behavior that night - when "Oswald" was standing right there! -  indicated this "Oswald" was a future killer! That night, the  framers - all three of them, if none of them were truly our "Oswald" -  framed no one!

A logical absurdity, if none were really our "Oswald."

2. It was only a day later during the follow-up phone call to Odio that "Leopoldo" revealed all the incriminating details about "Oswald" as a crazy potential killer of JFK. In other words, "Leopoldo" described "Oswald" as an assassin only when "Oswald" was not there to refute it! 

Leopoldo even explicitly stated to Odio that this "Oswald" was not knowledgeable of everything "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" had in mind for him: "You know our idea is to introduce him to the underground in Cuba . . ."

Logically, we should conclude that the effect of the Odio episode was to implant in the witness's mind the belief that the "Oswald" she met in person was a potential assassin. But we must remember that effect required two parts: a physical visit (so that she could see "Oswald") and then the phone call (in which "Oswald" was described as a JFK hater/assassin.) 

Why was it done that way?

Because our "Oswald" really did accompany "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" to the Sylvia Odio's door at 1024 Magellan Circle in the Crestwood Apartments in Dallas during the evening of Thursday, September 26, 1963. And he had to be kept ignorant of the patsy role that he'd already been selected to play. 

 

Assuming that both MC and Odio were efforts to frame Oswald, wouldn’t that indicate two different groups at work? 

I see your argument and it’s logical but still not ironclad. But you convinced me that it was more likely Oswald at the Odio’s than an imposter. Which of course weighs against the real Oswald being in Mexico. 

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Assuming that both MC and Odio were efforts to frame Oswald, wouldn’t that indicate two different groups at work? 

I see your argument and it’s logical but still not ironclad. But you convinced me that it was more likely Oswald at the Odio’s than an imposter. Which of course weighs against the real Oswald being in Mexico. 

I see the Same group Paul...   Oswald's work at this point, on this trip is FBI despite having CIA assets surround him... and potentially an ongoing CIA relationship due to his Russia days (either sending him initially, or learning as much as possible afterward)...

Everyone.. EVERYONE is watching.  There are few reasons, at this time, for the complete lack of coverage of our man Ozzie by the FBI...  other than to remove any connection.

For Phillips et al, Ozzie playing the FPCC role accomplishes both dips, and maybe gives Oswald Bona Fides for more work supporting Castro and finding others like him for his FBI buddies..

But the 2nd dip kills him...  When accused and caught he is now a Castro supporting Commie Marxism blah, blah.... with obvious proof which only Oswald can, or would refute.

Multi-use idiot....  a real patsy in the truest sense of the word.

 

 

 

[Paul Jolliffe]

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Assuming that both MC and Odio were efforts to frame Oswald, wouldn’t that indicate two different groups at work? 

I see your argument and it’s logical but still not ironclad. But you convinced me that it was more likely Oswald at the Odio’s than an imposter. Which of course weighs against the real Oswald being in Mexico. 

Paul B.,

If we accept the theory by Bill Simpich, Peter Dale Scott and others, namely that the  visits by someone calling himself "Lee Oswald" to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates in Mexico City on 9/27 and 9/28 represented a "legitimate" U.S. intelligence operation (ie: not related to the assassination), then it is certain that the Odio episode on September 26 and 27 represented the work of the assassination conspirators. "Leopoldo's" phone call to Sylvia Odio on that Friday night clearly implicated the patsy as a future assassin. Therefore,  "Leopoldo" was working directly for someone who was part of the assassination conspiracy. 

So, yes, in the most literal sense, these two separate incidents, 1,000 miles apart on the same day represent the work of two different groups for two different purposes: the Mexico City charade was by unwitting American intelligence officials in pursuit of some (undisclosed) U.S. operation, but the Dallas/Odio episode was by witting (American intelligence officials, presumably)  to frame "Oswald" as a potential JFK assassin. 

Bill Simpich used the term "piggybacked" to describe how the murder plot was grafted onto the "legitimate" Mexico City operation. I suspect that is generally correct, which would explain why the extant transcripts of the phone calls by someone calling himself "Lee Oswald" to the Cuban and Soviet consulates are not sinister - instead, they read as if they were not to be taken at face value. They seem to hint that something else was going on. John Newman argued decades ago that the transcript of the October 2 call by ("Lee Oswald") is almost certainly an artifact - it is the one at which CIA officials would later point as evidence that this ("Lee Oswald") was up to no good , colluding with commies. 

Whether one accepts Newman's analysis or not, a "legitimate" Mexico City operation coincident with the Odio episode means that two separate U.S. intelligence teams were at work for two different purposes. In theory, on September 27, 1963 neither team may have been aware of the other. However, we can conclude that by October 9 or 10, the assassination  team conspirators (at the very latest) planned to "piggyback" the murder plot onto the "legitimate" Mexico City operation. 

 

[Paul Jolliffe]

20 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I see the Same group Paul...   Oswald's work at this point, on this trip is FBI despite having CIA assets surround him... and potentially an ongoing CIA relationship due to his Russia days (either sending him initially, or learning as much as possible afterward)...

Everyone.. EVERYONE is watching.  There are few reasons, at this time, for the complete lack of coverage of our man Ozzie by the FBI...  other than to remove any connection.

For Phillips et al, Ozzie playing the FPCC role accomplishes both dips, and maybe gives Oswald Bona Fides for more work supporting Castro and finding others like him for his FBI buddies..

But the 2nd dip kills him...  When accused and caught he is now a Castro supporting Commie Marxism blah, blah.... with obvious proof which only Oswald can, or would refute.

Multi-use idiot....  a real patsy in the truest sense of the word.

 

 

 

David,

If our "Oswald's" visit to Sylvia Odio on 9/26/63 was at the behest of the FBI, then presumably his assignment was connected to the other two men. I've never seen any particularly persuasive evidence that our "Oswald" was actually in the service of the FBI in the fall of 1963. '

Who was "Oswald's" FBI handler/contact that fall?

Warren C. de Brueys, maybe? 

Carlos Pena insisted that de Brueys and LHO not only drank together at the Habana Bar in New Orleans in August of 1963, but knew each other "very, very well." That is probably true. However, I have long suspected that the LHO with de Brueys was not our "Oswald", but someone else instead, maybe the real LHO.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32246608.pdf

 

I can't believe James Hosty was our "Oswald's" FBI handler/contact - there is not any evidence for it, and powerful evidence against it. (As far as we can tell, the two did not meet face-to-face until 11/22/63!)

However, I do find it plausible that our "Oswald's" handler/contact (CIA? ONI? unknown at this moment) was in touch with the FBI that fall, and the FBI was able to keep tabs on our "Oswald", but at a degree or two of separation.  Of course, if I'm right, then the FBI was dependent on this unknown agency for their "Oswald" information. And of course, that meant the FBI was (stupidly) vulnerable to being manipulated or framed by unknown operatives from this unknown agency.

What evidence do you have that our "Oswald" was directly in contact with a FBI agent/handler that fall?

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Paul Jolliffe