Did Oswald deny he went to Mexico City in his interrogation?

[James DiEugenio]

 

In the world of evidence examination, the story  about Oswald going down to Mexico CIty and returning has been vitiated.

First by Armstrong, then by David Josephs, and soon by Greg Parker.

And its not  a matter of being harmful to anyone's cause. Its just a matter of examining the record.  Has Pat Speer ever done a micro analysis of this area of the case?  Not as far as I know.  Pat's site is a good one for ballistics, finger prints, and the autopsy.  And I have used it for that.  Mexico City?

I mean look, J. Edgar Hoover admitted this six weeks after the assassination: The CIA gave us a snow job on Oswald and Mexico City.  Talk about the horse's mouth.

You know why I say that? Because if you follow the record, the FBI got onto the phony evidence trail that Echeverria and Ochoa had built.  And as they got onto it, they realized it was a pile of crap.  Even the Warren Commission and Howard Willens understood this.  They asked why did the FBI get onto this so late? One reason is that Helms wrote a letter to Hoover telling him not to horn in on his area. ( I actually used to have that letter in my files.). So this is one reason why the FBI entry was delayed.  

But once the FBI did get in, they realized what had happened.  And this is why Hoover wrote that note in the marginalia.  How bad was this: it was part of the beginning of the Bureau splitting from the CIA and not communicating anymore.

Let me approach this another way.  If the evidence trail had been genuine and if Oswald had done what the CIA said he did, why would Ruth Paine and Priscilla Johnson be surfacing evidence not just weeks, but actually months after the fact.  Does anyone believe that Priscilla Johnson suddenly found evidence that the DPD, the FBI and SS could not-- in August of 1964?  Not even the WC thought that was credible i e.Wesley Liebeler and RIchard Russell thought this was nutty. 

Let me just point out two serious anomalies discovered by David Josephs. He is discussing the two Australian girls and their testimony about Oswald on the bus  on the way down.  "But further, as David Josephs has concluded after an analysis of the current record: the two girls do not appear to have been on the same bus line as Oswald.  And also, they said the Russian passport he showed them was stamped, but Oswald had applied for a new one in 1963 and it was not stamped" ( DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, The Evidence Today, p. 282).

I should add for proper credit, 1.) Armstrong first alluded to the wrong bus line, and 2.) Jerry Kroth also looked up the passport matter and agreed.

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let us take another example.. 

Two mysterious men showed up at the Flecha Roja terminals--first in Mexico City and then in Nuveo Laredo--and confiscated both the original and duplicate of the bus passenger manifesto .  This happened before the FBI got to Mexico to investigate.

The Bureau then tried to reconstruct the manifest from the F-8 forms submitted at the border.  But Oswald's name was not on this list. 

As of December 5, 1963 the FBI could not determine with certainty how and when Oswald crossed the border. Recall this is when the FBI is trying to submit its first report.

Here is the capper: One day later, a Mexican customs inspector gave the Bureau a luggage list with Oswald's name peculiarly misspelled on it to place him on bus 516.  Here is the problem: This list was supposed to be for luggage stored in the baggage compartment.  Oswald carried his piece of baggage on the bus.  So why was his name on the list? (ibid, p. 282)

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Another problem with the trip down. 

The WR says that when Oswald arrived in Mexico City on the morning of the 27th, he walked from the bus station to the Hotel del Comercio.  He stayed there for his entire trip.  But yet, when the FBI first investigated this aspect they could find no one at the hotel who recalled Oswald.

The only thing certifying his stay was the name on the hotel register.  Yet this was problematic.  Every name on the 9/27 entry list is in the same handwriting--except Oswald's.  This was supposed to owe to the fact that on the first night, the guest writes in their own name and on succeeding nights, the hotel clerk writes them in.  Yet 8 other guests checked in on 9/27 and on the register for the next day, Oswald's name is again in unique handwriting.  And it is not the same handwriting as the prior day. (ibid, p. 285)

Edited July 7, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

So let me get this straight. In his book, Hosty:

1) made out that Oswald never denied going to Mexico. This was counter-productive to his thesis and the accepted doctrine of his brethren holding that Oswald was a snivelly xxxx who killed the President, and lied about everything. This also makes sense in light of Fritz and Leavelle's assertions that Oswald was incredibly deft at handling interrogation, and revealed almost nothing.

2) made out that Oswald apologized for his outburst when he realized Hosty was the man who'd tried to speak to Marina. This was also counter-productive to his thesis and the accepted doctrine of his brethren holding that Oswald was an unrepentant hothead who hated authority figures. Such a man, after all, would never apologize for yelling at a Fed.

 

These revelations, moreover, suggest that Oswald's interrogation was at least in some parts misrepresented in the notes and reports of those in the room. 

But no, we're supposed to believe Hosty was just making stuff up out of some previously unrevealed softness towards Oswald, and that the reports inaccurately reporting Oswald's statements and failing to report his apology to Hosty are sacrosanct. Because, you know, these men were all dedicated truth-tellers who would never ever ever let bias creep into their reports. I mean, geez, why would you record interrogations when you have these truth-telling machines on hand to accurately report everything that was said?

 

 

[Pat Speer]

I'm gonna go back to something I'd alluded to earlier.

Did Oswald have a handler? Someone who tasked him with certain missions, and deliberately (or perhaps even inadvertently) implicated him into a plot, whereby he was a near-perfect patsy for a "commies-did-it" cover story?

Or was Oswald just some weird loner that the big bad CIA framed up from the ground up? That is, where Oswald himself was the impetus behind his handing out pro-Cuba fliers (with Bannister's address on them), and then debating the merits of Cuba on radio and TV?

Because there seems to be a lot of confusion on this matter. I mean, we know Oswald liked to travel. We know he talked of sending Marina back to Russia. We know as well that he was at least pretending to have an interest in going to Cuba. So the possibility he went to Mexico to try to arrange travel is in keeping with everything we know.

So, yes, in this case--whether Oswald was some sort of puppet, or some sort of oddball with an interest in Cuba--it doesn't matter. As both Oswald the puppet and Oswald the oddball might very well have gone to Mexico.

So why cloud everything up by desperately looking for evidence he didn't go to Mexico? Just where is it people think he went when all these people said he was in Mexico? Working at the Salvation Army? Earning extra money by helping blind people cross the street?

Partying with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie? 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Joe Bauer]

Did Marina receive a silver bracelet gift item from Lee that he supposedly bought during his Mexico City trip?

 

Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?
Mrs. OSWALD. In a hotel.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you the name?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he didn't know where he would stop.
Mr. RANKIN. Was there any discussion about the expense of making the trip?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. But we always lived very modestly, and Lee always had some savings. Therefore, he had the money for it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he say how much it would cost?
Mrs. OSWALD. He had a little over $100 and he said that that would be sufficient.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he talk about getting you a silver bracelet or any presents before he went?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is perhaps more truth to say that he asked me what I would like and I told him that I would like Mexican silver bracelets. But what he did buy me I didn't like at all. When he returned to Irving, from Mexico City, and I saw the bracelet, I was fairly sure that he had bought it in New Orleans and not in Mexico City, because I had seen bracelets like that for sale there. That is why I am not sure that the bracelet was purchased in Mexico.
Lee had an identical bracelet which he had bought in either Dallas or New Orleans. It was a man's bracelet.
Mr. RANKIN. The silver bracelet he gave you when he got back had your name on it, did it not?
Mrs OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it too small?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I was offended because it was too small, and he promised to exchange it. But, of course, I didn't want to hurt him, and I said, thank you, the important thing is the thought, the attention.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Tom Gram]

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So let me get this straight. In his book, Hosty:

1) made out that Oswald never denied going to Mexico. This was counter-productive to his thesis and the accepted doctrine of his brethren holding that Oswald was a snivelly xxxx who killed the President, and lied about everything. This also makes sense in light of Fritz and Leavelle's assertions that Oswald was incredibly deft at handling interrogation, and revealed almost nothing.

2) made out that Oswald apologized for his outburst when he realized Hosty was the man who'd tried to speak to Marina. This was also counter-productive to his thesis and the accepted doctrine of his brethren holding that Oswald was an unrepentant hothead who hated authority figures. Such a man, after all, would never apologize for yelling at a Fed.

 

These revelations, moreover, suggest that Oswald's interrogation was at least in some parts misrepresented in the notes and reports of those in the room. 

But no, we're supposed to believe Hosty was just making stuff up out of some previously unrevealed softness towards Oswald, and that the reports inaccurately reporting Oswald's statements and failing to report his apology to Hosty are sacrosanct. Because, you know, these men were all dedicated truth-tellers who would never ever ever let bias creep into their reports. I mean, geez, why would you record interrogations when you have these truth-telling machines on hand to accurately report everything that was said?

 

 

I mean sure Pat, the theory logically makes sense - which I agree with. But shouldn’t we need just a little bit more corroboration before buying into the belated recollection of one guy of a generic statement that could have easily been misremembered to fit into his later biases? 

And obviously these guys weren’t truth machines, but does that mean we should completely reject the corroborating testimony of Hosty, Fritz and Boyd on the MC issue just because it kind of make sense that they’d all want to make Oswald seem like a xxxx? Also, if Oswald really said “how did you know about that”, then proceeded to deny being in MC and only admit to being in Tiujana - wouldn’t it fit into the exact same bias for those guys to be like “he lied…BUT” etc.? 

Almost nothing in the official version of the investigation is sacrosanct, but accepting this alternate theory of Oswald’s interrogations without more evidence seems a lot like what Larry Schnapf said about Steve Roe, which was words to the effect of, being ‘eager to dismiss any inconsistencies in the [current theory] as minor error but employing an exacting level of scrutiny to any evidence pointing to [Oswald denying being in MC].’

Again, I have no problem with Oswald going to MC. The earliest CIA reports say that Oswald entered Mexico by car - so it’s very possible that the whole bus trail story was put together so that no one would have to answer the obvious questions that come with Oswald driving, or someone else driving him. If there was an operation to discredit the FPCC internationally or something, involving impersonated phone calls, etc., all the more reason to build a false scenario after the assassination. 

However, even if he was there, I still think it’s pretty reasonable to need a much higher standard of evidence before buying into the idea that he directly or indirectly admitted to it. 

[Denis Morissette]

Detective Boyd was present when Hosty mentioned Mexico. He remembers Lee being very upset. Boyd will soon be asked for more details and whether he remembers Lee saying « Don’t get the Paines involved in this ».

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

 

I mean sure Pat, the theory logically makes sense - which I agree with. But shouldn’t we need just a little bit more corroboration before buying into the belated recollection of one guy of a generic statement that could have easily been misremembered to fit into his later biases? 

And obviously these guys weren’t truth machines, but does that mean we should completely reject the corroborating testimony of Hosty, Fritz and Boyd on the MC issue just because it kind of make sense that they’d all want to make Oswald seem like a xxxx? Also, if Oswald really said “how did you know about that”, then proceeded to deny being in MC and only admit to being in Tiujana - wouldn’t it fit into the exact same bias for those guys to be like “he lied…BUT” etc.? 

Almost nothing in the official version of the investigation is sacrosanct, but accepting this alternate theory of Oswald’s interrogations without more evidence seems a lot like what Larry Schnapf said about Steve Roe, which was words to the effect of, being ‘eager to dismiss any inconsistencies in the [current theory] as minor error but employing an exacting level of scrutiny to any evidence pointing to [Oswald denying being in MC].’

Again, I have no problem with Oswald going to MC. The earliest CIA reports say that Oswald entered Mexico by car - so it’s very possible that the whole bus trail story was put together so that no one would have to answer the obvious questions that come with Oswald driving, or someone else driving him. If there was an operation to discredit the FPCC internationally or something, involving impersonated phone calls, etc., all the more reason to build a false scenario after the assassination. 

However, even if he was there, I still think it’s pretty reasonable to need a much higher standard of evidence before buying into the idea that he directly or indirectly admitted to it. 

I don't think Greg or Hosty said Oswald admitted going to Mexico City. He just didn't deny it, which is par for the course for Oswald. And I also didn't mean to imply the others lied about it. Hosty confronted him, and Oswald threw it back at him "Why do you wanna know?" or some such thing. And the others took this as a denial. The police, as many of us, take any non-affirmation as a denial, and any non-denial as an affirmation, depending on how the question is phrased. They think suspects should just tell them everything, even before they've contacted a lawyer. The presumption is always that the suspect is guilty, and if he doesn't come across and tell them everything they want to know, when they want to know it, they assume he is hiding something, or lying about something. 

This may very well be true most of the time, but it most certainly isn't true all of the time. Some people don't trust the police, and are unwilling to "spill the beans" even when those beans might prop up their innocence. Instead, they play hard to get, and make the cops squirm a little. I don't know if you've ever been deposed, but I have. On one of these occasions, my girlfriend at the time was suing her former employer for sexual harassment. This harassment had happened before she was my girlfriend. But I'd been a witness to this harassment. So I was called by her former employer's counsel as part of a fishing expedition. Were you sleeping with her when you witnessed the supposed harassment, etc.. When did you start sleeping with her? In which hotels did you have sex, etc? It became clear, moreover, where this was heading. He was hoping I'd paint her as a sex fiend, who'd openly invited the harassment. At a certain point, I'd had enough. I told him that none of this was any of his business, and that if he didn't want to take my word on it, I didn't care. I was not her witness. I was not scheduled to testify on her behalf. I then said further that it seemed to me that this whole line of questioning was worse than a witch hunt, as he knew his client was guilty, and he was just harassing and abusing me as a way of harassing her, and trying to force her to settle out of court. I then told him that to my understanding this was not kosher with the bar, and that I was thinking of contacting an attorney of my own, who would sue him for damages and perhaps go after his license. At that point I was told I was free to go. When I received a copy of my deposition to sign some weeks later, moreover, my last little speech was heavily edited. 

So I know that witnesses can play games with their interrogators, and I know that this isn't always accurately reflected in the transcripts. 

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pamela Brown]

On 6/30/2022 at 1:31 AM, Tom Gram said:

I’m sure Oswald did blow up, as the incident is corroborated by Fritz and Boyd. However, the circumstances of why he really got mad are not particularly clear. Boyd makes it sound like Oswald might have been mad about Hosty interviewing Marina, and that Oswald was already agitated. The Mexico City question could have just been the last straw.

All I’m saying is that Hosty’s belated recollection of Oswald saying “how did you know about that” is pretty flimsy, and that he could have misremembered a similar statement with a completely opposite meaning - like an incredulous “where did you hear that?!” or something. It also seems hard to believe that Oswald would deny being in Mexico City immediately after making such a statement. 

The alternative is an elaborate coverup of Oswald admitting his presence in Mexico City that carried over into perjury before the WC by every official present in Oswald’s interrogations except for Harry Holmes, the known perjurer. It’s an interesting theory, and there is some supporting evidence, but I’d need more than just Holmes’ word and Hosty’s twelve-year-old memory to really believe it. 

Your opinion. You're entitled. 

I am letting things just sit the way I heard them from Mr. Hosty. He was there, after all. 

I interpret this as Lee's thinking the FBI did not know of his trip to MC because he had slipped through the cracks by going to NOLA after the Walker attack. Thus, he figured that they would not have been tracking his going to MC. 

[Ron Bulman]

11 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Your opinion. You're entitled. 

I am letting things just sit the way I heard them from Mr. Hosty. He was there, after all. 

I interpret this as Lee's thinking the FBI did not know of his trip to MC because he had slipped through the cracks by going to NOLA after the Walker attack. Thus, he figured that they would not have been tracking his going to MC. 

Pamela, I think LHO went where he was told, when he was told to do so.  It's pretty convincing these day's that did not include Mexico City.

[Tom Gram]

I totally agree that it makes sense and absolutely could have happened the way Hosty said it did. I just think that the available evidence, evaluated objectively, suggests a much higher probability for the scenario where Oswald outright denies being in MC than vice versa.

You still have to consider Holmes, since if he was telling the truth the cognitive bias theory falls apart - at least for everyone present in the seventh interrogation. That scenario requires a national security type cover-up of Oswald’s admission that spilled over into when it wasn’t an issue anymore, which is what Greg proposed in the initial post. 

Fritz, Boyd and Hosty himself failing to mention the “how did you know about that” statement in their WC testimony (or to literally anyone) seems like a bit of a stretch too, since they all said it was an outright denial and that Oswald admitted to being in Tijuana. If Hosty misremembered something like “why do you wanna know?!” and Oswald was playing hard to get that makes more sense - but none of this is provable and the preponderance of evidence suggests that Oswald just flat out denied it.

Is there a reasonable doubt? Sure, but the evidence supporting that doubt is sparse and disputable. That’s really all I’ve been trying to say.

As for Oswald blowing up, I’m not saying he didn’t get mad at the MC question, just that there is reason to doubt - specifically from Boyd’s testimony - that he was mad because Hosty knew about his trip. On the other hand, if Oswald was there, and that’s why he got mad, it doesn’t automatically vindicate the official story of his travels - as noted in my last comment. All the inconsistencies in the bus trip story can be explained if Oswald went there by car, as originally noted by the CIA. Also, if Oswald was a part of an intel op, was closely monitored, had pre-arranged sleeping arrangements, etc., there would need to have been a cover story post-assassination - which would explain all of the alleged fabricated evidence and might even explain the belated appearance of evidence through certain individuals who are suspected (by some) of being CIA assets. Maybe the stuff was Oswald’s but only the CIA knew where to look, and it was subsequently turned over to authorities through people with no direct ties to the agency.

I’m not saying I actually believe any of this, just that there’s more than one way to interpret all this stuff. Occam’s Razor kind of goes out the window if Oswald really was some sort of asset - and there’s plenty of evidence that he was. 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

On 7/1/2022 at 1:43 PM, James DiEugenio said:

What the Lopez Report said was that there was no evidence that Oswald did the things he was supposed to do while there.

Good try. What they said was:

"Lee Harvey Oswald himself probably visited the Cuban Consulate at least once since his application for a Cuban intransit visa bears his signature." After that admission, they go on to discuss possible impersonations and so on.

[Pamela Brown]

On 7/2/2022 at 10:58 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Pamela, I think LHO went where he was told, when he was told to do so.  It's pretty convincing these day's that did not include Mexico City.

Maybe we'll have to agree-to-disagree. I see LHO as an agitator who liked to turn one side against the other. I think he was self-styled, though he was observed by intelligence in the US, USSR and Cuba.  I do think he went to MC. 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat is trying to split the difference on this issue.  But these are quotes that anyone can look up.

From Fritz's interrogation report "Mr. Hosty also asked Oswald if he had been to Mexico City, which he denied." (WR p. 601)

From the joint Hosty-Bookhout report, "Oswald stated that he had never been in Mexico except to Tijuana on one occasion."  (WR p. 612)