Oswald's alibi

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Following is Jim Hargrove's list of evidence indicating that Oswald was a CIA agent

This list has been, and continues to be, largely worthless from an evidentiary standpoint... especially when it relies on people like Richard Case Nagell and amateur-level, preposterous logical leaps such as "Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death." Give me a break.

 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I would add to Jim's list the fact that Oswald hid his Russian Language abilities from the Russians. That certainly points to his being a CIA agent. Most people would want to show off their second-language skills.

 

Pure speculation on your part, and completely debunked by numerous acquaintances of Oswald in Minsk who routinely heard him speak Russian and conversed with him in same

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I can't think of a single thing Oswald did in the Soviet Union indicating he was an infiltrator or provocateur. But he did do one thing indicating he was a spy. And that is taking copious notes and writing his “Lives of Russian Workers” document.

What most people don't seem to know is that spying is often quite mundane. That was especially true in the Soviet Union given that there was no freedom to reside or even travel for foreigners. It was a challenge to gather information on even the simplest things in Soviet life. And that's what Oswald did.

 

Thank you for admitting that Oswald, in fact, didn't do a single thing that evinces him being a spy or U.S. government agent. There is zero reason to believe his note-taking and manuscript writing were anything other than his own personal attempts to chronicle his time in Russia, particularly if he hoped to one day publish them and become famous upon his return to the United States.

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Following is Jim Hargrove's list of evidence indicating that Oswald was a CIA agent

44 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This list has been, and continues to be, largely worthless from an evidentiary standpoint... especially when it relies on people like Richard Case Nagell and amateur-level, preposterous logical leaps such as "Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death." Give me a break

 

Okay... remove the two you object to, and the one possibly debunked by John Newman, and that leaves 17 pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald being a CIA agent. With #17 (previously #20) being a virtual admission by CIA employee Ann Egerter that Oswald was a CIA employee who was being investigated by the counterintelligence unit.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay... remove the two you object to, and the one possibly debunked by John Newman, and that leaves 17 pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald being a CIA agent. With #17 (previously #20) being a virtual admission by CIA employee Ann Egerter that Oswald was a CIA employee who was being investigated by the counterintelligence unit.

 

Try again, Sandy.

James Wilcott’s testimony is worthless. Antonio Veciana’s credibility is less than zero on this issue, as his been demonstrated by numerous researchers. Points three and four are the most thin of evidence for anything. I am not aware of either Sprague or Schweiker saying publicly that Oswald “was associated with the CIA” - only that he bore “the fingerprints of intelligence.” That could mean anything, and is certainly not direct evidence for what you claim. There is zero evidence connecting Joannides with Oswald. And the Allen Dulles point has absolutely nothing to do with Oswald specifically.

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Try again, Sandy.

James Wilcott’s testimony is worthless. Antonio Veciana’s credibility is less than zero on this issue, as his been demonstrated by numerous researchers. Points three and four are the most thin of evidence for anything. I am not aware of either Sprague or Schweiker saying publicly that Oswald “was associated with the CIA” - only that he bore “the fingerprints of intelligence.” That could mean anything, and is certainly not direct evidence for what you claim. There is zero evidence connecting Joannides with Oswald. And the Allen Dulles point has absolutely nothing to do with Oswald specifically.

 

So what you are saying, then, is that you're an LNer.

Gotcha!

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

So what you are saying, then, is that you're an LNer.

Gotcha!

 

A pathetic attempt to change the subject from the fact that your so called list of evidence is actually not in any way evidence of what you claim it to be.

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So what you are saying, then, is that you're an LNer.

Gotcha!

44 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

A pathetic attempt to change the subject from the fact that your so called list of evidence is actually not in any way evidence of what you claim it to be.

 

Only an LNer would say that nothing in that list of 17 items can be counted as circumstantial evidence of Oswald being a CIA agent.

 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Try again, Sandy.

James Wilcott’s testimony is worthless. Antonio Veciana’s credibility is less than zero on this issue, as his been demonstrated by numerous researchers. Points three and four are the most thin of evidence for anything. I am not aware of either Sprague or Schweiker saying publicly that Oswald “was associated with the CIA” - only that he bore “the fingerprints of intelligence.” That could mean anything, and is certainly not direct evidence for what you claim. There is zero evidence connecting Joannides with Oswald. And the Allen Dulles point has absolutely nothing to do with Oswald specifically.

I’m not sure what the date is on that Schweiker quote, but if it was after December ‘75 the Committee had some pretty compelling evidence that Oswald was some type of agent or asset. Orestes Pena testified that he saw Oswald associating with federal agents in New Orleans - and one of those agents, INS investigator Wendell Roache, admitted that he “saw Oswald around all the time” in his first contact with the Committee and said that Oswald “had an office in…” before he was cut off and asked to come in and testify. Roache subsequently backtracked and claimed he only saw Oswald once, but he did say that Oswald was observed during INS surveillance on David Ferrie and that he was “known to be a member of Ferrie’s group”, and that “Garrison had something…he had good intelligence information” - pretty provocative stuff from a federal agent.

The Committee deposed Pena, Roache, and at least two other INS officials including the Chief of the New Orleans investigative division Art Bero. All of that testimony has completely vanished. All we have left is a couple pre-interview reports and footnotes to missing testimony in the rough drafts of the Hart-Schweiker report. One of the surviving reports even says that the Committee spoke to INS/Customs agents from Dallas.

Also, there is nothing left on Bero other than the scheduling date for his testimony. Bero was heavily involved in the initial assassination investigation as a liaison with the FBI and CIA, plus he was Roache’s direct supervisor - so a critically important witness - but we haven’t the slightest idea  what he told the Committee. 

I have a pretty friggin hard time believing there’s an innocent explanation for the disappearance of those records. The INS/Customs investigation triggered by Pena’s testimony was essentially the entire first phase of the Hart-Schweiker investigation, lasting from late November ‘75 to at least mid January ‘76. All we have left is something like half a dozen scattered documents when there should be hundreds if not thousands of pages of investigative reports and testimony.

As pointed out by Malcolm Blunt, the case of Cesar Diosado proves that the CIA used Customs agents as cut-outs. One of the federal agents accused of associating with Oswald along with Roache and DeBruyes was a Customs investigator named David Smith. Another thing pointed out by Blunt is that the only moment in all of DeBrueys’ Church Committee testimony where he stumbled in his obnoxiously articulate rambling was when Paul Wallach mentioned David Smith. Hardly convincing on it’s own but in context it’s a pretty interesting detail, IMO.

The point of this rant is that it’s pretty tough to claim there’s no direct evidence of Oswald being an agent or asset when we know for a fact that the records of an entire government sub-investigation into that exact topic have disappeared, and that at least one federal agent corroborated Oswald’s relationship with David Ferrie, said that Oswald had an office in New Orleans, and basically admitted having an association with Oswald himself. 

Considering all the other New Orleans evidence, and there’s plenty of it, I think that probability very, very strongly favors the idea that Oswald’s FPCC activities were an intelligence operation from start to finish.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Only an LNer would say that nothing in that list of 17 items can be counted as circumstantial evidence of Oswald being a CIA agent.

 

And only someone such as yourself would waste time being dogmatic about "who" is "what" on this forum. Of the 17 items on your list, many have nothing to do with Oswald whatsoever, and others are subject to multiple, perfectly reasonable alternate interpretations that don't specifically involve Oswald being a CIA agent. In short, they don't in any way prove what you claim they prove.

[Jonathan Cohen]

29 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Considering all the other New Orleans evidence, and there’s plenty of it, I think that probability very, very strongly favors the idea that Oswald’s FPCC activities were an intelligence operation from start to finish.

Tom, I'm perfectly willing to consider that possibility. But I think there's equally enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was being used without his knowledge by nefarious local forces and/or that he was initiating a lot of these contacts of his own volition. No CIA conspiracy necessary.

[Benjamin Cole]

12 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Well then he didn't do a very good job, did he? Can you point out a single thing he did while in Russia that evinces him being either infiltrator or provocateur? Was he such an expert "asset" that the KGB was clueless for two years as to his true intentions, despite keeping him under round-the-clock surveillance?

JC---

You might say LHO in Russia fizzled. An unsuccessful CIA witting asset is still a witting asset. 

However, we are not privy to LHO's debriefings. Maybe some valuable info was gleaned. 

In addition, LHO's intended role may have been to get a feel on how the Russian public actually felt about their government. He may have provided accurate assessments in the regard, however prosaic. 

Also, LHO's role may have been to serve as a contact for potential Russian defectors. If someone defected after initially contacting LHO, we do not know about it. 

LHO's rather quick and easy return to the US after promising to deliver classified info the Russians is hard to explain, except if LHO was an intel asset. 

 

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Tom, I'm perfectly willing to consider that possibility. But I think there's equally enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was being used without his knowledge by nefarious local forces and/or that he was initiating a lot of these contacts of his own volition. No CIA conspiracy necessary.

Oh I agree it’s possible that Oswald was used unwittingly - but if Oswald was meeting directly with federal agents like Smith and DeBrueys I kind of doubt it. Regarding the CIA, I agree that there is no evidence of direct agency involvement with Oswald in New Orleans, but I think the circumstantial case is rather strong and jam packed with some truly bizarre coincidences. I’ll throw in an example from my own research. 

In the Banister and CIA thread I posted the documents showing that the CIA adopted a different New Orleans private detective agency as a front company in 1960 after deciding against GB&A - but approved Banister for use as a source a month later. During the investigation of Banister, the CIA investigated Joseph Oster and found that he’d left GB&A and joined Southern Research Co. - a successful private detective company without the same derogatory info attached to Banister. Thus I think it’s a safe bet that SRC ended up as the CIA front company. Oster and fellow SRC exec. A. Harry Roberts maintained close ties with Banister and there is evidence that SRC and Banister had shared financial interests. 

Fast forward to 1963. After five years of operating and having an office in New Orleans (they were based out of Shreveport) SRC finally decided to incorporate a New Orleans branch on 8/26/63, five days after Oswald’s debate with Carlos Bringuier. One of the partners in that branch, a man named Edward E. Parent for whom zero information exists anywhere (I’ve looked, but if anyone can find anything on this guy…by all means) gave his address on the articles of incorporation as 4525 Duplessis St., which was the exact same address on Bringuier’s driver’s license when he was arrested with Oswald two weeks earlier. Bringuier looks to have moved from that apartment, which was in a 1200 unit federal housing project, in August ‘62 - but what’s interesting is that Bringuier’s residence at 4525 Duplessis was not random. 

Bringuier was placed in that specific apartment by a heavily CIA infiltrated Cuban exile resettlement program that was administered in New Orleans by a woman who was a CIA asset, CRC committee chair, and FBI informant. This woman placed Bringuier directly adjacent to Sergio Arcacha Smith (4523) and two doors down from fellow CIA asset and chair of the top secret CRC military committee Manuel Blanco (4521).

So this guy Edward E. Parent, a full partner with two decorated former FBI agents in a Guy Banister linked detective firm, listed  Carlos Bringuier’s likely CIA subsidized old apartment in the projects as his address 5 days after Bringuier debated Oswald on WDSU.

Companies often incorporate new branches to shield the parent company from liability. SRC had been investigating David Ferrie for  years. Also, one of Guy Banister’s secretaries (Mary Brengel) later testified that Banister opened a separate company with “a bunch of former FBI agents” in the Summer of ‘63 to handle special security contracts. 

That’s the very short version. It’s really just a clustf*** of odd coincidences, but the coincidences are pretty damn odd. Also, the two lawyers involved in incorporating the SRC branch were an active Asst. US Attorney and a full blown criminal who later spent decades in prison for money laundering. Lastly, that same branch of SRC was later subcontracted by Wackenhut, a CIA contractor, to subvert Garrison’s investigation during the Shaw case. At the time, that branch of SRC was operating out of the same building as the New Orleans CIA field office.

I’m not an actuary, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the chances of all of the above being total innocent coincidence are pretty friggin slim. 

[Sandy Larsen]

49 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Oh I agree it’s possible that Oswald was used unwittingly - but if Oswald was meeting directly with federal agents like Smith and DeBrueys I kind of doubt it.

 

I doubt Oswald was used unwittingly too, probably for more reason than one. But a big one for me is in answer to the question, how did the plotters get Oswald to take a job at the right place at the right time for the shooting? Once you accept that Oswald was indeed a patsy, you have to accept that he was being controlled by the plotters. There's just no way around that.

 

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But a big one for me is in answer to the question, how did the plotters get Oswald to take a job at the right place at the right time for the shooting?

You mean who asked Ruth Paine to phone Truly?

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

You mean who asked Ruth Paine to phone Truly?

 

Whatever happened to cause Oswald to take the TSBD job, had to have been controlled by the assassination plotters. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to make their plan work. There's just no escaping that fact if you believe that the plotters planned for Oswald to be the patsy.

I believe that Truly, Oswald, and Ruth Paine were all undercover CIA assets. I believe that Paine was instructed to tell Oswald about the job; that Truly was instructed to offer the job to Oswald; that and Oswald was instructed to take the job. That way -- in theory, at least -- they each would maintain their cover and each have no idea the others are also CIA. And they each would know only what they needed to know. (In reality, they would each probably guess or wonder if the others are also CIA.)

 

[Tony Krome]

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Paine was instructed to tell Oswald about the job; that Truly was instructed to offer the job to Oswald; that and Oswald was instructed to take the job.

The phone call, therefore, was just theatre. The call happened, for the record. 

But you have to go further back, even before the "morning coffee meeting". Without the newly employed Frazier at the TSBD, your "assets" would have no avenue for TSBD employment.

So how did they get Frazier employed?