David Atlee Phillips: Oswald never went to Mexico!

[Greg Doudna]

22 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I don’t think Holmes’ testimony on Mexico City is very credible. Holmes didn’t mention Oswald saying anything about Mexico City in his 12/17/63 report on Oswald’s final interrogation, and the report covers the entire interrogation i.e. not just questions asked by Holmes: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=184

Also, as far as I know, no one else who attended that interrogation ever corroborated Holmes or mentioned anything about Oswald admitting to being in Mexico City in their reports.

Will Fritz wasn’t even asked about what Holmes said in his testimony, and Fritz testified on 4/22/64, just three weeks after Holmes testified to Belin on April 2nd. Fritz did mention that Oswald denied being in Mexico City in his first interrogation - so it’s kind of hard to believe IMO that 1) Fritz wouldn’t mention that Oswald eventually admitted to it if that actually happened; and 2) the WC’s failure to ask Fritz to corroborate Holmes wasn’t intentional. 

These are both good points, both puzzling, I agree. Holmes comes across in his testimony as less reliable and sloppy with facts, so any specific detail he tells in itself is less-than-perfect hearsay, that is not under dispute. But that has little to do with the more basic issue that there are only about three ways to interpret Holmes on Nov 24 (referring to Mexico City), choose one: Holmes (i) imagined it (delusional); (ii) intentionally fabricated it (knew it was untrue); (iii) told a version of what Lee said.

Imagination (hallucination or delusion) just won't work, not reasonable. Then did he fabricate it out of thin air? Why on earth would he? What would be the point? Why would Holmes care about fabricating that Oswald went to Mexico City? What does that have to do with proving Oswald killed Kennedy in Dallas as a late-opportunity impulse crime acting alone (the FBI and Warren Commission's explanation to the world), or his job as postal inspector? Why would Holmes care? And if he was fabricating it, did he just get up one morning and say, "I've decided on my own that I'm going to fabricate and perjure big-time today"? Or was he getting orders from ubiquitous invisible handlers above to perjure and fabricate the whole thing? (Did that kind of marionette-stringing of witnesses supposed by some come with written indemnification guarantees for compensation from the federal government if such witnesses were ever busted for perjury?) This is why I cannot buy that because Holmes was an informant, because he got facts wrong in his testimony as a general statement, and because there is lack of corroboration in Fritz's, Kelley's, Bookhout's, and Holmes' own written account at the time of the Nov 24 interrogation, therefore Holmes fabricated the entire thing.

Is it not clear, just from looking at it, that the whole set of issues with Oswald in Mexico City was one giant headache to anyone trying to work out a coherent lone-nut solution to the case, as desired by LBJ and Hoover and the conclusion of the Warren Commission? Nothing about Oswald in Mexico City is helpful to the lone-nut argument. Think about it. It only complicates. Its all downside, no upside, for the lone-nut argument.  

It looks like there was some desire to cover up Oswald in Mexico City during that first weekend--or at least keep quiet about it until they could figure out what was going on with that--in keeping with wishes of "higher authority". Notice how after that first contested and interrupted question and answer of Hosty to Lee concerning Mexico City on Nov 22, Hosty was yanked out of further involvement in the interrogations--direct orders from Washington, D.C., Hosty believed it came from J. Edgar Hoover personally--and none of the other FBI agents are known to have pursued that line of questioning of Oswald again in all the remaining interrogations, despite being present and having opportunity to do so. Does that make sense? What does that look like? It looks like it was a topic of some sensitivity, is what it looks like.  

I restudied the Nov 24 interrogation documents and I think I may have found where the conversation about Mexico City occurred in the timeline that morning. I have already noted the account of Leavelle that at some point Fritz and Leavelle left the DPD building and drank coffee across the street during that time frame of the Nov 24 interrogation in Fritz's office before Oswald was taken below at about 11:20 am. That account of Leavelle puzzled me because I don't think that movement of Fritz has been known from many other accounts. But here is where that might possibly be found or situated in the existing writeups of that Nov 24  last interrogation. Secret Service agent Thomas J. Kelley from Washington, D.C., heading the Secret Service's investigation of the assassination, was present in Fritz's office that morning for that interrogation. After describing the familiar questioning of Oswald that morning, Kelley writes:

"Since it was obvious to Captain Fritz that Oswald was not going to be cooperative, he terminated the interview at that time. I approached Oswald then and, out of the hearing of the others except perhaps one of Captain Fritz's men, said that as a Secret Service agent, we are anxious to talk with him as soon as he had secured counsel; that we were responsible for the safety of the President; that the Dallas Police had charged him with the assassination of the President but that he had denied it; we were therefore very anxious to talk with him to make certain that the correct story was developing as it related to the assassination. He said that he would be glad to discuss this proposition with his attorney and that after he talked to one, we could either discuss it with him or discuss it with his attorney, if the attorney thought it was the wise thing to do, but that at the present time he had nothing more to say to me. Oswald was then handed some different clothing to put on. The clothing included a sweater. Captain Fritz made a number of telephone calls to ascertain whether the preparations he had placed into effect for transferring the prisoner to the Country Jail were ready . . ."    (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0327b.htm )

Here a basic question arises in visualizing this: how does Secret Service agent Kelley talk to Oswald in a small room in Fritz's office in which Oswald is being questioned, "out of the hearing of the others"? Think about it. Does he go up and whisper in Lee's ear, and Lee whisper back to him, nobody else in the room able to hear? And why make a point that it was "out of the hearing of the others" at all?  

No, read that as other language for Fritz and other Dallas Police officers left the room. Kelley then spoke to Oswald and Oswald answered, and it was out of the hearing of Fritz and Fritz's second, Leavelle, no longer in the room. Holmes was still in the room. He heard it. And what Kelley says happened "out of the hearing" of Fritz whose office it was and others, in which Oswald answered no questions other than as described above, could be true in full or it could be cover for Kelley also asking Oswald about Mexico City, who Lee saw there, where did he get the money for the trip, etc.--part of the Secret Service's investigation independent of the FBI. In other words, Kelley learned a little more from Oswald than Kelley's written report reflects of that conversation. Or in an alternative scenario the question might have been asked by Bookhout of the FBI because those are questions the FBI could also want to know, but it was not reported in writing. Either way, the reconstruction is Holmes heard it because he did not leave the room like Fritz and Leavelle.

But picking up on Matt Allison's comment, the transcript shows Belin asking Holmes if Oswald said anything about Mexico City. This suggests that Belin, known for his pre-interviews and apparent "no surprises" in testimony personal policy, had pre-interviewed Holmes and knew what Holmes would say and that was OK. The interpretation would be not that Holmes was fabricating or put up to it (the implausible marionette-stringed witnesses/invisible-handlers model), but that Holmes' testimony of what Oswald said on that was satisfactorily in agreement with the only explanation of Oswald in Mexico City that least complicates a lone-nut conclusion for the assassination: that Oswald did the Mexico City trip on his own without outside funding or assistance. Holmes' account of what Oswald said on Nov 24 was found satisfactory to Belin in pre-interview and therefore was asked and entered into the record. As to Fritz not being asked in his WC testimony, that would be because Fritz was not a witness to it, possibly also so as not to go into Mexico City issues more than was necessary.

How does that work as an interpretation of that testimony?

Edited January 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Steve Thomas]

51 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Here a basic question arises in visualizing this: how does Secret Service agent Kelley talk to Oswald in a small room in Fritz's office in which Oswald is being questioned, "out of the hearing of the others"? Think about it. Does he go up and whisper in Lee's ear, and Lee whisper back to him, nobody else in the room able to hear? And why make a point that it was "out of the hearing of the others" at all?  

How does that work as an interpretation of that testimony?

Greg,

"Let's Get Our Story Straight."

Steve Thomas

[Gene Kelly]

18 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Of course. Thanks for the previous response.

Bob

Not sure of how much stock we can put in Dean Andrews' testimony.  From everything that I've read, he was pretty scared, and had been warned (and possibly threatened) about talking.  My read - based on Garrison's later investigatory work - is that Dean (a well-informed lawyer) was too close to the "fire" and knew something sinister was afoot in New Orleans with Shaw, Ferrie, Bannister, et al.  By the time the Warren Commission deposed him in July 1964, he was telling them whatever they wanted to hear.  And he seems to have been backing away from his previous FBI interviews, that were likely too close to the truth:  

LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the FBI that he told you that he was being paid $25 a day for handing out these leaflets?   

ANDREWS. I could have told them that. I know I reminded him of the $25. I may have it confused, the $25. What I do recall, he said it was a job. I guess I asked him how much he was making.

But obviously, someone was paying Oswald for the FPCC charade.

Gene

[Bob Ness]

44 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Bob

Not sure of how much stock we can put in Dean Andrews' testimony.  From everything that I've read, he was pretty scared, and had been warned (and possibly threatened) about talking.  My read - based on Garrison's later investigatory work - is that Dean (a well-informed lawyer) was too close to the "fire" and knew something sinister was afoot in New Orleans with Shaw, Ferrie, Bannister, et al.  By the time the Warren Commission deposed him in July 1964, he was telling them whatever they wanted to hear.  And he seems to have been backing away from his previous FBI interviews, that were likely too close to the truth:  

LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the FBI that he told you that he was being paid $25 a day for handing out these leaflets?   

ANDREWS. I could have told them that. I know I reminded him of the $25. I may have it confused, the $25. What I do recall, he said it was a job. I guess I asked him how much he was making.

But obviously, someone was paying Oswald for the FPCC charade.

Gene

Yeah, seems that way...

[Gene Kelly]

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Got that one right Sandy.

Their so called bottom line about him being there, the visa application and photo, has been vitiated by David Josephs.

I have a problem with a show that features Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler and Dick Helms. And does not inform the reader about the whole Duran story.  And culminates in that dog and pony show about the trigger guard print that Pat Speer did such a nice expose on.

Bottom line:  When Tony Summers asks to have his name taken off,  that is saying something.

I will be doing an essay on Gus Russo soon.

Jim

Russo seems like a scoundrel, and I wouldn't characterize him as a "foremost expert" on the assassination. Russo is apparently a member of The Mob Museum’s Advisory Council, and claims he was co-lead reporter for the 1993 documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? for PBS.  His November 2021 article in the blog MobMuseum.com is quite the piece of disinformation, and posits a Cuban-driven plot: 

Gus Russo, one of the foremost experts on the JFK assassination, says Cuban officials were aware of Lee Harvey Oswald’s intention to kill Kennedy and encouraged him.

Russo has a simple explanation for the Mexico City charade:

"Oswald was there for six days in Mexico City ... but the witnesses that we’ve uncovered say that he was meeting for lunches and dinners and going to Communist get-togethers. He was meeting with Castro’s intelligence officers, and they were encouraging him. One officer told us that, ‘We offered him money, but he wasn’t interested in money. It was all ideological for him.’ So [the Cuban agents] gave him a few dollars to go to the bullfights and to walk around Mexico City"

In the article, Russo also defames Mark Lane 

"Lane’s work turned out to be “completely inaccurate, there were a lot of falsehoods in it . . . it was a total fiction,” Russo said. In fact, Vasili Mitrokhin, who for years had been the Russian KGB archivist, claimed in a 1999 book he co-authored, The Sword and the Shield, that the KGB spy agency clandestinely fed disinformation on the JFK killing to an undercover KGB source in America, a faux journalist named Genrikh Borovik. Mitrokhin contended that Lane (unawares) trusted and used this disinformation to write his book, falsely alleging CIA involvement, meant to discredit the U.S. government in the eyes of Americans. It proved effective in doing that. 

Then Russo slanders Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison:

"Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. (Russo initially consulted for the project but withdrew after he read the script ... movies are powerful,” Russo said, “and especially in an era when young people aren’t reading. Movies are their main influence, and it’s terrible that that movie JFK got the last word, so to speak, on what happened for a generation who doesn’t read. I’m always hoping that someday the other movie will come out, the true story, and I try and get that done because that’s the only way we can get to young people.”

Jim Garrison was another really crazy guy,” Russo said. “And when he decided that he was going to go after the assassination theory, [arguing] that the CIA killed Kennedy and Oswald was some innocent patsy, he was influenced by Mark Lane [who] was part of his counsel, his inner circle telling him all these things."

Apparently, we were all being fed disinformation by the "KGB psychological warfare division" according to Russo ... further in the article, Russo perpetuates all of the various Oswald myths:

"In no way a hero, Oswald, Russo said, continually beat his wife, Marina, tried to kill General Edwin Walker – with the same rifle he used to shoot Kennedy – earlier in 1963, murdered President Kennedy and Officer Tippit, and finally tried to shoot a second Dallas officer while resisting arrest.  He was “a serial murderer wannabe and a violent sociopath, not exactly the kind of guy the CIA would hire as an officer or asset,” Russo said.

Oswald was a good shot in the Marines. He had a sharpshooter’s rating. He hit 48 out of 50 rapid-fire bullseyes from 200 yards, with a bolt-action weapon. Kennedy was much closer than that in Dealey Plaza, and Oswald had been practicing rapid-fire bolt action shooting all summer. 

Last, he then uses LBJ as a rationale for his Cuba-did-it story:

According to assassination expert Gus Russo, President Lyndon Johnson decided to cover up intelligence reports of the Cuban connection to Oswald in order to prevent war with Cuba and its ally, the Soviet Union.  McCone, after reviewing his agency’s secret statements, had come to a conclusion about the assassination. “It was the Castro connection,” he told the new president. Johnson also spoke by phone with his own longtime sources in the Mexican government, as well as CIA and FBI officers stationed in Mexico City. Thus, Johnson knew the troubling story within only hours of Kennedy’s death, the connections Cuban intelligence and Cuban leader Fidel Castro had to Oswald.  

Russo addresses (and distorts) all of the major tenets of the assassination story with deceptive sophistry.  He bases his Cuban-driven theory "not only on interviews, but on documentary evidence from the American, Russian, Mexican and other governments, many unclassified and released since the 1990s."

I've come to believe that - when "they" (i.e., critics like Russo) attack someone - it's usually a sign that those being attacked are onto the real story and truth.   And he discounts Mark Lane, Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison ... three very credible individuals.  You simply can't make a story like Russo's up ... I look forward to your essay. 

Gene

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 5:44 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Nothing about Oswald in Mexico City is helpful to the lone-nut argument. Think about it. It only complicates. Its all downside, no upside, for the lone-nut argument.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Evan Marshall]

I am fascinated how Phillips has morphed from a conspirator to a reliable source of information

[Gene Kelly]

Lance ... so Oswald did all of this without any help or encouragement ... all on his lonesome, his own volition?   And he was leaving his wife, to go to Cuba as a "hero of the revolution", even with a 2nd baby on the way?   And the rifle that he "went and got" was one he hadn't used since it arrived by mail order in March ... under an alias (Hidell) later used to incriminate him at the Tippit murder scene? 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that about Russo Gene.

He's become even worse now.

And that information about his leaving Stone's project after he saw the script does not jibe with my information about his working on the Book of the Film, well after the picture was ou.t

[Greg Doudna]

Deleted

Edited January 2, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:50 PM, Gene Kelly said:

Lance ... so Oswald did all of this without any help or encouragement ... all on his lonesome, his own volition?   And he was leaving his wife, to go to Cuba as a "hero of the revolution", even with a 2nd baby on the way?   And the rifle that he "went and got" was one he hadn't used since it arrived by mail order in March ... under an alias (Hidell) later used to incriminate him at the Tippit murder scene? 

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

apart from the Walker incident, neither you nor I has any idea what use he may have made of the rifle. He was observed dry-firing it on his porch, but I have no idea whether he actually practiced with it.

There's this HSCA testimony provided by Marina Oswald, which lends support to the idea that LHO did, indeed, on multiple occasions in 1963, go somewhere to "target practice" with his rifle:


 

 

[Matt Allison]

7 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Gus Russo, one of the foremost experts on the JFK assassination, says Cuban officials were aware of Lee Harvey Oswald’s intention to kill Kennedy and encouraged him.

Fidel Castro is dead and the country of Cuba is a non-entity politically. If Russo says he has evidence Castro effected the JFKA, then let's f*cking see it.

[Joseph McBride]

I long ago focused on Marina's forging of

Lee's signature. It raises many questions,

especially since most of what Lee called

the "so-called evidence" was supplied

to the authorities by Marina and her friend Ruth Paine.

Also, FBI agent Hosty writes in his book that Marina

was his primary target of concern, not Lee.

He writes that he thought Marina might have been KGB,

as she appears to have been in the USSR. But

Lee was an FBI informant, so Hosty is covering

that up.

The often-dubious Mailer book on Oswald reports (basing on Soviet

information) that she was expelled

from Leningrad for prostitution. She reportedly

was a KGB "swallow." The hasty courtship and marriage

to Oswald is suspicious.

Her statements before the Warren Commission obviously cannot be

taken at face value; I am surprised that anyone

does. Even her later statements reversing

the earlier ones cannot be taken at face value,

since she lied so much earlier, albeit under

duress.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Joseph McBride

[Matt Allison]

If Marina is considered a worthless witness, then that truly is unfortunate; because of the witnesses we know about, she was around him the most.

I never thought LHO shared much of anything with her. But I'm going to try to read up on this business of her forging his signature. Seems crazy to have someone that couldn't speak English do that, but we'll see.