David Josephs Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 27 minutes ago, Mart Hall said: Thanks David, anyone with an open mind could surely only reach one reasonable conclusion as regards to this suitcase and it's contents. I'm only part way through reading your work that is published on Kennedys & King but I'd also like to thank you for sharing that work. Appreciate the kind words Mart... I hope you continue to enjoy my work... Jim at K&K has been most kind in his support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 BTW - in the KGB file I have "Mexico" only appears on one page: [Handwritten number: 721 Top Secret. Copy no. 2 Appendix 2 Draft MEXICOTO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR 665. I agree with you that you should visit the MFA of Mexico (the minister or his deputy) and say, referring to reports in the press, that Oswald requested the consular division of the Soviet embassy in Mexico for a visa to enter the USSR, that the procedure for obtaining entry visas was explained to him at the consular division, and that afterwards he no longer contacted the Soviet embassy. According to information available at the embassy, the request for the entry of Oswald and his family into the USSR that he made at the Soviet embassy in Washington was turned down. You can reply in the same vein to other relevant questions by members of the Mexican and foreign press. But they do go into the Nov letter (which if you search I show was actually postmarked Nov 2nd... prior to its supposed writing on the 8th.) k03413/GS DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICE OF LANGUAGE SERVICES (Translation Division) [handwritten: 1077/4367 [?] 46 CIPHER TELEGRAM [illegible] 9 40 Special no. 2005 LS no.069206 1-26 JS/BL Russian TOP SECRET [illegible] WASHINGTON 5441954417 54607 REPRODUCTION [handwritten: 27 xl PROHIBITED 136 37 Copy no. 63 HIGHEST PRIORITY Please note Oswald’s letter of November 9, the text of which was transmitted to Moscow, over the line [?] of nearby neighbors. This letter was clearly a provocation: it gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own. It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself .The suspicion that the letter is a forgery is heightened by the fact that it was typed, whereas the other letters the embassy had received from Oswald before were handwritten. One gets the definite impression that the letter was concocted by those who, judging from everything, are involved in the President’s assassination. It is possible that Oswald himself wrote the letter as it was dictated to him, in return for some promises, and then, as we know, he was simply bumped off after his usefulness had ended. The competent U.S. authorities are undoubtedly aware of this letter, since the embassy’s correspondence is under constant surveillance. However, they are not making use of it for the time being. Nor are they asking the embassy for any information about Oswald himself; perhaps they are waiting for another moment. The question also arises as to whether there is any connection now between the wait-and- see attitude of the U.S. authorities and the ideas conveyed by Thompson (though he himself may not be aware of this connection) on the desirability of some restraint on the part of the Soviet press and gradually hushing up the entire matter of Kennedy’s assassination. Perhaps that is exactly what the federal authorities were inclined to do when they learned all the facts and realized the danger of serious international complications if the interested U.S. groups, including the local authorities in Dallas, continued to fan the hysteria over the “leftist” affiliations of Kennedy’s assassin and the exposCs we would have to issue in this case. The main question now is: should we give the U.S. authorities Oswald’s last letter if they ask for our consular correspondence with him (there is nothing else in it that could be used to compromise us). After weighing all the pros and cons, we are inclined to pass on this letter as well to the authorities if they request all the correspondence, because if we don’t pass it on, the organizers of this entire provocation could use this fa’ct to try casting suspicion on us. Please confirm [receipt]. Agreed upon with A.I. Mikoyan. November 26, 1963 A. Dobrynin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: BTW - in the KGB file I have "Mexico" only appears on one page: [Handwritten number: 721 Top Secret. Copy no. 2 Appendix 2 Draft MEXICOTO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR 665. I agree with you that you should visit the MFA of Mexico (the minister or his deputy) and say, referring to reports in the press, that Oswald requested the consular division of the Soviet embassy in Mexico for a visa to enter the USSR, that the procedure for obtaining entry visas was explained to him at the consular division, and that afterwards he no longer contacted the Soviet embassy. According to information available at the embassy, the request for the entry of Oswald and his family into the USSR that he made at the Soviet embassy in Washington was turned down. You can reply in the same vein to other relevant questions by members of the Mexican and foreign press. But they do go into the Nov letter (which if you search I show was actually postmarked Nov 2nd... prior to its supposed writing on the 8th.) k03413/GS DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICE OF LANGUAGE SERVICES (Translation Division) [handwritten: 1077/4367 [?] 46 CIPHER TELEGRAM [illegible] 9 40 Special no. 2005 LS no.069206 1-26 JS/BL Russian TOP SECRET [illegible] WASHINGTON 5441954417 54607 REPRODUCTION [handwritten: 27 xl PROHIBITED 136 37 Copy no. 63 HIGHEST PRIORITY Please note Oswald’s letter of November 9, the text of which was transmitted to Moscow, over the line [?] of nearby neighbors. This letter was clearly a provocation: it gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own. It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself .The suspicion that the letter is a forgery is heightened by the fact that it was typed, whereas the other letters the embassy had received from Oswald before were handwritten. One gets the definite impression that the letter was concocted by those who, judging from everything, are involved in the President’s assassination. It is possible that Oswald himself wrote the letter as it was dictated to him, in return for some promises, and then, as we know, he was simply bumped off after his usefulness had ended. The competent U.S. authorities are undoubtedly aware of this letter, since the embassy’s correspondence is under constant surveillance. However, they are not making use of it for the time being. Nor are they asking the embassy for any information about Oswald himself; perhaps they are waiting for another moment. The question also arises as to whether there is any connection now between the wait-and- see attitude of the U.S. authorities and the ideas conveyed by Thompson (though he himself may not be aware of this connection) on the desirability of some restraint on the part of the Soviet press and gradually hushing up the entire matter of Kennedy’s assassination. Perhaps that is exactly what the federal authorities were inclined to do when they learned all the facts and realized the danger of serious international complications if the interested U.S. groups, including the local authorities in Dallas, continued to fan the hysteria over the “leftist” affiliations of Kennedy’s assassin and the exposCs we would have to issue in this case. The main question now is: should we give the U.S. authorities Oswald’s last letter if they ask for our consular correspondence with him (there is nothing else in it that could be used to compromise us). After weighing all the pros and cons, we are inclined to pass on this letter as well to the authorities if they request all the correspondence, because if we don’t pass it on, the organizers of this entire provocation could use this fa’ct to try casting suspicion on us. Please confirm [receipt]. Agreed upon with A.I. Mikoyan. November 26, 1963 A. Dobrynin DJ-- MEXICOTO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR 665. I agree with you that you should visit the MFA of Mexico (the minister or his deputy) and say, referring to reports in the press, that Oswald requested the consular division of the Soviet embassy in Mexico for a visa to enter the USSR, that the procedure for obtaining entry visas was explained to him at the consular division, and that afterwards he no longer contacted the Soviet embassy. According to information available at the embassy, the request for the entry of Oswald and his family into the USSR that he made at the Soviet embassy in Washington was turned down. ---30--- Does this indicate that LHO, or at least someone believed to be LHO, visited the consular division of the Soviet Embassy in MC in September 1963? That is the way I read it. Please advise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 On 12/31/2022 at 7:00 AM, 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. Tom I had not noticed this earlier myself, but there is a corroboration from a second witness at Oswald's final interrogation in addition to Holmes that Oswald talked about his trip to Mexico City, said he was there. The questioner asking Oswald was Kelley of the Secret Service and it occurred at the end. Dallas Police Detective L.C. Graves, Warren Commission testimony: Mr. GRAVES. Well, I found, of course, Lee Harvey Oswald, Captain Fritz, and the people that I have named here. The others present were Mr. Holmes from the U.S. Post Office Department, Mr. Kelley from the Secret Service, Agent Sorrels from the Secret Service, L. D. Montgomery, detective; C. N. Dhority, J. R. Leavelle; and Chief Curry came in just a few minutes before we started to move. Mr. BELIN. Did you participate in the bringing of Oswald down to be interrogated? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. At about what time in the morning, was this? Mr. GRAVES. I think that was around 9:30 a.m. Mr. BELIN. Did you stay with him throughout the interrogation, or did you leave? Mr. GRAVES. I stayed in the same room near. In the bureau, actually. Mr. BELIN. This was done in Captain Fritz' office, was it not? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. After you brought Lee Harvey Oswald into Captain Fritz' office at 9:30 a.m., what did you do? Mr. GRAVES. I went back out and answered telephones and talked to people coming in. Mr. BELIN. Did you witness any part of the early interrogation? Mr. GRAVES. No; I didn't. Mr. BELIN. What time did you go back into Captain Fritz' office? Mr. GRAVES. Roughly, about 11:10 or 11:15 a.m. Mr. BELIN. Well, the original time set for transfer was around 10 a.m.? Mr. GRAVES. That was my understanding. Mr. BELIN. All right, let me ask you, has anyone else taken your deposition here? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. So you have already been questioned as to the transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. That is something I don't want to get into. What about the interrogation? Do you remember any subjects that were covered? Mr. GRAVES. Well, I couldn't think of Mr. Kelley's name, the last time, but he questioned Oswald along the line of his activity in Mexico and in Russia. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not Oswald admitted that he was in Mexico? Mr. GRAVES. I believe he did admit it. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he said about his activities in Mexico? Mr. GRAVES. I am too vague on that to make any statement on what he said. I don't remember exactly, so I would rather not say anything. I know that he did say something, but the best of my knowledge, it sure didn't amount to a great deal. Very evasive, as every other answer was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 I'm trying to read as much as possible on the MC caper, but it's a lot to absorb. So convoluted. Appreciate all the insight provided here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 14 hours ago, Lance Payette said: The greater significance to me is that, once again, "evidence" from the Armstrong cult is easily demonstrated to be misrepresented or bogus. Once again, the Armstrong cult demonstrates utter credulousness. I only looked into this document because "something isn't right here" pretty much leaped out at me. I knew nothing of Fred's work until he brought it to my attention. Lance, Your "cult" allegation, which is obviously directed at David Josephs, violates forum rules. Kindly remove it and report back here in a post stating you have done so. If you do not, I will report your post. 10 hours ago, Steve Roe said: Well congratulations David, your Nagell claim has been debunked. The document was found in the Malcolm Blunt archives. You remember Malcolm right? The researcher who worked with John Armstrong and quit associating with him when his Harvey and Lee theory became evident. Blunt did the right thing, he wanted no part of that fantasy. Steve, Your remark, which is obviously directed at David Josephs, violates forum rules. Kindly remove it and report back here in a post stating you have done so. If you do not, I will report your post. 7 hours ago, David Josephs said: Like a handful of other Cointelpro loyalists who post here for the pure enjoyment of disruption, I won't be addressing any more of Roe's posts as he is on "ignore/block"... A wonderful feature that allows you to remove such drivel from the threads you are enjoying. I highly recommend looking into this feature if you enjoy having intelligent conversations with those on this forum for that purpose and side-step the dreck a dozen or so posters here wallow in to get either their jollies or their $100 week stipend. How about posting what you think with your supporting evidence? Too hard, or simply not up for the task? David, Your remark, directed at Steve Roe, violates forum rules. Kindly remove it. I won't report your post because you were defending yourself. (I am writing this post as a forum member, not a moderator or admin team member.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: and say, referring to reports in the press, Ben... Doesn't appear as if they are talking about what to say in regards to the PR that was out there related to Mexico... This was not necessarily what happened, just that that is the story from the US government and press, and this is what we will say about it... I have the LI--- summary reports for September and contemporaneously there was no report of an American contacting the Russian compound... Here is the report with an example of what "leads of operational interest" looks like in the "Exploitation" section of the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: David, Your remark, directed at Steve Roe, violates forum rules. Kindly remove it. I won't report your post because you were defending yourself. (I am writing this post as a forum member, not a moderator or admin team member.) Removed... block/ignore is so much easier and cleaner... my apologies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 13 hours ago, David Josephs said: k03413/GS DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICE OF LANGUAGE SERVICES (Translation Division) [handwritten: 1077/4367 [?] 46 CIPHER TELEGRAM [illegible] 9 40 Special no. 2005 LS no.069206 1-26 JS/BL Russian TOP SECRET [illegible] WASHINGTON 5441954417 54607 REPRODUCTION [handwritten: 27 xl PROHIBITED 136 37 Copy no. 63 HIGHEST PRIORITY Please note Oswald’s letter of November 9, the text of which was transmitted to Moscow, over the line [?] of nearby neighbors. This letter was clearly a provocation: it gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own. It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself .The suspicion that the letter is a forgery is heightened by the fact that it was typed, whereas the other letters the embassy had received from Oswald before were handwritten. One gets the definite impression that the letter was concocted by those who, judging from everything, are involved in the President’s assassination. It is possible that Oswald himself wrote the letter as it was dictated to him, in return for some promises, and then, as we know, he was simply bumped off after his usefulness had ended. The competent U.S. authorities are undoubtedly aware of this letter, since the embassy’s correspondence is under constant surveillance. However, they are not making use of it for the time being. Nor are they asking the embassy for any information about Oswald himself; perhaps they are waiting for another moment. The question also arises as to whether there is any connection now between the wait-and- see attitude of the U.S. authorities and the ideas conveyed by Thompson (though he himself may not be aware of this connection) on the desirability of some restraint on the part of the Soviet press and gradually hushing up the entire matter of Kennedy’s assassination. Perhaps that is exactly what the federal authorities were inclined to do when they learned all the facts and realized the danger of serious international complications if the interested U.S. groups, including the local authorities in Dallas, continued to fan the hysteria over the “leftist” affiliations of Kennedy’s assassin and the exposCs we would have to issue in this case. The main question now is: should we give the U.S. authorities Oswald’s last letter if they ask for our consular correspondence with him (there is nothing else in it that could be used to compromise us). After weighing all the pros and cons, we are inclined to pass on this letter as well to the authorities if they request all the correspondence, because if we don’t pass it on, the organizers of this entire provocation could use this fa’ct to try casting suspicion on us. Please confirm [receipt]. Agreed upon with A.I. Mikoyan. November 26, 1963 A. Dobrynin David & Ben, Doesn't the following text, which is from the above Russian document, show that Oswald didn't visit the Russian Embassy? This letter was clearly a provocation: it gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own. It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself .The suspicion that the letter is a forgery is heightened by the fact that it was typed, whereas the other letters the embassy had received from Oswald before were handwritten. [Bold is mine.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself I'd have to say that was pretty definitive.... As I mentioned, the previous memo only dealt with what was being said in the press, not that he had actually been there. Guess the file was better than I thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) 10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: Tom I had not noticed this earlier myself, but there is a corroboration from a second witness at Oswald's final interrogation in addition to Holmes that Oswald talked about his trip to Mexico City, said he was there. The questioner asking Oswald was Kelley of the Secret Service and it occurred at the end. Dallas Police Detective L.C. Graves, Warren Commission testimony: Mr. GRAVES. Well, I found, of course, Lee Harvey Oswald, Captain Fritz, and the people that I have named here. The others present were Mr. Holmes from the U.S. Post Office Department, Mr. Kelley from the Secret Service, Agent Sorrels from the Secret Service, L. D. Montgomery, detective; C. N. Dhority, J. R. Leavelle; and Chief Curry came in just a few minutes before we started to move. Mr. BELIN. Did you participate in the bringing of Oswald down to be interrogated? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. At about what time in the morning, was this? Mr. GRAVES. I think that was around 9:30 a.m. Mr. BELIN. Did you stay with him throughout the interrogation, or did you leave? Mr. GRAVES. I stayed in the same room near. In the bureau, actually. Mr. BELIN. This was done in Captain Fritz' office, was it not? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. After you brought Lee Harvey Oswald into Captain Fritz' office at 9:30 a.m., what did you do? Mr. GRAVES. I went back out and answered telephones and talked to people coming in. Mr. BELIN. Did you witness any part of the early interrogation? Mr. GRAVES. No; I didn't. Mr. BELIN. What time did you go back into Captain Fritz' office? Mr. GRAVES. Roughly, about 11:10 or 11:15 a.m. Mr. BELIN. Well, the original time set for transfer was around 10 a.m.? Mr. GRAVES. That was my understanding. Mr. BELIN. All right, let me ask you, has anyone else taken your deposition here? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. So you have already been questioned as to the transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. That is something I don't want to get into. What about the interrogation? Do you remember any subjects that were covered? Mr. GRAVES. Well, I couldn't think of Mr. Kelley's name, the last time, but he questioned Oswald along the line of his activity in Mexico and in Russia. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not Oswald admitted that he was in Mexico? Mr. GRAVES. I believe he did admit it. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he said about his activities in Mexico? Mr. GRAVES. I am too vague on that to make any statement on what he said. I don't remember exactly, so I would rather not say anything. I know that he did say something, but the best of my knowledge, it sure didn't amount to a great deal. Very evasive, as every other answer was. Good find Greg. Graves’ qualification “I believe” and what he says after the bolded portion doesn’t exactly inspire confidence though. Holmes’ description of what Oswald allegedly said was hardly evasive. I’d keep looking into it. Graves’ statement does makes it more likely that Holmes was remembering an actual event IMO. If Oswald admitted as much as Holmes claimed he did though in the presence of that many people I feel like there should be some sort of contemporaneous clue/corroboration, most likely from the Secret Service. I don’t have time to really dig right now, but I did a quick search and one thing that bothers me about Graves’ statement is that Thomas Kelley signed an affidavit stating specifically that it was his recollection that Oswald was not asked nor did he speak about Mexico City in his final interrogation: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Kelley_aff_2nd.pdf So we have a case of who’s lying, and why. Kelley supposedly asked the questions, so I find it very hard to believe that he just flat out wouldn’t remember a thing about interrogating Oswald about Mexico City. Would Kelley really expose himself to perjury charges just to cover his own ass for not including anything about Mexico City in his interrogation report? Edited January 9, 2023 by Tom Gram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 3 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: If Oswald admitted as much as Holmes claimed he did though in the presence of that many people I feel like there should be some sort of contemporaneous clue/corroboration, most likely from the Secret Service. Of course, you guys do know that Oswald denied going to Mexico City in the DPD interrogation report, and in one of the FBI reports he said he'd been to Mexico only once, and that was to visit Tijuana. (My apologies if you've already discussed this. It seems clear to me that Holmes was simply in error on this point.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: Guess the file was better than I thought... LOL. And I did something useful without even knowing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=650. These are the reports of Kelley... Mexico is not mentioned once. GRAVES is mistaken (lying is so harsh). And since we have nothing recorded regarding the interrogations is the man mistaken about Kelley also mistaken about Oswald's statement? I'd bet on it. HOLMES lied about virtually everything and a reference to someone else's report that does not have what he says it has in it does not constitute 2nd witness corroboration ... Why all the pushback anyway? I offer hundreds of pages of evidence and analysis which shows he was not there... the men down there even said the only evidence of his being there are the CIA transcripts and the Hotel register... there is simply you can say which overrides LITAMIL 9 & 7 stating he wasn't there.... maybe that was why his evidence about Oswald not being there was suppressed until 2018? And the response is HOLMES and "some guy said"....? So here again from the horse's mouth... FALSE STORY yet he and his FBI produced thousands of pages trying to defend a fictitious trip... New Orleans to AUSTIN to DALLAS to ODIO with Cubans... Wonder why the FBI would want to cover that up 8 weeks before the assassination... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mart Hall Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: David & Ben, Doesn't the following text, which is from the above Russian document, show that Oswald didn't visit the Russian Embassy? This letter was clearly a provocation: it gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own. It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself .The suspicion that the letter is a forgery is heightened by the fact that it was typed, whereas the other letters the embassy had received from Oswald before were handwritten. [Bold is mine.] Sandy, David, Is the report being sent by the USSR embassy in Washington (it has Washington in the header)? If so, then the author is saying Oswald never attended that embassy rather then the one in Mexico City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now