David Atlee Phillips: Oswald never went to Mexico!

[David Josephs]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My take is the Nov. 26 CIA memo wanted a trace on all LHO movements made using his 1959 passport. Going back years, not just pertaining to the Mexico visit. 

Interesting take but not the point of the memo...  there is no mention of a 1963 passport in the report....

This is Nov 1963 and they are talking about what he was "carrying" ...

and FWIW, Marina was supposedly a trained pharmacist, not a dental tech...  which of course brings its own set of conflicts in that Marina becomes a pharmacist June 20, 1959 (CE20 offers no date of enrollment) she was born July 17, 1941... IOW she becomes a pharmacist before she turns 18... really?  When the Russians call her a little "swallow" who would do anything she was told to help the KGB...  not quite a prostitute, but close, their words not mine.

 

And one more time Ben, a passport was not needed to enter Mexico.. there would be no stamp for Mexico on either passport.  If you're concerned about stamps, concentrate on the LONDON AIRPORT stamp as the evidence he flew from England is very sketchy... as are the signatures on the hotel cards...  do a search here on the forum if interested... quite an amazing series of events in that 1959 defection journey.

[Ian Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

This is a link to FBI reports talking about Marina being shown photos of Nagell by the Secret Service.. the page of her report is from WCD404... along with the other 4 pages as well as a 2 page report with Nagell's statement about meeting Oswald "socially"

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/N Disk/Nagel Richard Case/Item 08.pdf 

 

This is from the new release.. 221 page file on Nagell with cover letter from BRUCE SOLIE

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10305-10005.pdf. I have not been thru it all yet, hopeing to find a list of trunk contents

Page 188 (PF) onwards...

24 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/avoid-linked-jfk-assassination-get-locked/
Then, on January 2, 1964, Nagell advised agents of both the FBI and Secret Service “that he had been acquainted with MARINA, the wife of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Subject further pointed out that OSWALD was having marital difficulties with Marina.” The Secret Service is on record as having interviewed Marina Oswald about Nagell, but no transcript or notes are known to exist — only the FBI’s assertion that a photo of Nagell was shown to her, and that she supposedly said she’d never seen him before. 

 

From Russell's GALLERY article:
It was several months before I paid much notice to a pile of Xeroxed material I had carted home from San Diego. Included was a photocopy of the pages of a small brown spiral notebook, which according to Popkin had belonged to Richard Nagell. I turned the pages and scanned the names. The pages were filled with locker numbers, lists of theaters and restaurants alongside specific dates and times in a variety of locations in the U.S. and Mexico. I had read that such notations are often used to indi- cate intelligence rendezvous points, either for the drop and pick-up of in- formation or for clandestine contacts.
The notebook contained names of congressmen, attorneys, American leftists, officials in Far East governments, a Soviet military attache, six names under the heading "C.I.A.," and two listings for the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee." I began becoming more interested in this aspect of Pop- kin's theories, as well as in the man who'd kept the notebook. As Professor Popkin had related the story, the notebook had been among the effects taken from Richard Nagell's trunk that September afternoon in El Paso,
1963, and held for 11 years by the FBI. One entry in particular rang a bell:

C.E. MEXICO D.F. PHONE:
11-28-47
I played with the initials "C.E."
Were they a person's name? Perhaps "Cuban Embassy." The entry went on:
MEET JUFER REST CALLE VERSALLE LAREDO, TEXAS
Two months and two days after this notebook was seized from Richard Nagell, remarkably similar listings had been found in the address book of Lee Oswald: names of American left- ists, a Soviet Embassy official, and Cubans. Even the number of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, which Oswald listed atop one page:
Mexico City • Consulada de Cuba Zamora Y F Marquez
11-28-47 Sylvia Duran

 

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

 

I recall seeing what I thought was a  credible source - like a CIA memo or something - stating that Nagell had a list of names of CIA personnel in his trunk when he was arrested. Is this true? I did a quick browse through those links and didn’t see anything about it. 

EDIT: Double quoted by accident. 

Yes, Nagell had a list of CIA men upon his arrest for the El Paso Bank robbery. It came to the CIA's attention in 1964. The CIA denied Nagell ever worked for the CIA, they were concerned about cover on these operatives if it became public knowledge. Nagell was in Army Intel in Japan, after his plane crash which he suffered brain damage. Nagell was dismissed from that position. See Dave Reitzes Nagell link under Jonathan Cohen's post. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=103975#relPageId=83&search=Nagell

[David Josephs]

42 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

Page 188 (PF) onwards...

Yup, thanks for saving me some time 

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, David Josephs said:

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

23 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Having re-read this and looked again at the Nov letter... the embassy referred to here is the Russian Embassy in Washington DC, not the Mexican Russian Embassy...  so I'd have to conclude this is not evidence from the Russians denying his contacting the embassy in Mexico...  

Just like the other letter is simply addressing what the press is saying and not what actually happened.

 

David,

I hope to change your mind about this.

The Russian guy who wrote that document most likely did not read Oswald's letter right before writing the document. At the time he wrote the document, all discussions of Oswald's letter were finished and conclusions had been made.

So I think it is a mistake for you to re-read Oswald's letter and let that influence your thoughts on the Russian guy's document.

Having said that....

Now, take a look again at the relevant paragraph of the document:

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.

The purpose of this paragraph is to state that Oswald's letter looks like a forgery. Each sentence gives a reason to believe that. Let's view each sentence from the point of view of a Russian reader:
 

• "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."

What? We don't have close ties to Oswald! Hey, who really wrote this?

• It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald.

This letter doesn't read anything like Oswald's other letters. Hey, who really wrote this?

• Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself.

Oswald said in the letter that he visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City. But we know he didn't! Hey,who really wrote this?

• 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.

Well, okay, some people do use a typewriter on occasion. But this is the only time for Oswald. So that makes his letter a little more suspicious.

Again,  all sentences in the paragraph give a reason to believe the letter is a forgery. Had the sentence "Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself" been about their Washington embassy, it would serve no purpose in the paragraph. It wouldn't be an indication that Oswald's letter was a forgery.

 

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

• It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald.

Oswald's letters don't look anything like this. Hey, who really wrote this?

• Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself.

Oswald never sent letters to the Russian Embassy in Mexico Sandy, he sent them to Washington DC's embassy...  IOW "previously received"...  "NOR" usually means he is continuing the thought from the previous sentence...

Oswald had never been to Russian Embassy in Washington...  the letter was mailed to the Embassy in Washington and was so different from previous letters they judged it a forgery...

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

whereas the other letters the embassy had received from Oswald before were handwritten.

Again, no letters to Mexico, only DC.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Again,  all sentences in the paragraph give a reason to believe the letter is a forgery. Had the sentence "Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself" been about their Washington Embassy, it would serve no purpose in the paragraph. It wouldn't be an indication that Oswald's letter was a forgery.

Disagree here Sandy,

He was simply adding that Oswald had not been to the place he was mailing all the handwritten letters...

How I see it my friend...

As to who wrote it?  the Handwritten one or the typewritten one?  either way all we have is Ruth's story about it.
Right?

[David Josephs]

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10408-10419.pdf

NAGELL AKA JOE CRAMER, JOE KRANE, ROBERT C NOLAN... KNOWN TO LNERGO (CYPT FOR FBI IN 60'S AND 70'S)

HAS NAGELL'S 201 #  AND STATEMENT FBI DOES NOT HAVE 1963 LETTER

By the way.. the 221 page Nagell report page 11 states that he had in his possession a receipt for the registered mail letter to Hoover from 1963...

And Ben... his chronology shows he was in MEXCIO CITY SEPT 28, 1962...
In 1963 Sept he was in jail in TX.  I believe he contends he was with an Oswald in 1962.

In Sept 1962 our Oswald was working at Leslie Welding in Ft. Worth so it is possible that NAGELL posed as OSWALD in Sept 1962 for this meeting.

 

From Armstrong's H&L taken from a written summary from Garrison's office of the interview with Donald Norton...
Norton told Ward further that another CIA assignment took him to Monterrey,
Mexico in September of 1962, where he met a nan identified as Harvey Lee. Norton
swears this man fits the description, and he is certain of this identification, of
Lee Harvey Oswald. He says.he delivered money to Harvey Lee for .revolutionary activity against Castro.

.....
Then in September 1962, after Castro had taken ever Cuba, he was given the as- signment to take $50,000 to the Hotel Yamajel in Monterrey, Mexico. He drove to
Monterrey in his own 1956 Buick and registered at the hotel under his own name.

Donald P. Norton, the CIA agent who received $150,000 from David Ferrie in
1958 and delivered the cash to Havana, was given another assignment involving Cuba in the fall of 1962. On this occasion he was given a case full of money and told to travel to Monterrey, Mexico and meet "Harvey Lee." Norton took the case, traveled to Monterrey as directed, and checked into the Yamajel Hotel. Before he was able to get to his room Norton was met by "Harvey Lee."
The two men went into the hotel bar to drink a couple of beers and relax.
Norton recalled that "Harvey Lee" refused to look him in the eye. He described
"Harvey Lee" as a man of slight build who was dressed casually and said that he was from New Orleans. When Norton saw photographs of "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the newspaper following the assassination, he said the man was identical to the "Harvey Lee" he met in Monterrey, except that his hair appeared to be thinner. Norton delivered the case full of money to "Harvey Lee" and was given a briefcase full of documents in return.

Edited January 11, 2023 by David Josephs

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Yes, Nagell had a list of CIA men upon his arrest for the El Paso Bank robbery. It came to the CIA's attention in 1964. The CIA denied Nagell ever worked for the CIA, they were concerned about cover on these operatives if it became public knowledge. Nagell was in Army Intel in Japan, after his plane crash which he suffered brain damage. Nagell was dismissed from that position. See Dave Reitzes Nagell link under Jonathan Cohen's post. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=103975#relPageId=83&search=Nagell

How do you think Nagell got those names, and why the heck would he be carrying the list with him when he shot up a bank? 

I’m partially curious because of what Nagell said about William Martin. It wasn’t a secret that Martin had done work for the CIA - he mentions his CIA contacts in at least one memo to Garrison, but Nagell specifically accused Martin of having worked for the CIA “dirty tricks division”. I’ve looked into Martin a bit and I think Nagell might have been onto something.

It just seems like Nagell had an unreasonable level of knowledge of CIA personnel for just a random guy with mental problems. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

• It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald.

Oswald's letters don't look anything like this. Hey, who really wrote this?

• Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself.

Oswald never sent letters to the Russian Embassy in Mexico Sandy, he sent them to Washington DC's embassy...  IOW "previously received"...  "NOR" usually means he is continuing the thought from the previous sentence...

Oswald had never been to Russian Embassy in Washington...  the letter was mailed to the Embassy in Washington and was so different from previous letters they judged it a forgery...

 

David,

For the record, yes, of course I know that all of Oswald's letters went to the embassy in Washington.

 

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

"NOR" usually means he is continuing the thought from the previous sentence...

 

Right! I'm glad you brought that up because I can use it to grammatically prove that my interpretation is the correct one.

Here is an example of "nor" being used correctly:

"Timmy didn't eat breakfast. Nor did he eat lunch."

Here is an example of "nor" being used incorrectly:

"Timmy ate breakfast. Nor did he eat lunch."

The point is that both sentences must be negative. (For the second sentence, "nor" itself makes the sentence negative.)

Now, here are the two sentences with my interpretation adopted:

It was totally unlike any other letters the [Washington] embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our [Mexican] embassy himself [as stated in his letter].

Under my interpretation, the thought being carried over is "reason for the letter looking suspicious." The first sentence is negative because it says the letter is UNLIKE the others. (t would be positive if it said LIKE the others.) The second sentence, of course, is also negative.

Therefore, under my interpretation the grammar fits correctly.

Now, here are the two sentences but with your interpretation adopted:

It was totally unlike any other letters the [Washington] embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our [Washington] embassy himself.

Under your interpretation, the thought being carried over is "the embassy Oswald sends letters to." The first sentence is positive because it says that Oswald's letters were received there. (It would be negative if it said his letters were NOT received there.) The second sentence, of course, is also negative.

Therefore, under your interpretation the grammar fits incorrectly.

The bottom line is that my interpretation is correct.

 

[David Josephs]

The original is written in Russian Sandy so I don't know whether this was an interpretation problem of something else.

And I appreciate your emphatic nature in discussions...  

I'll give it some more thought yet I'd also like you to consider what I've said about it a bit more...

No harm, no foul... 

[Gene Kelly]

23 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

The Hench report is an interview with Nagell; of Nagell making claims, not the interviewer making a statement of facts about Nagell.

IOW, it doesn't prove any claim made to be true. So its value is next to nothing.

Matt

Not sure how you feel about Nagell, as his story almost seems incredulous, but he is difficult for me to ignore or dismiss.  Author Dick Russell would likely vouch for Nagell's credibility.  Also, his death was equally intriguing ... when the Assassination Records Review Board decided to contact Nagell. The ARRB sent a registered letter on October 31, 1995. One day after the letter was mailed, Nagell was found dead in his apartment, victim of an apparent heart attack.

Gene

[James DiEugenio]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

How do you think Nagell got those names, and why the heck would he be carrying the list with him when he shot up a bank? 

I’m partially curious because of what Nagell said about William Martin. It wasn’t a secret that Martin had done work for the CIA - he mentions his CIA contacts in at least one memo to Garrison, but Nagell specifically accused Martin of having worked for the CIA “dirty tricks division”. I’ve looked into Martin a bit and I think Nagell might have been onto something.

It just seems like Nagell had an unreasonable level of knowledge of CIA personnel for just a random guy with mental problems. 

This is important I think.

How did Nagell know about Martin?

Utterly fascinating when one thinks about it objectively.

[James DiEugenio]

49 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Matt

Not sure how you feel about Nagell, as his story almost seems incredulous, but he is difficult for me to ignore or dismiss.  Author Dick Russell would likely vouch for Nagell's credibility.  Also, his death was equally intriguing ... when the Assassination Records Review Board decided to contact Nagell. The ARRB sent a registered letter on October 31, 1995. One day after the letter was mailed, Nagell was found dead in his apartment, victim of an apparent heart attack.

Gene

Timing is kind of interesting right?

Twice I have made a list out of people who corroborate Nagell, there are about six of them.

And as I have said, the warning letter to the FBI was corroborated also.

In the interview with CIA flunkie Martin, Nagell named two Cubans who were part of the plot to incriminate Oswald: Sergio Arcacha Smith and Carlos Quiroga.  He does not really name the latter, he calls him Q.  But we know that Carlos was in bed with both Smith and  Bringuier.  In fact, as Bill Davy concluded, Carlos Q. was supplying flyers to Oswald for his leafleting  at Clay Shaw's Trade Mart.  (Let Justice Be Done, pp. 38-39)

When Garrison asked Quiroga if he knew that Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities were a cover, Quiroga denied it, and the polygraph indicated deceptive criteria. (ibid)

Sometimes I wonder, just how much evidence do some people need? How about a hand grenade being thrown at you on the eve of the Clay Shaw trial. (James DIEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 294)

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

I hope to change your mind about this.

The Russian guy who wrote that document most likely did not read Oswald's letter right before writing the document. At the time he wrote the document, all discussions of Oswald's letter were finished and conclusions had been made.

So I think it is a mistake for you to re-read Oswald's letter and let that influence your thoughts on the Russian guy's document.

Having said that....

Now, take a look again at the relevant paragraph of the document:

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.

The purpose of this paragraph is to state that Oswald's letter looks like a forgery. Each sentence gives a reason to believe that. Let's view each sentence from the point of view of a Russian reader:
 

• "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."

What? We don't have close ties to Oswald! Hey, who really wrote this?

• It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald.

This letter doesn't read anything like Oswald's other letters. Hey, who really wrote this?

• Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself.

Oswald said in the letter that he visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City. But we know he didn't! Hey,who really wrote this?

• 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.

Well, okay, some people do use a typewriter on occasion. But this is the only time for Oswald. So that makes his letter a little more suspicious.

Again,  all sentences in the paragraph give a reason to believe the letter is a forgery. Had the sentence "Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself" been about their Washington embassy, it would serve no purpose in the paragraph. It wouldn't be an indication that Oswald's letter was a forgery.

 

SL--

I still don't get it: If LHO never visited the Soviet Embassy in MC, why did not the Russians ever say so? 

Obviously, after the JFKA, CIA psy-ops types were trying to pin the JFKA on Russian-Cuban influence. 

Should not someone in Moscow have issued an official statement, "We had no relations with LHO and he did not visit our embassy in MC in September of 1963." ? 

Then, moreover, the Russians kept their silence on the matter ever since. 

Then, in 1993, the three KGB officers (who worked under diplomatic cover) told Frontline, filmed and recorded and on the record, they had met the real LHO in MC. 

And in the intervening 30 years, still no one in Moscow said, "Oh, what an old canard. That was a CIA plant story. The three KGB officers wanted a payoff."   

No Russian records ever surfaced noting the false LHO in MC story. 

----

My guess is the Russians knew their phones were tapped and the CIA had cameras outside their MC embassy and that the real LHO had indeed paid a visit there. 

That is what the CIA wanted: a Kostikov-LHO meeting. 

I admire the work done to show the LHO's bus trip to MC is very fishy---likely LHO was driven by car (an early original report) or even by Cessna. In other words, a strong indication of collaborators. 

I am still reading Joseph's excellent work. 

It sure looks like LHO was impersonated at the Cuban Embassy, and in some phone calls.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I still don't get it: If LHO never visited the Soviet Embassy in MC, why did not the Russians ever say so? 

Obviously, after the JFKA, CIA psy-ops types were trying to pin the JFKA on Russian-Cuban influence. 

Should not someone in Moscow have issued an official statement, "We had no relations with LHO and he did not visit our embassy in MC in September of 1963." ? 

Then, moreover, the Russians kept their silence on the matter ever since.

 

Ben,

On November 26, 1963, the Soviet Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly  Dobrynin, wrote a document that (surprisingly) answers all of your questions.

In the document, Dobrynin wrote that Oswald's November 9 letter to the Washington Embassy was suspicious because the letter gave the false impression that Oswald had close ties to the Russians; because the letter was unlike the other letters they had received from Oswald; because Oswald had never visited the [Mexico City] Embassy despite what was written in the letter; and because the letter was typed, unlike all the other letters.

David Josephs disagrees with me regarding the comment stating that Oswald hadn't visited the embassy. He believes Dobrynin was referring to the Washington Embassy, not the one in Mexico City. I have two lines of proof backing my interpretation. I'd bet the farm on it.

You should read the whole document. It is less than two pages long. It answers all the questions you asked.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0095a.htm

Boris Yeltsin gave this document to Bill Clinton when he was president.