Edwin Lopez: Oswald never visited embassies in Mexico City

[Gil Jesus]

Edwin Lopez was a research investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In this clip from the 1986 docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", Lopez testifies that his investigation concluded that Oswald had NOT visited the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and found that the CIA had the capacity to fake photos and IDs.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Gerry Down]

His investigation concluded no such thing. He personally might have thought that, but the investigation itself did not. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

27 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

His investigation concluded no such thing. He personally might have thought that, but the investigation itself did not. 

Amen, Gerry. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Gil Jesus]

52 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

His investigation concluded no such thing. He personally might have thought that, but the investigation itself did not. 

That's not what he said in the first minute of the video.

In my description of the video, I'm reporting what he said in the video.

 

LOPEZ: We were trying to determine whether Lee Harvey Oswald had in fact visited the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City.

SPENCE: Did you come to a conclusion ?

LOPEZ: Yes we did.

SPENCE: What was your conclusion ?

LOPEZ: We had no choice but to conclude that he had not.

 

Doesn't sound like he's expressing a personal opinion to me. 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Jonathan Cohen]

You're making a big deal out of a made-for-TV fake trial. Who cares what Lopez said then? Gerry is correct that the Lopez report does NOT say Oswald never visited the Cuban consulate and Mexican embassy.

[David Josephs]

Thanks Gil...  

I started out by seeing this from LOPEZ and immediately smelling a rat.

And subsequent doc releases added additional support.

 

@Gerry Down @Jonathan Cohen  You two really have nothing better to do than chime in on threads about which you have little to no knowledge at all, just to make uninformed comments about the work of others you can never seem to understand.  Do you EVER offer your own work that doesn't wind up looking remedial or are you both nothing more than LNer talking-point-parrots hoping someone with some knowledge and ability comes to your aid as you pollute yet another thread?

You do realize the two of you (and a handful of others) are seen as absurd little children with nothing EVER to offer, and for some reason you are allowed to infect these pages day after day with no recourse but to IGNORE all your posts, as I do.  Sadly when others quote your drek we have to see what you think passes for astute criticism - yet consistently amounts to nothing more than the 2 of you whining about that which you cannot comprehend.

With nothing to contribute and little understanding of what others say... why you both are even here remains a mystery - maybe just the comic relief and a reminder of how pathetic LNer arguments and rebuttals have become.  

  

[James DiEugenio]

Mr. Down: You do this in so many instances that I am beginning to wonder why you are here. You take a well established, previously proven point and say, oh no that is not the case.  When it is the case.

Any one who can read--did you?-- will see that this is what Ed and also Dan Hardway,  his partner, decided was the case in their over 300 page report.

The report, which goes way beyond what the Warren Report did,  presents clear and convincing evidence that whoever visited the Cuban Embassy, it was not Oswald. And very likely the same at the Soviet Embassy.

I mean how many times and how many ways do you want them to prove it?

The very first part of the report spends page after page describing the camera coverage the CIA had that day.  For most people, this is boring technical stuff.  But there was a point to all this drudgery.  They wanted to show that it was simply not credible for the CIA to deny that if Oswald was there, there was no picture attained.  They also countered the BS story that the pulse camera was not active.  And there lies a tale to behold. They found out that of the three cameras on the Cuban Embassy, this one was air activated.  In other words when the doors opened and closed, the change in the air pressure activated the camera shutter. They then ask, how then could the CIA have no photo of Oswald?

BTW, this point is even stronger today because the ARRB declassified  the photo bank check, which actually says words to the effect, "No picture."

Then what about the audio tape?  When that tape, surrendered by the notorious Anne Goodpasture was sent to Dallas, the agents there in detention with Oswald said, this is not the guy we are talking to.  And when Dan and Ed investigated this further, they concluded that the voice spoke very poor Russian but fluent Spanish.  Again, the witness testimony would clearly suggest that Oswald spoke good Russian: Titovets, Quinn, Marina, the Baron etc.

Goodpasture was also involved in the whole Mystery Man caper.  As Ed and Dan prove, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, she knew not only that this picture was not Oswald, she likely knew, and the CIA likely knew, who it really was.  

The CIA was so hard up to try and find someone, anyone, who could place Oswald in the Cuban Embassy that they interviewed two plants they had there. They showed them photos of Oswald.   They said it was not him.  They were shocked.  So they came back a few days later and repeated the process: same reply.  No go.

The CIA now went into panic mode.  They tried to find any way that Oswald could have come to Mexico CIty, since they had no credible evidence he was there.  They began to check any way he could have arrived or departed, this included by air.  They again came up empty. Throwing up their hands, they turned the process over to the Minister of the Interior and his assistant Mr. Ochoa.  And as both John Armstrong and David Josephs have shown, what those two guys did was simply an evidentiary  atrocity.

Last point: Dan and Ed wrote up bills of indictment for Goodpasture and Phillips for lying to the HSCA.

Edited August 11, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[David Josephs]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The CIA was so hard up to try and find someone, anyone, who could place Oswald in the Cuban Embassy that they interviewed two plants they had there. They showed them photos of Oswald.   They said it was not him.  They were shocked.  So they came back a few days later and repeated the process: same reply.  No go.

The FBI began looking at the end of October - on 11/8 they ask their assets at the Gobernacion..  OCHOA of the Gobernacion will be the one providing all the evidence of Oswald in Mexico - despite it being reported NO INFO LOCATED RE LEE HARVEY OSWALD.  The FBI did all they could to hide these reports by not listing their titles or content on the master logs.

. 

 

4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Goodpasture was also involved in the whole Mystery Man caper.  As Ed and Dan prove, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, she knew not only that this picture was not Oswald, she likely knew, and the CIA likely knew who it really was.

.   Asking GOODPASTURE about that "mistake", with Win Scott backing her up.

[Gerry Down]

27 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mr. Down: You do this in so many instances that I am beginning to wonder why you are here. You take a well established, previously proven point and say, oh no that is not the case.  When it is the case.

Any one who can read--did you?-- will see that this is what Ed and also Dan Hardway,  his partner, decided was the case in their over 300 page report.

The report, which goes way beyond what the Warren Report did,  presents clear and convincing evidence that whoever visited the Cuban Embassy, it was not Oswald. And very likely the same at the Soviet Embassy.

I mean how many times and how many ways do you want them to prove it?

The very first part of the report spends page after page describing the camera coverage the CIA had that day.  For most people, this is boring technical stuff.  But there was a point to all this drudgery.  They wanted to show that it was simply not credible for the CIA to deny that if Oswald was there, there was no picture attained.  They also countered the BS story that the pulse camera was not active.  And there lies a tale to behold. They found out that of the three cameras on the Cuban Embassy, this one was air activated.  In other words when the doors opened and closed, the change in the air pressure activated the camera shutter. They then ask, how then could the CIA have no photo of Oswald?

BTW, this point is even stronger today because the ARRB declassified  the photo bank check, which actually says words to the effect, "No picture."

Then what about the audio tape?  When that tape, surrendered by the notorious Anne Goodpasture was sent to Dallas, the agents there in detention with Oswald said, this is not the guy we are talking to.  And when Dan and Ed investigated this further, they concluded that the voice spoke very poor Russian but fluent Spanish.  Again, the witness testimony would clearly suggest that Oswald spoke good Russian: Titovets, Quinn, Marina, the Baron etc.

Goodpasture was also involved in the whole Mystery Man caper.  As Ed and Dan prove, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, she knew not only that this picture was not Oswald, she likely knew, and the CIA likely knew who it really was.  

The CIA was so hard up to try and find someone, anyone, who could place Oswald in the Cuban Embassy that they interviewed two plants they had there. They showed them photos of Oswald.   They said it was not him.  They were shocked.  So they came back a few days later and repeated the process: same reply.  No go.

The CIA now went into panic mode.  They tried to find any way that Oswald could have come to Mexico CIty, since they had no credible evidence he was there.  They began to check any way he could have arrived or departed, this included by air.  They again came up empty. Throwing up their hands, they turned the process over to the Minister of the Interior and his assistant Mr. Ochoa.  And as both John Armstrong and David Jospehs have shown, what those tow guys did was simply an evidentiary  atrocity.

I was simply pointing out fact. The HSCA report or the Lopez report do not make the conclusion that Oswald did not go to Mexico City. Its important that we state facts clearly so as to not confuse newcomers that might be on here. Lopez and Hardiway might have thought Oswald had not been to Mexico City, but their report does not state that conclusion. Its much like how some people to this day think the HSCA report concluded that the Mafia were the prime suspect in the JFK assassination. While Blakely in a personal capacity might think that, the HSCA report itself does not make that conclusion. 

Most of your points are valid but do not definitively mean LHO was not in Mexico City. Win Scott says LHO was in Mexico City and they even got a photo of him. Duran says LHO was there. These were people the CIA didn't have control over, especially Duran. 

If LHO was not in Mexico city, then that means he lied to Marina about being there. If we establish that LHO was telling lies in this regard, then what else did he lie about?

Edited August 11, 2023 by Gerry Down

[James DiEugenio]

What the HSCA said in its volumes does not include the Lopez Report for the simple reason the CIA would not declassify it for use in the HSCA volumes or report.

You did not know that?  Ed Lopez has explained it more than once.

Duran was detained and tortured.  That is in Plausible Denial. When she was finally allowed to see film of Oswald, she did not think it was him.  When Lopez asked her how tall was Oswald, she said about her size or Gary Cornwall's, who is about 5' 5".

To even bring up the Win Scott story without adding what Angleton did once he heard from Goodpasture that he had passed on is really weird.

Finally, during her initial  interrogation by the Secret Service, Marina insisted that Oswald had not gone to Mexico CIty and never told her about it. This was done 2-3 times since they really wanted her to say he had.  But she refused to go along.

We know what happened later do we not? Threat of deportation?

[David Josephs]

SS interview - 4th paragraph left side:  "She was asked...trips to Mexico or Washington, DC. She replied in the negative."  The rest of CE1792 is worth a read.

The FBI report, below that from those first few days after 11/22, states the same.  

I must add though that there is some evidence of Oswald meeting with Davis III at the LUNA MOTEL in MX during the time nothing in evidence has him placed anywhere.
In fact, until Kaack's 10/31/63 report, there is no mention of our man Oswald at all in the FBI reports.

Worse yet are the charades Leibeler put Marina up to in Aug/Sept 1964 with the bogus Del Norte bus ticket found in a book in a suitcase - which was about the same time they got around to Odio and dismissing her story.

 

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Win Scott says LHO was in Mexico City and they even got a photo of him. Duran says LHO was there. These were people the CIA didn't have control over, especially Duran. 

If LHO was not in Mexico city, then that means he lied to Marina about being there. If we establish that LHO was telling lies in this regard, then what else did he lie about?

I didn't say Oswald wasn't in Mexico City, I posted that Lopez said he never went to the embassies.

It was an imposter.

"Silvia Duran's description of Oswald did not resemble Oswald's true physical appearance.
This description, which appears early in the reporting of information obtained from Ms. Duran
WAS DELETED FROM SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND WAS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED IN THE WARREN REPORT."

---- Lopez Report, pg. 245-246

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0259a.htm

Not only did Duran's description of Oswald not match Oswald, Eusebio Azcue told the HSCA that the Oswald killed in the basement of Dallas Police headquarters by Jack Ruby was NOT the same Oswald that went to the consulate.

Now you can explain why an imposter using the name Lee Harvey Oswald went to both the Cuban Consulate and the Russian Embassy a month before the assassination if not to create a false link between Oswald, Castro and the Russians.

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What the HSCA said in its volumes does not include the Lopez Report for the simple reason the CIA would not declassify it for use in the HSCA volumes or report.

You did not know that?  Ed Lopez has explained it more than once.

 

To your point Jim: The video was from 1986. In it, Lopez says his report is still classified. That's 8 years after the HSCA packed it up and went home..

Edited August 11, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[James DiEugenio]

Gil:

This is what Ed told me.

When it came time to go through the report, it was him, Dan and Blakey on one side of the table.

There were three CIA guys on the other.

They then started in sentence by sentence.

Ed said, "Jim, it took 5 hours to get through the first three pages."

And BTW, if you saw the first released copy before the ARRB went through it, that is correct.  The first part of the report is so full of redactions you cannot really read it.

So Blakey threw in the towel.  And that is why the Lopez Report is not in the volumes of the HSCA.

They really did not want anyone to know about the camera coverage and especially the pulse action camera..

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, some of the things Ed told me when I interviewed him at his house in southern New York state were kind of funny.

I asked him, "It took the Kostikov cable 8 days to get to headquarters?"

He said, "You never heard of Pony Express?"

Then i asked, "Who was Anne Goodpasture?"

Without batting an eyelash, he said, "She's a lying, conniving b---h, and if there was any justice in this world she would be in jail."

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by James DiEugenio