Edwin Lopez: Oswald never visited embassies in Mexico City

[James DiEugenio]

Charles,

I could not get in touch with Eddy Lopez.    He has apparently moved from where I first saw him at.

As for Gerry Down and misleading people, there is no analysis in the Lopez Report of the alleged trip down or back.  Anyone can see that if you read it.

This is a flaw in the lengthy report.  They accepted the WC version.  Which they did not in Mexico City.

But if you read what the following authors have written, no one can take that junk seriously:

John Armstrong

David Josephs

Greg Parker

Both stories are now decimated, up and back.  What Ochoa and Echeverria did was truly abominable.  There is no question they altered evidence.  

As per Win Scott, no one will ever know what he had for the simple reason that Goodpasture tipped  off Jim A and he flew down there after Win's death, scared the heck out of his wife, and stole whatever he had out of his safe.

If that is not consciousness of guilt I do not know what is.

Edited September 19, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Karl Kinaski]

@Jim DiEugenio  ---  The only person who knows why LHO went to Mexico City is Judyth Vary Baker. She survived several assassination attemps, is still alive and it would be a very, very good idea if you or Oliver Stone or both of you would interview her ...

 

 

[Pamela Brown]

11 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Do you know of any example in the documentary record or in relevant books of the movements of a person being tracked like this?

It's called surveillance...

https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/mexican-president-aided-cia-in-oswald

[Pamela Brown]

14 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Thanks. I was recently reading up on the LIFIRE operation which included surveillance:

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=LIFIRE

But in this instance i was thinking of rouge individuals, outside of normal CIA procedure, monitoring Oswalds movements. Something along the lines of a David Morales or Frank Sturgis type character who wanted to track Oswald. I guess you'd need two people in a car minimum to cover Oswald for the few days he was in Mexico City. I don't think such an operation could be done with just one person. Two people sitting in a car and following Oswald around. You'd need two people to cover when one would need to go to the bathroom. Pull up outside Oswalds hotel at 7:30am to watch when he'd leave, follow him around, and back to his hotel at night. Stay there until 10pm and then drive off to your own hotel for sleep. Back again the following morning at 7:30am. So it would be a 7:30am to 10pm type job for two people. I think you'd need at least two people for that, one would not be enough. 

"Rouge individuals"?  Do you mean 'rogue'?

[Gerry Down]

14 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

It's called surveillance...

https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/mexican-president-aided-cia-in-oswald

In this particular instance I was referring to physical surveillance of following a person by foot or by car from point A to point B, as opposed to wire taps. 

[Pamela Brown]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Charles,

I could not get in touch with Eddy Lopez.    He has apparently moved from where I first saw him at.

As for Gerry Down and misleading people, there is no analysis in the Lopez Report of the alleged trip down or back.  Anyone can see that if you read it.

This is a flaw in the lengthy report.  They accepted the WC version.  Which they did not in Mexico City.

But if you read what the following authors have written, no one can take that junk seriously:

John Armstrong

David Josephs

Greg Parker

Both stories are now decimated, up and back.  What Ochoa and Echeverria did was truly abominable.  There is no question they altered evidence.  

As per Win Scott, no one will ever know what he had for the simple reason that Goodpasture tipped  off Jim A and he flew down there after Win's death, scared the heck out of his wife, and stole whatever he had out of his safe.

If that is not consciousness of guilt I do not know what is.

I agree.  If there is one thing the Lopez report does do, it is to attempt to analyze all the different possibilities of a situation. They did a good job of this, imo, regarding the photo surveillance of the Cuban and Russian embassies.  Having them take into account all the issues regarding LHO's transport to and from Mexico City would have been incredibly valuable...

[Pamela Brown]

2 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

In this particular instance I was referring to physical surveillance of following a person by foot or by car from point A to point B, as opposed to wire taps. 

They are both forms of surveillance. I was simply pointing out an example. 

 

[Paul Jolliffe]

9 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Exactly why, instead, facts are presented in the linked paper...  and those same "facts" undo her stories each time.

Anna Lewis...  Jan-Apr 1962.  or '63 for that matter.  Oooops.  

David,

1. Do you have any theories as to why the HSCA accepted "Oswald's" trip to Mexico City as a given (and therefore not worthy of checking)?

Your work has clearly demonstrated that the bus trip scenario was fabricated by the FBI after the fact, possibly to conceal a more dangerous fabrication: the CIA's plan to implicate a car-riding "Oswald" and others in a commie-inspired plot to murder the president. But why did the HSCA accept the "Oswald really did travel to Mexico City" scenario without digging into it?

One other question:

2. We all (almost) agree that our Dallas patsy "Oswald" never set foot inside the Cuban diplomatic compound in Mexico City. 

But if I've followed you correctly (a big "if"), you believe no one even remotely "Oswaldesque" set foot in either the Cuban Embassy on September 26 or the Cuban Consulate on the 27th.

If I understand your argument, you believe the entire "Oswald" in Mexico City scenario was created after the fact by CIA officials led by David Atlee Phillips.

Is it your belief then that there was not even one deliberate "Oswald" impersonator at either the Embassy on the 26th or the Consulate on the 27th? Or have I misread your position? (I personally suspect there were two different impersonators, possibly for different reasons.)

I mean, Theresa Proenza at the Embassy, and Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue at the Consulate did talk with someone in a memorable fashion on the 26th and the 27th, right?  Surely, they were not lying about interacting with someone who claimed to be "Oswald", right?

If the CIA created the entire "Oswald was in Mexico City" scenario after the fact (in early October, say) and no one even remotely "Oswaldesque" ever set foot in either the Embassy or the Consulate, then how do we explain the adamant, persistent beliefs of both Proenza at the Embassy on the 26th and Duran and Azcue at the Consulate on the 27th that they had to deal with someone claiming to be "Oswald"?

(Again, I do not believe our Dallas patsy "Oswald" ever set foot in Mexico City or its environs in 1963.)

David, your clarification of either or both questions would be very helpful to me.

Thanks.

 

 

[David Josephs]

5 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

David,

1. Do you have any theories as to why the HSCA accepted "Oswald's" trip to Mexico City as a given (and therefore not worthy of checking)?

The subject of Mexico helped get Sprague removed from the HSCA due to his great interest in the subject.
Richard Sprague from Gaeton Fonzi - the CIA and Oswald in Mexico - NOT.docx

77-04-18 FBI - Richard Sprague press conference about FBI hearing tape not being Oswald
- Mexico City Tapes Apr 18 1977.pdf

Your work has clearly demonstrated that the bus trip scenario was fabricated by the FBI after the fact, possibly to conceal a more dangerous fabrication: the CIA's plan to implicate a car-riding "Oswald" and others in a commie-inspired plot to murder the president. (Thank you Paul - I had hoped I accomplished that end) But why did the HSCA accept the "Oswald really did travel to Mexico City" scenario without digging into it?  The CIA told them to stay away from MX, FBI turned all of MX back onto the CIA's "transcripts". And the WCR lawyers obviously were told to go along to get along:  "'fudging' the contents of these calls"

One other question:

2. We all (almost) agree that our Dallas patsy "Oswald" never set foot inside the Cuban diplomatic compound in Mexico City. Agreed

But if I've followed you correctly (a big "if"), you believe no one even remotely "Oswaldesque" set foot in either the Cuban Embassy on September 26 or the Cuban Consulate on the 27th.

If I understand your argument, you believe the entire "Oswald" in Mexico City scenario was created after the fact by CIA officials led by David Atlee Phillips.

I'm glad you focus on that Paul...  Maybe I was not clear in my words...  I "suspect" that a very strong possibility was that no one related to Oswald was ever at these locations other than the Nov 7th Oct Summary mention of "an American speaking English".  I added that thought as a discussion point since the closer one looks the more obvious it is he wasn't there.

Simply by the described behaviors of those at the Cuban locations related to this man: from Duran avoiding mention of the photographic studio she would send "anyone" needed photos for an application to AZCUE summarily throwing this potential US agent out on his heels and/or an opportunity to talk to a disgruntled American and turn him for use as an asset...  that was his job.

Is it your belief then that there was not even one deliberate "Oswald" impersonator at either the Embassy on the 26th or the Consulate on the 27th? Or have I misread your position? (I personally suspect there were two different impersonators, possibly for different reasons.)

It is my understanding that the entirety of the evidence related to our Oswald visiting these locations is a complete fabrication.  Does the person talking to the Soviet Embassy (not there is no mention of Cuban compound at all) at 10:30 or so on the 27th about Odessa - REALLY have anything to do with Oswald?  I don't think so at all.  "Fluent Spanish" also means these were transcribed by Mrs. Tarasoff, not Boris.

 

 

We are then treated to lies about the Saturday call(s), the lies about tapes being erased and the denials about the FBI as well as WCR lawyers, hearing the tape.  We also see from these records, all the calls in question were recorded off Soviet lines: Military attache (wonder where Ozzie would have gotten that number in the first place?) and the Embassy Consulate & Chancery

In addition, the claim is he not only was on the phone after 4pm on the 27th, but had actually visited the Mexico Soviet Embassy - one of the most watched places on the planet - on the 28th.  This dovetails into Mann's statement about not being able to find a shred of evidence Oswald was there outside the CIA transcripts and the hotel registry.  Remember, Hoover's SIS assets - over 20 of them - searched for Oswald throughout Nov with no luck.

I mean, Theresa Proenza at the Embassy, and Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue at the Consulate did talk with someone in a memorable fashion on the 26th and the 27th, right?  Surely, they were not lying about interacting with someone who claimed to be "Oswald", right?

Consider those sources Paul.  These are the same people who dismissed him as well as lied about the Paz rave party.  One has to ask - why do the CIA assets within these locations deny the existence of Oswald in their interviews and reports?   Why are we aware of a number of "fabricators" looking to implicate Oswald including ALVARADO, VILLANOVA, MORA, VALENCIA who all come out of the woodwork after 11/22 with none of these things being reported for Sept/Oct or Nov.

If the CIA created the entire "Oswald was in Mexico City" scenario after the fact (in early October, say) and no one even remotely "Oswaldesque" ever set foot in either the Embassy or the Consulate, then how do we explain the adamant, persistent beliefs of both Proenza at the Embassy on the 26th and Duran and Azcue at the Consulate on the 27th that they had to deal with someone claiming to be "Oswald"?

To be clear Paul, the idea this was entirely made up is simply that, an idea which is only contradicted by those perpetrating the charade.  Other than those 3, who else claims to have interacted with Oswald except for the Russians who we are sure fabricated their end to maintain appearances.  I previously posted the one mention of MX in the Clinton-Russia papers which basically says they will tow the company line and agree with the press reports.

There is the newer reports from CiD that he was with Thomas Eli at the Luna hotel about 10 miles south of downtown MX city sometime between Sept 26 and Oct 3.  Yet we are once again left with Eli, his wife and June Cobb as sources for this meeting, which would not have been needed really since Eli was in New Orleans when Oswald was there and could have easily met there.

What would be the reason for them to fly down to MX, other than to maybe leave a record Oswald did go - yet again, they did not tell that story... they created one.

No one even close to looking like Oswald was ever photographed (I see the LEONOV discussion as a red herring - everyone involved knew who he was) at either compound.. which may have been the real problem here...

IF there was a person impersonating Oswald at that time, he certainly did not look like Oswald (which is why I believe they did not show DURAN the photos and application until 1977) - now, if you were involved (and lived in and around the "spy" world  and realized this - would we expect them to play along or contradict the US investigation into the killing of JFK?

(Again, I do not believe our Dallas patsy "Oswald" ever set foot in Mexico City or its environs in 1963.)

David, your clarification of either or both questions would be very helpful to me.

Thanks.

MX is a real tangled mess if you take anything offered in the reports as real.  Simpich and others appear right in the assumption something else was going on with the use of "OSWALD" at that place and at that time.

I post this as an example of the "spying" LITAMIL-9 did along with reporting of same.  A "tall, blond American student" suspected of being and American agent...  but not Oswald with his FPCC, Russia-stay and declarations of support...  he was just throw out.

 

 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

the CIA's plan to implicate a car-riding "Oswald" and others in a commie-inspired plot to murder the president.

This is something Malcolm Blunt talks about pretty frequently. The earliest (I think) CIA report states that “additional information” reflects that Oswald entered Mexico “apparently by car”. What was the source of this “additional information”?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95569#relPageId=3

CE2123 states that early information was that Oswald left Mexico by car, but that was just a mistake by a typist on “liata form PM11”, which was allegedly filled out from a form PM8 that didn’t actually say anything about Oswald leaving by automobile: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=709

This report also states that the immigration officer failed to record Oswald’s mode of transportation into the country  - so where did the CIA get the “additional information” that Oswald entered Mexico by car? 

This slightly later CIA report lists the source of information as the US Consulate. This report doesn’t mention Oswald’s method of entry at all, though it does reference the immigration records reflecting that Oswald exited the country by car: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50149#relPageId=17

Here’s an 11/24 cable on the information received from the consulate. This cable also does not mention Oswald’s method of entry, but does mention that Oswald left Mexico by car: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55351#relPageId=215

Was the statement “apparently…” meant to reflect an assumption that Oswald entered Mexico by car based on the (possibly erroneous) exit records? Or did the original immigration report state that Oswald entered Mexico by car and it was subsequently covered up? I have no idea. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Tom Gram

[David Josephs]

28 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

This report also states that the immigration officer failed to record Oswald’s mode of transportation into the country  - so where did the CIA get the “additional information” that Oswald entered Mexico by car? 

Rafael OCHOA - and the info was that he LEFT by Auto... the entry has no designation (btw - this is all in the K&K chapters)

Also notice clues for "after the fact" creation of this evidence...  "HARVEY OSWALD LEE" is alphabetized between MOORE and OUELLET... making his last name, alphabetically - would be OSWALD.

Here is the actual FM-11 for the September entry and is now OSWALD LEE HARVEY.  The Oct 3rd card typed by TIJERINA claims he is now O.H. LEE (below) and is leaving by AUTO.

These 2 images are from the provided/altered FM-11's.  First from October's departure and 2nd from his arrival in Sept. and shows the "Auto" designation.

 

 

AND STILL BY END OF FEB 1964 THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS OF ACQUIRING THE ORIGINAL FM-11'S...  THE MX EVIDENCE IS ALL COPIES OF ALTERED ORIGINALS... FBI-STYLE

 

2nd/3rd paragraphs explains how OCHOA provided the evidence and added the FM11 info as well as the rebuff of the "Auto" designation when recording his leaving.

The other players in this charade are HARVEY CASH, WILLIAM KLINE, OREN PUGH, LESTER JOHNSON and the man reporting that OCHOA added info and many other strange things occurred with respect to those records was ARNOLDO TIJERINA