LHO was in Mexico City

[Greg Doudna]

Why I believe Oswald went to Mexico City

I believe the following reasons in aggregate, and in some but not all cases individually, establish beyond reasonable question that Oswald went to Mexico City, and that the bedrock certainty expressed by some that such was not the case is not justified. 

Against the positive reasons listed below, Oswald has never been shown not to have been in Mexico City in the days in question. That could be done, if it were so, by verifiably showing that Oswald was somewhere else. But that has never been done.

This does not say how he got to Mexico City, where he stayed, company he kept, what he did there, or whether there was also impersonation or not--only that he went there. 

• Marina said Oswald's main dream was to go to Cuba, the most efficient entrance point being via Mexico City.
• Lee got a visa in New Orleans for a visit to Mexico.
• Marina said Oswald went to Mexico City, swore it under oath in her Warren Commission testimony
• Marina told further of Lee going to Mexico City in Marina and Lee (1977.
• Lee wrote of going to Mexico City in a handwritten letter, then typed that letter, signed and mailed it to the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C. The handwritten draft of the letter was authenticated unequivocally as Oswald's handwriting by expert testimony.
• Marina told of witnessing Lee writing and typing that Soviet embassy letter. 
• Ruth Paine told of witnessing Lee writing and typing that Soviet embassy letter.
• Lee was overheard on Sun Nov 24 telling Secret Service Special Agent Kelley of his trip to Mexico City by two witnesses following interrogation, at a time when Fritz and Leavelle had left the room and interrogation for the record had ended. The two witnesses, who each independently testified to this under oath, were US Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, and Dallas Police Detective L.C. Graves. Their independent sworn testimony impeaches Kelley’s denial that he discussed Mexico City with Oswald. 
• Silvia Duran's name, office address and phone number at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City are in Oswald’s address book found at his rooming house, in agreement with Silvia Duran's testimony in Mexico City that she wrote her name, office address and phone number for Oswald when he was in Mexico City..  
• Oswald was seen in Dallas at the door of Silvia Odio on the evening of Wed Sept 25, 1963, being driven by two men in a car, said by the driver to have come from New Orleans and on their way to another destination, in exact time agreement, and explanation of mechanism of transportation, for Oswald leaving New Orleans that morning, en route to going to Mexico City
• On the evening of the assassination, Fri Nov 22, anti-Castro Cubans who knew Oswald in New Orleans called Mrs. Luce and told her they had information on Oswald including trips to Mexico. Hancock and Boylan have argued that was from personal knowledge of Oswald acquired pre-Nov 22 (Redbird leads paper).
• Paper relics of a bullfight in Mexico City and other miscellaneous items from Mexico City were found left by Oswald in Ruth Paine's house
• At any time after Nov 22, 1963, it would be against interest of the FBI, the Warren Commission, or any US agency to have physical evidence forged, fabricated, or witnesses suborned to perjury in order to have Oswald in Mexico City, because Oswald in Mexico City contributes nothing to, and goes against, the desired Lone Nut narrative. There is no evidence any of this physical evidence was forged, or that any of the witnesses named were suborned to perjure, and it would have been against interest or motive for any federal agency to have done so.
• There is no evidence Oswald was anywhere else during the days he was reported to have been in Mexico City.

Conclusion: Oswald claimed he went to and had been in Mexico City. Marina believed he did. It is not credible that the physical evidence and testimony named above was all fake. This evidence says Oswald went to Mexico City.   

[James DiEugenio]

If you buy this show, then  you also think that Oswald killed Kennedy because that is what they concluded. They also said that Duran met Oswald.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

The PBS show was rigged from the start.  The producer, the late Mike Sullivan, hired Gus Russo and Dale Myers and Scott Malone and Summers as his investigators. (Summers later had his name taken off the production.)  And it was later revealed by Myers that Sullivan had an agenda from the start.

The key to the show was that they relied on the alleged "second set" of photos of an Oswald print on the rifle.  That was exposed by Pat Speer as being in actuality a blow up picture taken from another already adduced set. To show just how bad this show was, they later got an aged Sebastian La Tona to say that he had not seen this photo. When, in fact, he had seen it.  They even tried to say that the HSCA had not seen it, but again, as Speer showed, they had seen it.  But these strophes were necessary for the magic act they were trying to pull, which was that La Tona and the HSCA were wrong in their original verdicts. Because they were relying on the HSCA guy again, since their first two  experts on prints would not go along with it. Well, this guy found a revolutionary way of looking at prints and so Russo now proclaimed that they had found a good Oswald print on the rifle. 

BTW, even with this exposed by people like Speer and Johnny Cairns, Russo still says today it was valid.

Now, if one was willing to go to these kinds of lengths to create this David Copperfield magic act, how could anyone trust them on Oswald in Mexico City?

Edited December 12, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jean Ceulemans]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you buy this show, then  you also think that Oswald killed Kennedy because that is what they concluded. They also said that Duran met Oswald.

 

 

 

 

IMO... :  Oswald actually visited Mexico, and in doing so freaked out the ones trying to steer him (or frame him, if you like).  

Causing some urgent need to create deniability for whatever he planned doing there. 

They did know what problems they would have to solve, so they did :

- camera surveillance wasn't working (easy living that one)

- but if it was, they could show the wrong dude or the right guy... (I'm pretty sure Winston's memories were ok).

- have someone call in terrible Russian

- have a guy make up a story about receiving mucho dollars to kill JFK

- ...

No matter what, they could choose who to blame :  Cuba, Russia, the extreme Right,, the Left, the LN, .... 

Intelligence is a switchboard

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you buy this show, then  you also think that Oswald killed Kennedy because that is what they concluded. They also said that Duran met Oswald.

These things are not mutually exclusive. There's zero reason why Oswald could not have been in Mexico City while also being not guilty of the assassination.

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Even John Newman doesn't believe Oswald visited Kostikov. He knows (as we all do, except for you) that the "Oswald" who called the Russian Embassy was an imposter.

In this article, John Newman writes:

...CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.

 

You are wrong, as Ben Cole has pointed out. You have missed the distinction between Oswald being impersonated on the phone and him being physically present at the Soviet embassy, where he met Kostikov.

[James DiEugenio]

Look, we have been through all this when David Josephs was here.

If Oswald was there then why did these guys not mention it on the next day reports?

Why is there no picture of Oswald going in or going out?

Why does their Oswald speak lousy Russian.

And who can believe that story, as one commentator said, right out of Anton Chekhov about carrying a gun because the FBI was after him.

I mean please.

As everyone and their mother knows, see Amy Knight, once the Berlin Wall fell, and Gorby was removed, the writing was on the wall.

People like Mitrokhin decided to hightail it out and give MI 6 and the CIA what they wanted.

That is what I think happened here. PBS had an agenda, and these guys filled it in.

[Jonathan Cohen]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Look, we have been through all this when David Josephs was here.

So just because David Josephs espoused some theories about the nature of the Mexico City episode, we should just globally declare that it no longer bears any scrutiny or study?

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

Read the article I posted.  It appears in other places as well.  For instance, here is a footnote from Jon Lee Anderson's well-regarded biography of Che:

"In November of 1962, with his habitual knack of meeting historic personalities on the even of momentous events, Leonov came face-to-face with Lee Harvey Oswald.  Oswald had arrived at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and asked to speak to an official.  According to Leonov, he was called out to deal with him.  But when he saw that Oswald was both armed and agitated, Leonov decided he was "psychotic and dangerous," and says he quickly called other embassy personnel to help remove him from the premises.  Leonov says he was stunned when, soon afterward, he recognized  him as the man who had been arrested in Dallas, accused of murdering the American president. In a conversation about the various JFK assassiantion theories, Leonov dismissed the notion that Oswald might have acted on KGB orders, citing the "psychotic" behavior he had witnessed firsthand, and said that, theoretically speaking- even if the KGB had wanted to kill JFK- it would never have used someone so unbalanced and difficult to control."

Leonov basically said he was the person who experienced what Nechiporenko experienced. Larry Hancock or Jim D can remind me, but an American reporter who befriended a Russian general spoke af Lancer. Not Leonov. This Russian general said he (the Russian general) was the one who dealt with a "psychotic" Oswald at the embassy in Mexico City. The reporter did not realize this but I caught it right away and even confronted him about it when a bunch of researchers met with said reporter right after his meeting.

 

This is such a fake story that I cannot believe forum members are buying it. It is so out of character for Oswald to behave this way.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You are wrong, as Ben Cole has pointed out. You have missed the distinction between Oswald being impersonated on the phone and him being physically present at the Soviet embassy, where he met Kostikov.

 

No, you and Ben are wrong.

The CIA report saying that Oswald visited Kostikov in the Soviet Embassy was based wholly on information from an  intercepted telephone call. Everybody (except for you and Ben) now knows that that telephone call was made by an imposter. Even John Newman says so in the article I cited.

 So that CIA report is wrong. Obvious to most of us.

So take those facts and smoke them. 

 

[Mart Hall]

Given the places he was alleged to have visited I would expect there to be incontrovertible evidence provided either to the WC or released years later if Oswald was actually in Mexico. 

There’s none of that. But the poor attempts to place Oswald there speak for themselves. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Mart Hall said:

Given the places he was alleged to have visited I would expect there to be incontrovertible evidence provided either to the WC or released years later if Oswald was actually in Mexico. 

There’s none of that. But the poor attempts to place Oswald there speak for themselves. 

 

Exactly.

And one has to ask oneself, if Oswald was actually there, why didn't the CIA provide surveillance photos to prove it? Why did somebody impersonate Oswald on the phone? (EVERY phone call he supposedly made was an impersonator. Not according to me, but according to the FBI. And the FBI desperately wanted to prove Oswald was there!)

(BTW, many of us know the answers to these questions. Everybody should read Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio. Or Peter Dale Scott's Phase One, Phase Two article on Mary Ferrell Foundation.)

 

[Benjamin Cole]

It would be nice it members maintained a civil and collegial tone in their comments. 

Yes, it makes sense to me that LHO was in MC, for all these reasons stated, including numerous contemporary cables, the testimony of bus riders and hotel workers, and the recorded and filmed recollections of three KGB officers. 

And, most importantly, the CIA wanted LHO to visit the Russian Embassy and likely meet with Kostikov himself (Dept. 13 an all that). 

LHO was also impersonated and shadowed while in MC, possibly by both the CIA and KGB. 

Others have different opinions than me. That is fine. 

It is possible to state your views without denigrating others.

No one can be 100% certain regarding LHO's visit to MC, at this late date.

If you are 100% certain of your viewpoint, you might take time to reconsider matters. 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(BTW, many of us know the answers to these questions. Everybody should read Best Destiny by Jim DiEugenio. Or Peter Dale Scott's Phase One, Phase Two article on Mary Ferrell Foundation.)

Great! If you're so satisfied that "many of us," including you, "know the answers to these questions," you can step out of the thread and let actual discussion flourish. And by the way, the book is called "Destiny Betrayed," not "Best Destiny" ...

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Great! If you're so satisfied that "many of us," including you, "know the answers to these questions," you can step out of the thread and let actual discussion flourish.

 

I cannot allow misinformation to flourish.

 

4 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And by the way, the book is called "Destiny Betrayed," not "Best Destiny" ...

 

Oops! I knew that of course, just misspoke.