Was Joe Molina the “known subversive” that Oswald met before JFK assassination?

[Gerry Down]

One of the key mysteries in the JFK assassination is the allegation that Oswald met with known subversives in Dallas in the run-up to the assassination. FBI agent Hosty told SS agent Patterson that Oswald had made contact with two subversive agents around 15 days before the JFK assassination. JFK researcher Jim Gochenaur said that he spoke with Secret Service agent Elmer Moore in the 1970s who told him that Oswald had met with a known subversive one day before the JFK assassination. When Gochenaur told this story to the Church Committee, Senator Schweiker asked Gochenaur “Jim, are you sure he didn’t say three days before?”

15 days, 3 days, 1 day.

Hmmm.

From this it could be theorized that there is some garbled story of Oswald meeting with a subversive in the run-up to the JFK assassination, garbled in the sense that the timeline keeps changing. With such a garbled story, one possibility is that the “known subversive” that Oswald was supposed to have met is simply a reference to Joe Molina who, in the very early stages of the JFK assassination, was viewed as a subversive who the DPD thought might be connected to Oswald.

On Nov 23^rd 1963 the DPD called to Joe Molinas house believing he might be connected to Oswald:

Mr. MOLINA. Well, on November 23d following the assassination, I was paid a visit by the local police department at 1:30 in the morning and they sort of wanted to tie me up with this case in some way or another and they thought that I was implicated.
Mr. BALL. What makes you think they thought you were implicated?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, they were looking for something. I don't know what it was they were looking for in the house.
Mr. BALL. They came to your house here in Dallas?
Mr. MOLINA. That's right, woke up my wife and children; scared my wife half to death.
Mr. BALL. Did they search the house?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did they have a search warrant?
Mr. MOLINA. I don't know whether they did or not.
Mr. BALL.. Did they tell you what they were looking for?
Mr. MOLINA. No.
Mr. BALL. Then what happened?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, they asked me questions whether I knew different persons that belong to the G.I. Forum-----
Mr. BALL. To what?
Mr. MOLINA. G.I. Forum, this club I belonged to here in Dallas.
Mr. BALL. How do you spell that?
Mr. MOLINA. G.I. F-o-r-u-m [spelling].
Mr. BALL G.I. F-o-r-u-m [spelling] in Dallas?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.

Joe Molina was indeed connected to subversives:

Mr. MOLINA. …I went up to the office of Lieutenant Revill and he started asking a lot of questions about the G.I. Forum, did I know such and such fellow--some I knew, they had been in the club. Naturally, I knew them though we weren't intimate friends, some were, some weren't. Then he gave me a bunch of names, I imagine they were in their so-called subversive files that they claim they have; of course, I didn't know a lot of them. In fact, I didn't know most of them. knew some of the names. I didn't know some of the names they mentioned are kept in their files or not. Anyhow, they asked me---I had to---they didn't ask me---I had to just ask to sign a statement I belonged to the forum and certain members were charter members of the forum and I said yes, I would sign it. I didn't see anything wrong with it so I signed it and they told me I could go home.

Shortly thereafter, Joe Molinas name was being blasted across the airwaves as a subversive:

Molina. …My wife was all shook up and she said "My God" she said "Don't you know what they been saying about you?" I said "No, I don't know what they are saying about me." She said "Don't you know you been on TV and the news media across the nation saying you are on the so-called list with the Dallas Police Department claiming that you associate with persons of"---see if I can quote it right--I was known to associate with persons of subversive background.
Mr. BALL. That was on TV?
Mr. MOLINA. Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL. Who put that on TV?
Mr. MOLINA. It was a statement made by Chief Curry.

Because Molina was being labelled a subversive and a communist and a friend of Oswald, the TSBD decided to let Molina go from his job:

Molina. …I finally left December 30 and I have received a letter from a friend in California saying my name was in the paper stating that I had been labeled as a communist and I got a call from Florida, from a good friend of mine saying they labeled me a communist and saying I was a friend of Oswald's.
Mr. BALL. Did you know him?
Mr. MOLINA. Oswald?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. MOLINA. No; I had seen him there in the building. I had seen him but never talked with him or been introduced.

Molina knew Oswald by sight in the TSBD:

Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen Lee Oswald?
Mr. MOLINA. I had seen him in the building, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to him?
Mr. MOLINA. No; I never spoke to him.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him at all on November 22d
Mr. MOLINA. I never did see him.

Molina had a key to the TSBD building. As a result, naturally in the early days of the investigation, Molina could be considered as someone that had such access to the building as to enable him to secret in a rifle ahead of the assassination:

Mr. BALL. Did you see any strangers in the building on that day November 22d?
Mr. MOLINA. No; like I stated before, I came in at--to work at 7 in the morning because I had a key and I was on the second floor all the time, never did leave except maybe to go to the restroom, something like that. Then I ate my lunch, took my lunch and ate it and went downstairs about 12:15.

Another point worth noting is that very early on after the assassination Oswald admitted during his DPD interrogation that he had been present with a group of his fellow workers in the TSBD looking at rifles 2 days before the JFK assassination. This is the Warren Castor incident.

So what am I trying to say here…..

Even though Joe Molina was not apparently among the group of TSBD employees involved in the Warren Castor incident, one could see how in the early hours of the JFK assassination investigation, a story began to emerge of how a few days before the assassination, Oswald had met with a group of TSBD employees looking at rifles and one of these was a known subversive, Joe Molina, who had a key to the building, and thus a way to get an assassination rifle in.

And hey presto a myth is born – Oswald met with a known subversive before the JFK assassination and because the story is false this is why the story keeps changing whereby Oswald met with this subversive (Joe Molina) 1 day, 3 days or 15 days before the JFK assassination. And because the story is false, this is why no one has ever been able to provide any detail on this story. They can’t provide detail on it because it is a myth, a myth that erupted out of a false notion that Oswald and Joe Molina may have known each other and a false understanding of the Warren Castor incident, whereby Joe Molina may have been wrongly believed to have been present at it.

[Larry Hancock]

Gerry, since the remark from Hosty specifically referred to an FBI observation of Oswald meeting with subversives and included the remark that the information had been held within the FBI due to security concerns, it seems that it could not have evolved out of DPD activities going on around Molina.  His comment that he was sure the FBI would share it with the Secret Service...which never happened, suggests it was something which was with the FBI, possibly in a soft file from Dallas, the sort of thing we never got to see.

The fact that Hosty refused to answer questions on that particular issue - including direct questions from me suggests its something more than a myth, that he did make the remark and it had nothing to do with the DPD. 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Maybe Oswald was an FBI informant. Seems likely to me 

[Gerry Down]

15 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Gerry, since the remark from Hosty specifically referred to an FBI observation of Oswald meeting with subversives and included the remark that the information had been held within the FBI due to security concerns, it seems that it could not have evolved out of DPD activities going on around Molina.  His comment that he was sure the FBI would share it with the Secret Service...which never happened, suggests it was something which was with the FBI, possibly in a soft file from Dallas, the sort of thing we never got to see.

The fact that Hosty refused to answer questions on that particular issue - including direct questions from me suggests its something more than a myth, that he did make the remark and it had nothing to do with the DPD. 

 

I'm open to the idea that Oswald may have met with two subversives before the JFK assassination that we have never been told about. 

Just trying to see though if there was a possible innocent explanation.

I guess at a stretch Hosty could have been talking about Oswalds meeting with Kostikov and Nechiporenko/Yatskov in Mexico City. Is it possible on the day of the assassination Hosty misremembered how recent LHO had been to Mexico City and was referring to Oswalds Mexico city visit when he mentioned to SS Patterson that LHO had made contact with two known subversives around 15 days prior to the JFK assassination? Hosty possibly appeared to be only estimating to Patterson that it was around 15 days. 

LINK: https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/2018/157-10014-10120.pdf 

I guess another possibility is this is simply a reference to Oswald and Michael Paines visit to an ACLU meeting. The FBI could have been monitoring that meeting and picked out Oswald talking with two "subversive" ACLU members at that meeting. An encounter which would amount to nothing and would be unrelated to the JFK assassination. 

[Gerry Down]

8 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I guess another possibility is this is simply a reference to Oswald and Michael Paines visit to an ACLU meeting. The FBI could have been monitoring that meeting and picked out Oswald talking with two "subversive" ACLU members at that meeting. An encounter which would amount to nothing and would be unrelated to the JFK assassination. 

The term "made contact" is also somewhat vague. Oswald had written to the ACLU shortly before the JFK assassination looking to join. Could simply writing to the ACLU be considered Oswald making contact with a known subversive?

[Larry Hancock]

There is no doubt that FBI agents or sources attended ACLU meetings and generated lists of attendees when possible or noted individuals already on watch lists attending.  It certainly sounds like Hosty was talking about something more specific, especially since the information was intentionally being held inside the Bureau (that would normally suggest actual subversives, individuals potentially acting illegally).  That's a pretty strong statement if it were just about Oswald attending a legal, open, public meeting. 

Bit if it were that, then the FBI should definitely have been looking at Michael Paine as well and reporting his meeting with subversives  because of ACLU attendance given that he worked for a government contractor.  For that matter if ACLU was equated that strongly as viewed as subversive, it would have probably called for an actual security  investigation of Michael Paine himself. 

Perhaps the Russian embassy staff would described as "subversives" but more likely foreign agents although that is worth considering - can you document something in the files Hosty held prior to November 22/23 that had that information on the Oswald/Russian embassy or Cuban consulate visits in it? 

Bottom line is the FBI used the term 'subversives" so broadly (the FBI Security Index included a Rabble Rouse appendix) its really hard to say who was being described - but its important to note that if such a contact occurred  (even if it were an ACLU meeting) in Dallas it should have been noted in Oswald's FBI file, and Hosty should have known that even if it had come off the subversive desk ala Heitman. It also raises the point that whoever made the report would a) already have been aware of Oswald and able to identify him in a meeting, b) actually conducting surveillance on Oswald or the individual he was meeting and also able to recognize Oswald and name him.

 

[Gerry Down]

16 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

There is no doubt that FBI agents or sources attended ACLU meetings and generated lists of attendees when possible or noted individuals already on watch lists attending.  It certainly sounds like Hosty was talking about something more specific, especially since the information was intentionally being held inside the Bureau (that would normally suggest actual subversives, individuals potentially acting illegally).  That's a pretty strong statement if it were just about Oswald attending a legal, open, public meeting. 

Bit if it were that, then the FBI should definitely have been looking at Michael Paine as well and reporting his meeting with subversives  because of ACLU attendance given that he worked for a government contractor.  For that matter if ACLU was equated that strongly as viewed as subversive, it would have probably called for an actual security  investigation of Michael Paine himself. 

Perhaps the Russian embassy staff would described as "subversives" but more likely foreign agents although that is worth considering - can you document something in the files Hosty held prior to November 22/23 that had that information on the Oswald/Russian embassy or Cuban consulate visits in it? 

Bottom line is the FBI used the term 'subversives" so broadly (the FBI Security Index included a Rabble Rouse appendix) its really hard to say who was being described - but its important to note that if such a contact occurred  (even if it were an ACLU meeting) in Dallas it should have been noted in Oswald's FBI file, and Hosty should have known that even if it had come off the subversive desk ala Heitman. It also raises the point that whoever made the report would a) already have been aware of Oswald and able to identify him in a meeting, b) actually conducting surveillance on Oswald or the individual he was meeting and also able to recognize Oswald and name him.

 

I think it was around Oct 18th that Hosty first became aware that Oswald had been to Mexico City. So that is quiet a bit before the JFK assassination (4 weeks vs 2 weeks) which Hosty would have first become aware that Oswald had met with what could be called subversives.

In relation to the ACLU meeting, after the JFK assassination the FBI were trying to portray themselves as not knowing much about Oswald prior to the assassination. The CIA were doing the same thing. Considering this, if the FBI had had it in their files that Oswald had been talking to two known subversives at the ACLU meeting, i think the FBI quiet likely would have scrubbed that from their files after the JFK assassination (same way they destroyed the Hosty note). The FBI would not have wanted it known that they had Oswald under such surveillance before the JFK assassination that they had discovered him with two subversives 15 days prior to the assassination yet at the same time they had then proceeded to allow Oswald free reign to be on the motorcade route.

This would be an embarrassment the FBI would have strong motivation to want to cover up after the assassination. Perhaps it was indeed covered up but the only hint we have of it was Hosty opening his big mouth to SS Patterson, and then he tried to row back on it by refusing to answer questions on it. 

[Larry Hancock]

I think it would lean towards Mexico City, that would actually portray Oswald in possible contact with foreign agents and be a true national security threat in retrospect. Its the sort of thing the FBI likely would not share with the SS (I don't recall SS being copied on anything regarding MC and Oswald) and it has the weight to make Hosty become very sensitive about it as the days passed and it appeared people were really sensitive to a Russian or Cuban sponsorship or influence on Oswald. 

And it would have definitely been a PR nightmare for the Bureau if headlines had come out about that and revealed that the Bureau had not pursued it, perhaps because of a legal technicality. It has the same flavor of the FBI holding internal warnings from field offices concerned about commercial pilot training for foreigners before 911 and not elevating that to a national security issue.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Maybe Oswald was an FBI informant. Seems likely to me 

There's zero hard evidence to support this, and a ton of it favoring the exact opposite conclusion.

[Larry Hancock]

We know that Oswald volunteered information to the FBI in New Orleans, he had also volunteered to report any foreign or subversive approaches made to him to the FBI when he was first interviewed after his return from Russia.  There is reason to think he was prepared to provide information to the FBI when it suited him, as it did in New Orleans, and that there was an FBI file on him there - as a source. 

Not as informant, which is a very different thing, but as a source.  Beyond that he could have been pursued as either a potential security informant (PSI) or as a potential criminal informant (PCI as Ruby was at one point for the FBI). For Oswald the more likely choice would be PSI since PCI would apply only if it appeared he might be in or get into a  position to ultimately provide inside information to a federal crime being investigated by the Bureau and function as a witness to it in a prosecution.

Bureau offices were actually measured on the production of informants of both types and it was counted as a performance measure for the SAC, and they were especially responsive to sources who might prove to have value longer term. Generally those sources had to be "insiders" of some sort to be cultivated longer term - again, as Ruby was (perhaps in regard to gun running, neither Hoover or the Dallas office ever disclosed exactly what his provisional status was based on).

Edited December 18, 2023 by Larry Hancock

[Gerry Down]

24 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

There's zero hard evidence to support this, and a ton of it favoring the exact opposite conclusion.

I don't know. Larry has made a good case in some of his recent interviews (probably going back longer, i don't know) that Oswald was trying to disrupt anti-Castro activities in New Orleans by informing to the FBI on anti-Castro activities there. In this timeframe RFK had ordered the FBI to crack down on anti-Castro activities inside the U.S. in order to maintain good relations with the USSR. DeBrueys seemed to be doing this for example when he told Bringuier he could put a spy in the DRE. 

Its possible Oswald may have decided to help the FBI in this regard by passing on any info he had on anti-Castro activities in New Orleans. 

[Gerry Down]

14 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Bureau offices were actually measured on the production of informants and potential criminal informants and it was counted as a performance measure for the SAC, so its not surprising to find they were always responsive to sources who might prove to have value longer term. Generally those sources had to be "insiders" of some sort to be cultivated longer term - again, as Ruby was (perhaps in regard to gun running, neither Hoover or the Dallas office ever disclosed exactly what his provisional status was based on).

Do you know if FBI agents ever documented failed efforts to recruit a PSI?

What i'm thinking is if DeBrueys had tried to recruit Oswald as a PSI, and failed, would DeBrueys document that in the files and pass that info onto Hosty in Dallas when word came that Oswald had gone back to Dallas? Or would DeBrueys failure to recruit Oswald be such an embarrassment to DeBrueys that DeBrueys would not want such a failed attempt showing up in the files? And so Hosty, nor the CIA (because FBI files on Oswald were being forwarded on to the CIA in this timeframe), would never have been informed before the JFK assassination that an effort had been made by DeBrueys to recruit Oswald but that this attempt had failed? 

[Larry Hancock]

We know that FBI offices did document incidents in which individuals volunteered to be both sources and informants (Stu Wexler and I documented that in our MLK assassination research).  We know that offices maintained lists of individuals considered as potential PCI's and of course we know they maintained files on those that were PCI's.  However those files were all local office working files so they would not necessarily show up at SOG/FBI HQ.  Sometimes they were shared with another field office (perhaps to prevent poaching?, sometimes not).

We also know that the FBI did not even volunteer that Ruby had been used as an actual PCI until Hoover was forced to acknowledge that and we have never seen the Ruby full PCI file (just enough to know he was given certain equipment as part of his activities) - so if we have not seen Ruby's, then we may well have not seen the local NO file on Oswald.  Given that Burey's testimony was restricted - by the White House as I recall (somebody likely has more details on that than I am prepared to give from memory) there is some reason to suspect there were at least soft, working files related to Oswald in the NO FBI office which we did not enter the official WC record.

[Larry Hancock]

As usual I turned to my friend David Boylan for help and he refreshed my memory with the following documents from the work of the HSCA, suggesting that both Fain initially in Dallas and later Hosty himself in Dallas may have at least considered Oswald as a potential recruit as a PSI. 

In regard to New Orleans we have to consider that there Oswald's status changed dramatically for the NO FBI office following Oswald's volunteer interview - when the issue of the FPCC, the Hidell name and the possibility of an essentially shadow FPCC group involving both Hidell and Oswald became the overriding question.

But as far as Fain and Hosty and Oswald as a potential PSI, the following are certainly interesting:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=36

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1463#relPageId=168

 

[Benjamin Cole]

47 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

As usual I turned to my friend David Boylan for help and he refreshed my memory with the following documents from the work of the HSCA, suggesting that both Fain initially in Dallas and later Hosty himself in Dallas may have at least considered Oswald as a potential recruit as a PSI. 

In regard to New Orleans we have to consider that there Oswald's status changed dramatically for the NO FBI office following Oswald's volunteer interview - when the issue of the FPCC, the Hidell name and the possibility of an essentially shadow FPCC group involving both Hidell and Oswald became the overriding question.

But as far as Fain and Hosty and Oswald as a potential PSI, the following are certainly interesting:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=36

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1463#relPageId=168

 

Fascinating info from Hancock and Boylan, per usual.