Ruth Paine and the Oswald letter of November 9, 1963 to the Soviet consulate - who wrote it and why?

[Bill Simpich]

Ruth Paine, the Oswald letter, and the question of provocation - seeking feedback on this story from Ed Forum members. 

Whose idea was it?  Did Ruth write it?  Did Oswald write it?  Why was it written?

 

The most remarkable story about Ruth Paine is what happened after she found a rough draft of a letter that Oswald wrote to the Soviet embassy in Washington DC. This letter was the culmination of his year-long request for visas to Cuba and the Soviet Union - but the question I keep asking is this: Did Oswald really think that sending a provocative letter to the Soviets would get him a visa?

Ruth's story is that on November 9, she saw Oswald typing a letter in a furtive fashion, as if he didn't want anyone to see what he was typing. The odd thing was that Oswald then proceeded to leave the rough draft out on top of the secretary desk in the living room, as if he wanted everyone to see it.

Ruth's curiosity was aroused by his behavior, and she glanced at the paper in the early morning hours of November 10, as she was the first one up. The words on the fold read: "The FBI is not now interested in my activities."

She read this letter and said that she saw a number of things in it that were untrue. Jim Hosty of the FBI had just been to her home twice in the past week, and made it clear that he was very interested in Oswald. She said she made a handwritten copy of her own with the intention of turning it over to Hosty.

Ruth was particularly incensed by Oswald's claim that Hosty had encouraged Marina to defect to the United States. Ruth said that she was in the room during both encounters and that no such statement was ever made. Looking at the Marina-Hosty relationship from another viewpoint, Lee's brother Robert Oswald was furious at Hosty and his partner on 11/26/63 for making remarks designed to intimidate Marina into talking with them or facing deportation.

I believe that leaving the rough draft out in the open just might have been Oswald's cry for help. He hoped Ruth would see it. There is no sign that he was upset about its disappearance. He knew the Russians would see it. He may have even hoped that the FBI would intercept it - which they did, days before the assassination.

The way I read it? He decided to take provocative action, hoping to increase his leverage in the world of espionage as he saw it. His family didn't need visas any more. If he was in a tight situation, a provocative letter might change the rules of the game. He had sent provocative letters to the FPCC and various left-wing groups all year long - why not the Soviets?

I think his plans were more focused on making more money and finding a way to obtain his military benefits. At the same time, he wanted the FBI to know that he was an independent actor and could not be pushed around. The legend of the "curtain rods" may have been based on his actual need for curtain rods for his now-expanded family. An October letter from Ruth to her mother makes it plain that the Oswalds wanted to get their own apartment after the Christmas holidays.

The letter focused on Oswald's contacts with the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City. The Soviet embassy said that it received the letter on November 18th. It was also intercepted by the FBI and on Hoover's desk by the 19th.

This letter enabled the higher-ups in the FBI to learn three days before the assassination that Oswald visited the Cuban compound in Mexico City. This particular information was being concealed by the CIA's Mexico City station from its own headquarters - at least in official documents. (For more, see State Secret, Chapter 5)

Here's the text of the letter, which shows that events were moving into an endgame:

Typed copy of "Kostin" letter to Soviet Embassy

"This is to inform you of recent events since my meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico.

I was unable to remain in Mexico indefinily because of my Mexican visa restrictions which was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance on reqesting a new visa unless I used my real name, so I retured to the United States.

I had not planned to contact the Soviet embassy in Mexico so they were unprepared, had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, there would have been time to complete our business.

Of corse the Soviet embassy was not at fault, they were, as I say unprepared, the Cuban consulate was guilty of a gross breach of regulations, I an glad he has since been replced.

The Federal Bureu of Investigation is not now interested in my activities in the progressive organization "Fair Play for Cuba Committee", of which I was secretary in New Orleans (state Louisiana) since I no longer reside in that state. However, the F.B.I. has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1st. Agent James P. Hasty warned me that if I engaged in F.P.C.C. activities in Texas the F.B.I. will again take an "interrest" in me.

This agent also "suggested" to Marina Nichilayova that she could remain in the United States under F.B.I. "protection", that is, she could defect from the Soviet Uion, of couse, I and my wife strongly protested these tactics by the notorious F.B.I.

Please inform us of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visa's as soon as they come.

Also, this is to inform you of the birth, on October 20, 1963, of a DAUGHTER, AUDREY MARINA OSWALD, in DALLAS, TEXAS, to my wife."

Handwritten version of "Kostin" letter to Soviet Embassy

Professor Jerry Rose, a long-time researcher in the JFK case, points out that the Oswald's handwritten draft copy has few of Oswald's characteristic errors, while the typed version is filled with them.

Professor Rose also points out that not only did Ruth's handwritten copy disappear, but that Ruth was given by the Warren Commission the original of Oswald's handwritten draft which should have rightly been given to Oswald's wife Marina.

The original of Oswald's handwritten draft (see 1a and 1b) and what appears to be two handwritten copies of the draft (see 2a and 2b, as well as 3a and 3b) have now been found in the Swarthmore University archives. The filmmaker Max Good unearthed them, and provided me with copies that are being reproduced here.

Rose opines that the handwritten draft was created to convince the reader that Oswald had written the letter by himself. The two versions can be viewed by clicking on the images above.

An easy way to see that the handwritten draft is superior to the typed final version is to use the transcript of Ruth's testimony, where she read the handwritten draft aloud to the Warren Commission. I used to agree with Professor Rose - but I have changed my mind. Marina pointed out that it took Oswald ten times to type the envelope. I think that many typing errors crept into the final version of the letter.

Ruth didn't give the original note to Hosty until November 23 - she held onto it until the day after November 22. Ruth agreed it was a "rather provocative document". In a manuscript published by the Warren Commission, Ruth wrote that "I have not been able to look in the face the idea that if I had led my life differently President Kennedy might be alive. if only, quite by accident, I had done or had not done a dozen things, the country might have been spared the tragedy..."

Ruth also told the Commission that she "came close" to confronting Oswald with it. But she didn't. She claims that she already decided to give it to the FBI the next time she saw them. If she had done that - Oswald would have been on the Security Index. Based on her belief system, the assassination would not have happened.

What Ruth - or somebody - did was make handwritten copies. There are actually three copies of the typed letter. One copy has both pages (see 2a and 2b), which is virtually identical to the handwritten draft that is referred to as "Oswald's rough draft". (see 1a and 1b).

The other copy has the same wording as versions 1 or 2, but I see it as having different handwriting than either one - (see 3a and 3b). It may simply be different ink.

I believe what happened is this: On November 23, Ruth turned over 1a & 1b to Hosty, because she wasn't willing to give it to the Dallas police. Photocopying was not readily available in 1963, and she wanted to make her own copy.

By November 23, Ruth had made a copy - I feel confident that 2a and 2b is in Ruth's handwriting. She turned over Oswald's handwritten draft over to Jim Hosty.

By November 24, I believe Ruth made yet another copy (3a and 3b), and then turned over this copy to Odum. Ruth told the Warren Commission that she waited another day, and then she turned over her copy to the Warren Commission. Ruth's version is much easier to read than Oswald's handwritten draft, and the Commission relied on it.

The Soviet embassy always sent Marina letters with the salutation "Dear Marina Nicolaevna". The November 9 letter has Oswald referring to her as "Marina Nichilayeva".

This phrase, coupled with the hints of espionage sprinkled throughout, indicated to the Soviets that this letter was a "provocation" - just as the Soviet ambassador Dobrynin later said.

During 1962, Oswald spelled Marina's patronym as "Nikilievna". This was her middle name after she married Oswald. Oswald knew her name - he knew she was the daughter of Nikolay - he knew that was her traditional middle name.

This 1962 note illustrates that Oswald did not know how to spell his wife's patronymic name, but he knew that "evna" was the proper suffix for her patronym. Patronyms are traditionally used by women as their middle name. It's elementary for any feminine patronym in Eastern Slavic regions such as Minsk and Leningrad. In 1961, when Marina applied for a visa to the United States, her name was translated by the State Department as Nicholavena.

Now we get to the center of the problem. In the 11/9/63 letter, the writer spells it on two occasions as Nichilayeva. It's even worse than the handwritten versions which spell it as Nicholyeva or Nicholayeva. The suffix "eva" or "yeva" is a feminized surname, not a feminized patronym.

That's a very basic mistake that Oswald simply wouldn't make. His Russian was better than that. A patronym is an honorific that citizens fought for in recent centuries - it used to be that only the nobles had patronyms. I believe Oswald knew how a patronym was created - and so did Ruth Piane.

Marguerite Oswald affirmed in her testimony that Oswald referred to Marina's name as "Nikolaevna". Again, his dylexia got in the way of spelling her patronym correctly, but he got the suffix right.

This State Department document affirms that she signed her name as "Nikolayevna".

Most importantly, the Soviet embassy greeted her in every letter with the salutation, "Dear Marina Nicolaevna!"

When the Oswald letter arrived at the embassy in mid-November, even a casual observer would know something was very wrong when a husband mangled the spelling of his wife's name.

The problem is that a patronym is formed by a combination of the father's name and the suffix "ovich" for a son and "ovna" for a daughter. When the father's last name ends in "y", it becomes "evich" or "evna". Since Marina's father's name was Nikolay, her patronym is Nikolayevna.

In the handwritten version, the writer spells her name as "Nicholiyeva" - but note that the "y" is clumsily laid on top of the word, blotting out the original spelling - which could have been "Nicholievna". It is one of the very few superimpositions within the document.

This doctor who wrote about Oswald's "language disability" is the only person I could find who treated Nichilayeva as a real word. He got it wrong.

If the doctor - or, for that matter, the author of the November 9 letter - had studied Slavic culture, he would know that "eva" or "yeva" as a ferminine suffix is common for a surname, but not for a patronym. The custom in the USSR at that time was when a woman married, she would exchange her surname for her husband's surname, but maintain her patronym as a middle name.

This letter was designed to cement Oswald's ties to the USSR and Cuba prior to the assassination of JFK. The FBI found the letter was written on Ruth Paine's typewriter.

I don't think the typed letter was a forgery. Besides serving as a handy way to poke the Soviets and maybe even the FBI, the letter is highly significant for several other reasons.

Notice its date - November 9. Oswald expresses pleasure at Consul Eusebio Azcue's replacement as consul at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. The Mexico City tapes indicated that Azcue had evicted a man calling himself "Lee Oswald" from the consulate two months earlier.

The replacement of Azcue had been planned since early September, before Oswald's arrival into Mexico City. The reference to Azcue's replacement in the letter indicates that the writer had deep knowledge into Cuban affairs.

Who knew that Azcue was about to be replaced? The people with access to the telephone taps and hidden microphones in the Cuban consulate -- Bill Harvey at Staff D, and David Phillips and other CIA officials at the Mexico City station.

The FBI went so far as to say that Oswald's source had to be a Cuban consulate informant, a KGB member, or the CIA itself.

version 1
("Oswald's rough draft")

version 2
("Ruth's" copy)

version 3
(2nd copy)  

To expand and read these three versions, go to this link:  https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_12.html

 

On another front, according to the letter, since Oswald wasn't able to get a Cuban visa, he was forced to take up "our business" with "Comrade Kostin" in Mexico City. This is clearly a reference to Valeriy Kostikov, who FBI chief Clarence Kelley claimed was "the officer-in-charge for Western Hemisphere terrorist activities -- including and especially assassination." However, the CIA and FBI in mid-1963 concluded that there was no evidence that Kostikov had anything to do with any assassination unit. The imaginary spectre of Kostikov leading a KGB-driven plot is raised once again.

Yet another observation is that the letter points out that Oswald did not use his "real name" when he went to Mexico City. Oswald used the name Harvey Oswald Lee. The authorities initially insisted that it was just an error involving a comma, as his visa states "Lee, Harvey Oswald", but by late December 1963 even CIA officer John Whitten thought that it was deliberately caused by Oswald.

The letter also states: "I had not planned to contact the Soviet embassy in Mexico so they were unprepared, had I been able to reach the Soviet embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business."

Again, I believe the provocative language was a declaration of independence. After all, the second baby was now born. Thanks to Ruth, there was no longer any pressing need for Marina to rely on her family in the Soviet Union. Oswald even made a last-minute addition to the letter by adding a mention of Rachel's birth. The letter seems calculated to end any need for favors from the Soviets, while managing to provoke both the Soviets and the Americans. Oswald wanted to be a player in the game of spies.

Another aspect of this letter is that Ruth Paine was clear that she was going to provide this letter to the FBI. Hosty had been out to the house twice in early November, and had not yet made contact with Lee. Ruth was confident that Hosty was going to come back. Ruth was wondering whether the letter was "the talk of an agent reporting in".

Even though Ruth claims that Oswald made furtive gestures to hide the contents of the letter from her, the fact remains that Oswald left the letter right there by the typewriter for Ruth to find.

Oswald also knew that letter was going to be seized by the FBI before it got to the Soviet embassy -- as indeed it was. As James Douglass suggests in a pithy analysis in his book JFK and the Unspeakable:

A melodramatic, CIA-monitored Oswald in Mexico City had tried to obtain an immediate Cuban visa. His letter arriving at the Soviet embassy in Washington on November 18 now attempts to document the presumed assassin's frustrated objective in Mexico City in September -- to travel to the much safer environment of Communist-controlled Havana in order "to complete our business" with the Soviets". As was true of all mail sent to the Soviet Embassy, the Oswald letter was intercepted, opened, and copied by the FBI before its eventual delivery to the embassy.

Translation of telegram from Soviet ambassador
Anatoly Dobrynin to Moscow. This was part of the
set of documents given to President Clinton in 1998
by Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

On November 26, the Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin sent a message to Moscow saying that "this letter was clearly a provocation", and that he believed that this typed letter was a forgery because Oswald's previous letters were handwritten.

(Actually, Oswald typed a letter to the CIA-friendly International Rescue Committee in 1962 -- and the Committee commented that Oswald's letter matched the typeface of a related letter from the State Department!)

Dobrynin concluded that "one gets the definite impression that the letter was concocted by those who, judging from everything, are involved in the President's assassination. It is possible that Oswald himself wrote the letter as it was dictated to him, in exchange for some promises, and then, as we know, he was simply bumped off after his usefulness had ended. The competent U.S. authorities are undoubtedly aware of this letter, since the embassy's correspondence is under constant surveillance." (Italics added.)

I conclude Oswald was wittingly or unwittingly manipulated to write this letter, hoping to change his relations with both the Soviet and the American authorities. Ruth Paine said that Oswald was as "gay as I have ever seen him" on November 9, the date he wrote the letter. He was really happy after they went to the driver's license bureau and found out it was closed.

He probably was happy for a couple of reasons. One reason was probably because the letter was completed. It was sent from Irving, postmarked after the holiday weekend. It had additional misspellings, due to his unfamiliarity with the typewriter, but the work was done. He had made his move, using language designed to provoke. It had worked for him in the past.

The other reason was because he was sending a cryptic message by misspelling Marina's name as "Nichilayeva". It was certainly not the way to get a visa. What was Oswald's message? Was it some kind of code? That's what it looks like - true or not.

Look at version 3a - where someone is comparing the handwritten "Nicholeyeva" with the Soviet embassy's version - "Nicholaevna". It looks like Ruth is trying to demonstrate to the FBI how Marina's name should have been written.

I think the evidence points away from this letter as a forgery - and I'll tell you where it leads me. By misspelling his wife's name, by leaving his draft on Ruth's desk, and by mailing the letter to the Soviets, Oswald wanted Ruth, the FBI and the Soviets to believe that he was involved in espionage.

Oswald figured the FBI might intercept the letter - and Ruth would probably tell Hosty the next time he came to visit - which Hosty would almost certainly do - because Oswald went to Hosty's office and left a threatening note during the days after the letter was mailed! The note was unsealed and partially visible to the receptionist. Again, Oswald wanted everybody to see what he had written.

Oswald badly needed his military benefits. The G.I. Bill of that era could provide him and his family with the means to buy a home and the good life that goes with it. He was as poor as a man can be. Somehow, it got in his head. It might have been with the help of somebody. If he was seen as an espionage asset - it just might be the best way to get his benefits back.

The New York Times quoted Ruth on the day Oswald was killed as saying that his death was probably better for Marina because "it will mean less total strain." Months later, Ruth was even more direct with writer Jessamyn West about her reaction when she saw Ruby shoot Oswald on television: "I was glad." When West told her, "there goes your halo" and forcefully challenged her, Ruth said that "Lee's death this way would be so much easier for Marina...I wasn't glad Jack Ruby killed him. I was just glad it was over. I was glad he was dead."

Like Oswald, Michael and Ruth Paine were manipulated to do the bidding of certain intelligence operatives.

Edited February 16 by Bill Simpich
to add an additional link

[Leslie Sharp]

 

 RUTH and BARD . . . A Review

Leslie Sharp replied to Leslie Sharp's topic in JFK Assassination Debate

...Ruth sat on the November 9 Kostin  letter until after the assassination. Why? Had she phoned the number Hosty left with her on November 1 and shared that a former defector was attempting to redefect with wife and child, would Hosty have moved post-haste to interview Oswald? Did she prompt Od...

Edited February 17 by Leslie Sharp

[Mart Hall]

I had read this letter earlier in the week whilst looking for examples of Oswald's Russian hand writing .  

Before reading your post I only saw the letter as a very flimsy attempt by the plotters to reinforce the Mexico trip and the legend that he was working with the Soviets or Castro. The unnecessary specifics in the letter only seem to serve to tie Oswald (and Oswald only) to the trip to Mexico. 

 

After reading your post I still think this is either the direct hand of, or ultimately the work of, the plotters.

If Oswald actually wrote that letter then maybe he did go to Mexico (I don't believe he did based on the lack of any incontrovertible evidence surrounding the visits to the Embassy) and was also manipulated to write the letter too. That's the only way Oswald writing it would appear to make sense to me.  

It's quite late in the UK so please forgive me if I have made a fundamental error in my thought process, but does your work and thoughts lead to a suggestion that as far as Oswald was concerned the trip to Mexico and these letters were one large single plan to have some leverage to gain his military benefits or other financial gain? That would seem very elaborate to me. 

 

 

[Gerry Down]

A whole book could be written on this one letter alone. Very mysterious and with so many possible interpretations.

[Paul Brancato]

Thanks Bill - as usual a well researched essay. In the past I believe you used the word ‘agnostic’ to describe your opinion on whether Oswald was in MC at all. I might be mistaken about that, memories being what they are. If one sees this letter as being genuinely typed by Oswald at Ruth’s typewriter, or written by hand, either way it tends to confirm that Oswald actually did go to the Soviet embassy in MC, as well as the Cuban consulate  (I may have consulate and embassy confused here, I often do that). For me, it’s this detail, and also Ruth’s involvement, that has caused me to conclude it was a forgery. But having said that, your logic is well reasoned. It’s hard to determine which of Oswald’s actions point to his working for others in US Intelligence, and which are self motivated for his own purposes. I can see how he may have been primarily concerned with financial security. 
Then there is his visit to Hosty and the angry note he left there. That story bugs me, as it relies on witnesses only and their stories. There is no Oswald note we can examine. It’s pretty safe to assume he was there though, and motivated to do so, and possibly angry. But if he was primarily interested in financial security, and also interested in the FBI intercepting his supposed letter to the Soviets, might he have found a way to make his visit more productive? 
It always comes down to who was Oswald? It makes no sense to be that he was on his own, drumming up a spy’s life without the direction of a handler or handlers. I could see how he may have been trying to break away from his Intelligence relationships, wanting a normal family life at some point. But I have difficulty imagining that he really wanted to go to Cuba and then back to the USSR. 
 

[Bill Simpich]

Paul, I believe that Oswald was all about "financial security" during the last months of his life.   His attempts from 1961 in the Soviet Union all the way to September 1963 in Austin to get John Connally to upgrade his discharge are a big clue - and probably what led to the motorcade being moved to the street in front of the book depository.

Navy counsel Andy Kerr's memoir A Journey Among the Good and the Great addresses Connally's involvement in Oswald's loss of his GI Bill benefits. Kerr wrote that he advised Connally:

"In Oswald's case, my conclusions were that his complaint had no legal basis, his request was without merit, and that Connally should not involve himself in any way. 

(This routing slip supports the story about how
Connally deep-sixed Oswald's attempt to obtain
an upgraded discharge by directing
"appropriate action".)

 

"I recommended that he refer the letter to the commandant of the Marine Corps for 'appropriate action'." (Emphasis added.) This phrase meant, in clear officialese, that the secretary was washing his hands of the case. The commandant could do with it as he wished. No one could doubt that the result would be. It was a kiss-off.

"A day or two later, Connally called me into  his office. He had obviously read the entire file and was intrigued. We discussed the case for half an hour or so, and at the end he said, "I agree with you, Andy--this is the way we should handle it." He then signed that second piece of paper that sent Oswald's letter on its way, we thought, to oblivion."

And, in fact, that's precisely what happened. The Warren Commission has a memo dated 2/26/62 - three days after the purported cc from Connally to Fred Korth, at a time when Connally was clearing his desk as Secretary of the Navy to pass the reins to Korth - stating that the Oswald matter was being "routed to CMC (Commandant, Marine Corps) for 'appropriate action'."  (Emphasis added.)  

There's no sign that Fred Korth saw this memo. There's an initial "C" on the bottom - that may be from Connally. Connally's signature looks similar.

Instead, a week later, Oswald was sent a "kiss-off letter" from Brigadier General R. Tompkins of the Marine Corps, saying that your letter "was referred to me for reply".  

Kerr's colleague Hank Searles also corroborates Kerr's account. Searles recalled the morning that Kerr opened the Oswald letter, read it, and advised Connally to reject it.

The "appropriate action" recommendation from the Secretary of the Navy (who was Connally until early 1962) can also be seen at Exhibit 780 in the Warren volumes:  

 

The "appropriate action" quote comes up in a wholly different context mid-November 1963, before the assassination.  Oswald wrote a note to the FBI and delivered it on or about Nov. 15, just days after the November 9 letter to the Soviet embassy.   

 

Hosty said the note said:  "If you have anything you want to learn about
me, come talk to me directly.  If you don't cease bothering my wife, I will take
appropriate action and report this to proper authorities."

 

There was a dispute about what the note said - the FBI secretary said that the letter threatened to blow up the building.

 

Did Oswald find out about the "appropriate action" recommendation?   Or did Hosty learn about it and make it up?

 

Almost no one knows that Ruth told the Warren Commission back in 1964 about the Hosty note.   Her version was that Oswald told her that he left a note for "the agents" at the FBI office that told them to stop bothering hims and his family. Ruth told the Warren Commission that she believed it until she learned after the assassination that it was "another lie" by Oswald.

In 1975, when the Oswald note to Hosty was finally revealed to the public, most of the agents at the office admitted they knew the story. But not Odum.

Bardwell Odum with Marina Oswald on 11/23/63.

 

Ruth testified in 1964 that she had learned from the FBI that Oswald had never delivered the note that he told her in November 1963 that he was going to deliver.  But, of course, he did!

 

Odum claimed to Ruth that he had never known about the Oswald visit to the Dallas FBI office - even though just about everyone else did! When Ruth found out that Oswald had actually delivered the note to Hosty, she blurted out Odum's name to the media as her source.

She then called Odum and apologized, saying that "it's all my fault". Ruth referred to Odum as "her primary contact".

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

 

Oswald figured the FBI might intercept the letter - and Ruth would probably tell Hosty the next time he came to visit - which Hosty would almost certainly do - because Oswald went to Hosty's office and left a threatening note during the days after the letter was mailed! The note was unsealed and partially visible to the receptionist. Again, Oswald wanted everybody to see what he had written.

A tiny detail, Bill Simpich: despite how commonly it is reported that Oswald visited the FBI with his "Hosty note" after the Nov 9 Soviet embassy letter, Ruth Paine's testimony indicates that visit of Oswald to the FBI office happened before the weekend of Nov 9-11, because Ruth says Oswald told her the weekend of Nov 9-11 about having gone to the FBI offices to attempt to see Hosty, in response to being upset about Hosty's visit to Marina. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_RuthPaine.pdf

That is Ruth's testimony, and it dates the Oswald visit and Hosty note before, not after, that weekend of Nov 9-11. It is a mystery to me why Ruth Paine's testimony on this point has been ignored instead of being considered decisive in dating the visit of Oswald to Hosty's office.

I have checked what evidence supports the common notion (e.g. of the Warren Commission; of the Church Committee report of your link) that that Oswald Hosty note occurred later than Nov 9 and all I can see are unreliable later memory estimates of Hosty and maybe others as to the date, nothing hard and solid establishing a later date.

I don't know if there are any consequences to a correction on this date detail, but for what it is worth.

[Sandy Larsen]

First, Oswald was probably never in Mexico City (MC). A short, blond Oswald impersonator -- employed by the CIA -- visited the Cuban Consulate. David Josephs has shown that the bus trips to and from Mexico City MC were faked... I believe to cover up the fact that Oswald (rather, the impersonator) and associates went by car to MC. (There is some evidence for this car trip.) This  was covered up by the FBI/WC because multiple people suggests a conspiracy.

The MC trip was a complete fabrication developed by by CIA. It was designed to make it look like Oswald and his associates were in cahoots with Cuba and the Soviet Union. It was meant to work this way: After the assassination, the FBI would discover that Oswald had met with KGB assassination chief Kostikov, and was involved with Cuban officials and employees at the Cuban Consulate. The Cubans paid him a $6500 down payment for the killing of Kennedy. Oswald wasn't an assassin, but was working with an assassination team in the U.S. That way, it wouldn't matter if there were witnesses who saw that he didn't shoot Kennedy. He merely helped the shooters gain access to the building.

We know that Oswald was a CIA employee because he didn't just happen to get a job where the CIA plotters needed him to be for the assassination. In addition, we know Ruth Paine is CIA because she didn't just happen to get a job interview for Oswald where the plotters needed him to be. They didn't know that the other was also CIA due to compartmentalization.

The sole purpose of Oswald's letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington was to reinforce that Oswald had met with Kostikov (Kostin). It most likely wasn't written or typed by Oswald. The plotters instructed Ruth to hand-copy it and give it to the FBI, which she did the day after the assassination. It was just another step in incriminating Cuba and the Soviet Union. Well, the Soviet Union in this instance.