Disinformation in Oswald's CIA File - For molehunt purposes or for Oswald patsification purposes?

[Matt Cloud]

56 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What details? The Azcue replacement timing issue dates?

The CIA knew that Azcue was going to be replaced. So why wouldn't the Soviets have not also known that?

With the Azcue replacement date in hand, and the Kostin letter in hand, the Soviets had all the details that you've pointed out. No mole needed to get it for them.

 

 

As immediately above, "details" refers to the timing issue -- why Soviets feel need to say it arrived at a date later than it did -- and the existence of  the mail-opening program.

 

"The CIA knew that Azcue was going to be replaced."  No, again, that is only assumed.  "So why wouldn't the Soviets have not also known that?"  They did know it.  They might have been the only ones who knew it.  There's no evidence anyone else did.  That's the point.  

 

"With the Azcue replacement date in hand, and the Kostin letter in hand, the Soviets had all the details that you've pointed out. No mole needed to get it for them."  Those are not the details that a mole provided.  Yes, the Soviets do not need to be told a decision (azcue's replacement) they themselves have made.  The detail most at issue here that appears to have come from CIA to KGB is the existence of the mail-opening program.  That is information a mole could have provided.  That is what indicates a security breach.  

[Matt Cloud]

58 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

As immediately above, "details" refers to the timing issue -- why Soviets feel need to say it arrived at a date later than it did -- and the existence of  the mail-opening program.

 

"The CIA knew that Azcue was going to be replaced."  No, again, that is only assumed.  "So why wouldn't the Soviets have not also known that?"  They did know it.  They might have been the only ones who knew it.  There's no evidence anyone else did.  That's the point.  

 

"With the Azcue replacement date in hand, and the Kostin letter in hand, the Soviets had all the details that you've pointed out. No mole needed to get it for them."  Those are not the details that a mole provided.  Yes, the Soviets do not need to be told a decision (azcue's replacement) they themselves have made.  The detail most at issue here that appears to have come from CIA to KGB is the existence of the mail-opening program.  That is information a mole could have provided.  That is what indicates a security breach.  

To add a further point to this, if I'm Rusk, and I receive that message from Dobrynin, I could very easily interpret his not-so-subtle hint that the Soviets know of the mail-opening program as a threat.  That is, don't do anything that disrupts our mole, lest we will blow Angleton's mail-opening program and your CIA will be humiliated.  By Dobrynin's message alone, the Soviets are indicating to the U.S. that they have the leverage here.  

Edited April 18 by Matt Cloud

[Michael Kalin]

10 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

To quote Bill Safire's Lewis Carroll-like wordplay (New York Times, Jan. 22, 1979), let us go through a glass, darkly:

 

"Beware the Family Jewels, my son

The leaks that spring, the tips from SMERSH --

Taste not Nosenko's Plant, and shun

The myriad Seymourhersh!

 

Gotitzen to the Bagley man

Go find who serves another skipper;

Promotion lies with those who can

Win one for the Double Dipper.

 

But high in Langley's ranks he stands,

The Jabbermole, untouched is he --

Kampiles' heel, a friend of Stan's

He snuckles in his glee.

 

'Board Brillig did the bearish spies

Snatch Paisley's prints before he blabbed;

All flimsy were the alibis

While the mole laughs, ungrabbed."

 

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01554R003300280025-3.pdf

  "First, the mole must be caught."
That is easy: a hunter, I think, could have caught it.
  "Next, the mole must be bought."
That is easy: two c-notes, I think, would have bought it.

  "Now debrief it, my wish!"
That is easy, and will not take more than a minute.
  "Let it lie in a dish!"
That is easy, because it already lies in it.

  "Bring it here, buttercup!"
It is easy to set such a dish on the table.
  "Take the dish-cover up!"
Ah, THAT is so hard that I fear I'm unable!

  For it holds it like glue—
Holds the lid to the dish, while it lies in the middle:
  Which is easiest to do,
Un-dish-cover the snitch, or dishcover the riddle?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As for how the Excelsior newspaper got the information so quickly about the so-called Oswald visits, I suppose they could have gotten it from the Mexican police. After all, the Mexican police did hold Silvia Duran and a number of her friends for questioning, and did actually beat her, likely because she wouldn't admit to the charges made against her by Elena Garro, who was being held in "protective custody" at the time in a hotel. Garro's story painted Oswald as being a friend of Duran's and associating with her friends.

So the story the Mexican Police got from Duran was the innocent/real one (according to their understanding), where Oswald was there to get a transit visa. (Not to negotiate an assassination deal with the Cubans and Russians.)

15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Well, Duran was apparently arrested at CIA instructions sent on the 23rd along with instructions that she be held incommunicado.

 

Right. On November 23, Mexico City CIA station chief Winston Scott asked the president of Mexico to arrest Silvia Duran because he suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true.

Meanwhile, Elena Garro was reportedly taken into protective custody the very same day as a result of her protesting outside the Cuban Consulate against Duran. And she gave the fake story of Oswald being friendly with Duran and others.

 

15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

The leak to the paper would seem to violate that second instruction.  But it is a possibility that information obtained during her interrogation could have been a source for the goings-on inside the Cuban embassy -- albeit a very fast turnaround to get it into the paper on the 25th...

15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

... but that doesn't account for the paper's information as to the goings-on inside the Soviet embassy.

 

Silvia Duran had called the Soviet Embassy about Oswald, and she could have been told how Oswald had behaved there.

So the Mexican Police may have been aware of the Soviet Embassy's goings on from Duran, and this could have been leaked to the Excelsior Newspaper as well.

(My prior thinking has been that maybe nobody at all visited the Soviet Embassy. But in my mind it's becoming likely that an Oswald imposter visited there like one did the Cuban Consulate. Maybe the very same imposter visited both places.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, I believe the Kostin letter was planted by the CIA in order to strengthen the evidence that Oswald had (supposedly) contracted with the Cubans and Soviets to have Kennedy killed. (Allegations made by Gilberto Alvarado.)

As for the comment in the letter about Azcue being replaced:

The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement. We don't really know if there was a timing issue as to the date of Azcue leaving, because when the Kostin letter said, "I am glad he has since been replaced," for all we know the CIA writer of the letter could have meant more specifically that the DECISION for his replacement had been made, and that soon the actual replacement will take place.

Or it could be that the CIA writer of that letter simply made a mistake... he might have merely assumed that the replacement had taken place prior to his writing of the letter.

15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

You write "The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement."  That IS the issue I raised.  Simply stating that you have reached a conclusion as to the question is non-responsive, without explanation as to how you can justify that conclusion.

 

My justification is simple:

My working theory says that a CIA plotter wrote the Kostin Letter, in Oswald's name, and planted the letter. (i.e. it was sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington and Ruth Paine had a copy.)

Since the letter commented on Azcue being replaced, the writer of the letter -- a CIA employee -- had to have known about the Azcue replacement.

End of Justification.

 

No JFKA researcher knows how the writer of the Kostin letter knew about the Azcue replacement, right? So ANY explanation they give will be speculative. Which is fine if it is reasoned speculation.

Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. Though naturally, it is best to have a large number of factual data points in order to minimize the need for speculation

 

15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

And whether Azcue was in fact replaced or whether merely the decision to replace had been made, you have not answered the question as to how the author of the letter, whoever that might have been, knew either of those scenarios.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

First, Matt, I don't know if the following statement:

“When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.”

has anything to do with the Azcue replacement timing issue. The two dates, Nov. 9 and Nov. 18, might just be coincidences.

Even if that sentence does relate to the Azcue timing issue, I don't see how the instruction of that sentence, given to Ambassador Dobrynin,  supposedly resolves the timing issue in the Americans' eyes. Especially in light of the fact that the U.S. knew precisely the date of the letter and the date the Soviets received it, a fact that apparently the Russians were aware of (since they knew of the U.S. mail intercept program).

16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

The instructions to Dobrynin indicate that the Kremlin is aware of some issue with regard to the timing of the letter.  The Soviets apparently don't want to say they received the letter when they in did (the 9th evidently) and for some reason feel the need to state to the U.S. that it was received on a later date (the 18th).  Why?  

 

First, let me point out that the Soviet Embassy couldn't have received the Kostin letter on the Nov. 9th because that is the date that Oswald (supposedly) wrote the letter. Surely it would have take a few days for it to be delivered. And who knows if the letter was even mailed the day it was written.

That said, it occurred to me that perhaps the letter truly wasn't received by the embassy till Nov. 18. And perhaps the Soviets wanted to make that late delivery date clear in a CYA maneuver... having received the letter only four days before the assassination hardly gave the Soviets enough time to analyze the letter and notify American officials of potential foul play on the part of Oswald.

I just saw in my notes the date that HTLINGUAL reported the intercepted Kostin letter, and that date is Nov 18, 1963. Which tends to support Nov. 18 being the date the embassy received the letter.

 

16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

The instructions don't resolve the timing issue, whether "in the Americans' eyes" or other.  Indeed they perpetuate it.  More however, what the instructions do is inform the Americans that there counter-intelligence program is blown -- that it's useless. 

16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

How did the Soviets learn of the mail-opening program?

 

Perhaps they had noticed signs of steam opening of letters from Americans.

 

[David Boylan]

The CIA's SAS branch was well aware of Azcue's pending departure date of 10/4/63. Win Scott was putting on pressure to recruit him prior to this date. Scott tasked Tony Sforza to have his former Stay Behind asset AMOT-106 (Jose Casas) to pitch his friend Azcue. They didn't care if he defected to the US or defect in place in Havana. Casas made his pitch. The Op to recruit Azcue began as early as January 1963.

Recruiting Azcue - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=224926#relPageId=1

L-7 reporting on Azcue on 9/11/63 on return date - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=191564#relPageId=1

11/18 Azcue finally leaves MC - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=21406#relPageId=2

Casas visiting Azcue August 9th. Sloman is Sforza - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=21409#relPageId=2&search=amot-106_and sloman

Kostikov file - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=160299#relPageId=118

[Matt Cloud]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Right. On November 23, Mexico City CIA station chief Winston Scott asked the president of Mexico to arrest Silvia Duran because he suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true.

Meanwhile, Elena Garro was reportedly taken into protective custody the very same day as a result of her protesting outside the Cuban Consulate against Duran. And she gave the fake story of Oswald being friendly with Duran and others.

 

 

Silvia Duran had called the Soviet Embassy about Oswald, and she could have been told how Oswald had behaved there.

So the Mexican Police may have been aware of the Soviet Embassy's goings on from Duran, and this could have been leaked to the Excelsior Newspaper as well.

(My prior thinking has been that maybe nobody at all visited the Soviet Embassy. But in my mind it's becoming likely that an Oswald imposter visited there like one did the Cuban Consulate. Maybe the very same imposter visited both places.)

 

"On November 23, Mexico City CIA station chief Winston Scott asked the president of Mexico to arrest Silvia Duran."   No argument as yet, until we get to your "because he suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true."  This is conclusory.  Again, you mix in the unknown as if it were known, along with the speculative.  You immediately incorporate your conclusion into an explanation without establishing any of it.  How do you know what he suspected?  Who are the Plotters?  Do you mean Scott suspected that Oswald might be involved with the Soviets and/or Cubans -- a reasonable suspicion given what information he received -- or do you mean that he suspected that there was a plot to falsely frame Oswald's involvement with Cubans and Soviets?  Two very different concepts and you conflate them all and tie a bow around all of it as if any of it were established or establish-able, or even coherent. 

When I acknowledged that it was possible, theoretically, that the information as to the Cuban consulate in Excelsior came from Duran, as you had offered, I was being exceedingly generous in your favor, for argument's sake.  As you wrote, Duran was held for days, tortured and beaten evidently.  It makes little sense why statements by someone suspected of being involved with Oswald would be thrown around so liberally, so quickly, if they could even have been obtained at all by then.  Who knows where things might lead in the interrogation that would cause what was released from it on day 1 to have to be altered on day 6?  In any case, suspects under arrest and interrogation becoming anonymous sources to newspapers during their arrest is a new one to me, and exceedingly week as an explanation, notwithstanding my having granted it theoretical possibility status.  Scott apparently told the Mexicans to keep her incommunicado.  That means don't let her talk to anyone outside the interrogation room.  Why they would follow his instructions on the one hand -- arrest her -- but disobey them on the other -- leak her story -- is unaccounted for by you.  

Again -- Excelsior is a leftist paper; it's printing information that further entangles Oswald wth Soviets and Cubans. That fact needs to be massaged a bit more, I suggest, so that its full ramifications can percolate to the surface.  

[Matt Cloud]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

My justification is simple:

My working theory says that a CIA plotter wrote the Kostin Letter, in Oswald's name, and planted the letter. (i.e. it was sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington and Ruth Paine had a copy.)

Since the letter commented on Azcue being replaced, the writer of the letter -- a CIA employee -- had to have known about the Azcue replacement.

End of Justification.

 

No JFKA researcher knows how the writer of the Kostin letter knew about the Azcue replacement, right? So ANY explanation they give will be speculative. Which is fine if it is reasoned speculation.

Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. Though naturally, it is best to have a large number of factual data points in order to minimize the need for speculation

 

 

Okay, we'll go around again. 

You wrote: "The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement." 

I replied: That IS the issue I raised.  Simply stating that you have reached a conclusion as to the question is non-responsive, without explanation as to how you can justify that conclusion.

Now you wrote the same thing.  "Since the letter commented on Azcue being replaced, the writer of the letter -- a CIA employee -- had to have known about the Azcue replacement."  

It's entirely a speculative possibility offered by you, as to authorship.  Got it.  Thanks for clarifying.  It is one possibility, and it's still conclusory.  You have assumed the answer.  Assuming the answer fails definitionally to meet the definition of reasoned.  You haven't established how this CIA employee knew that, let alone who that employee was.  And I fully assume -- and have reason to believe -- that CIA does know the goings-on inside both embassies.  But so do the Soviets.  And including that knowledge in the letter hurts the CIA. It blows their monitoring operation.  Deciding it favor of of the one over the other requires you to ignore that.

 

 

Edited April 19 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

First, let me point out that the Soviet Embassy couldn't have received the Kostin letter on the Nov. 9th because that is the date that Oswald (supposedly) wrote the letter. Surely it would have take a few days for it to be delivered. And who knows if the letter was even mailed the day it was written.

That said, it occurred to me that perhaps the letter truly wasn't received by the embassy till Nov. 18. And perhaps the Soviets wanted to make that late delivery date clear in a CYA maneuver... having received the letter only four days before the assassination hardly gave the Soviets enough time to analyze the letter and notify American officials of potential foul play on the part of Oswald.

I just saw in my notes the date that HTLINGUAL reported the intercepted Kostin letter, and that date is Nov 18, 1963. Which tends to support Nov. 18 being the date the embassy received the letter.

 

 

Perhaps they had noticed signs of steam opening of letters from Americans.

 

You're either not grasping that there is an elephant in the room or you're ignoring it.

The Soviets, based on their cable to Dobrynin, evidently know the exact date they must say they received the letter even though they apparently received it much earlier.   The date they say they must say -- as you point out -- aligns precisely with the date the HTLINGUAL program intercepted it.  Pretty neat.  That may mean they -- the Soviets -- know about the mail-opening program down to the most minute operational details.  When I wrote before that the Dobrynin cable demonstrates that the mail-opening program is "blown" I didn't go far enough.  It was not merely blown it was rendered entirely susceptible to manipulation -- by the Soviets.  It was useless for Angleton, totally useful for Moscow.   

You have completely ignored the fundamental issue here again -- how the Soviets learned of the mail-opening program, except merely to say 

"Perhaps they had noticed signs of steam opening of letters from Americans."

 

If that is the basis of their understanding of the existence of the mail-opening program, it would not explain how they knew exactly when to say it was intercepted.  The "steam opening" offering is wanting, in light of their apparent knowledge as to the specific details of when it was opened. 

And here I would suggest consideration of the possibility that the letter was forged by the persons running the Oswald Project, neither wholly KGB or CIA, but a group privy to information within both organizations, setting the various factions at play against one another to prevent hardliners on either side from achieving the upper-hand.  This would be the strategy adopted throughout the Cold War.  By putting the Azcue timing issue in plan sight in the forged Oswald letter, both KGB and CIA are bound in certain respects.  KGB is bound because they are implicated by Oswald having inside info as to Soviet and Cuban embassies; CIA is bound for the same reason plus because the letter -- and the cable to Dobrynin -- indicates unequivocally that the mail-opening program is blown.  That's a blow to the "mole-hunt" if one accepts that terminology.  In place of "mole," I would offer "KGB interlocutor," an individual known and authorized (by a few) to steer management of the Cold War, the secrecy of whose existence must be protected whatever the cost.   

Edited April 19 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

2 hours ago, David Boylan said:

The CIA's SAS branch was well aware of Azcue's pending departure date of 10/4/63. Win Scott was putting on pressure to recruit him prior to this date. Scott tasked Tony Sforza to have his former Stay Behind asset AMOT-106 (Jose Casas) to pitch his friend Azcue. They didn't care if he defected to the US or defect in place in Havana. Casas made his pitch. The Op to recruit Azcue began as early as January 1963.

Recruiting Azcue - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=224926#relPageId=1

L-7 reporting on Azcue on 9/11/63 on return date - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=191564#relPageId=1

11/18 Azcue finally leaves MC - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=21406#relPageId=2

Casas visiting Azcue August 9th. Sloman is Sforza - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=21409#relPageId=2&search=amot-106_and sloman

Kostikov file - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=160299#relPageId=118

I understand of course the CIA is monitoring Soviet activity in Mexico and Azcue in particular, whom CIA would like to recruit although they state he is not a likely target for such.  No mystery there.  This understanding however does nothing towards clarifying why CIA would blow it's own monitoring operation by including information in a forged Oswald letter that would reveal the existence of the monitoring.  (Or why same would appear in the newspaper in Excelsior.)  Indeed, it rather does suggest, in the other way, that someone or someones opposed to the monitoring by CIA would blow the operation by including details that Oswald could not have known about but for his linkage with intelligence, one way or the other.  

The letter -- which again I think is forged -- hurts CIA monitoring of the Soviets.  It exposes it.  You should then be able to gather in which direction that understanding points in terms of authorship of the letter. 

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

The letter -- which again I think is forged -- hurts CIA monitoring of the Soviets.  It exposes it.  You should then be able to gather in which direction that understanding points in terms of authorship of the letter. 

Or at least which direction it points away from.

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

 "because [Winston Scott] suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true."  This is conclusory. 

 

It's a pretty damn good conclusion. Why else would Scott want poor little secretary Silvia Duran AND a bunch of her associates taken in and questioned by the Mexican Police? Just because she spoke with Oswald?

I mean, please!

 

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Again, you mix in the unknown as if it were known, along with the speculative. 

 

If you don't like my conclusion, fine. Think of it as reasoned speculation. It is a part of my hypothesis.

Speculation is a necessary part of hypotheses and theories.

 

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Who are the Plotters?  Do you mean Scott suspected that Oswald might be involved with the Soviets and/or Cubans -- a reasonable suspicion given what information he received -- or do you mean that he suspected that there was a plot to falsely frame Oswald's involvement with Cubans and Soviets?  Two very different concepts and you conflate them all and tie a bow around all of it as if any of it were established or establish-able, or even coherent. 

 

My theory is that it was an element of the CIA who were the assassination plotters. In Mexico City, they use Oswald impersonators to paint a fake story of Oswald negotiating with the Cubans and Russians to kill Kennedy.

I don't believe that Win Scott was involved in the plotting.

I believe that it appeared to Scott that Oswald might have been involved with the Cubans in assassinating Kennedy. (Which explains why he had Duran arrested.) And that belief only increased (naturally so!) when he got word of Gilberto Alvarado saying that, while in the Cuban Consulate, he overheard Oswald being paid $6500 to kill Kennedy.

 

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

When I acknowledged that it was possible, theoretically, that the information as to the Cuban consulate in Excelsior came from Duran, as you had offered, I was being exceedingly generous in your favor, for argument's sake.  As you wrote, Duran was held for days, tortured and beaten evidently.  It makes little sense why statements by someone suspected of being involved with Oswald would be thrown around so liberally, so quickly, if they could even have been obtained at all by then.

 

Information to Excelsior might have been leaked by a corrupt police officer for profit.

I can't think of any reason why the CIA, the CIA plotters, the U.S. government, or the Mexican Police would intentionally leak the story.

 

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

  Who knows where things might lead in the interrogation that would cause what was released from it on day 1 to have to be altered on day 6?  In any case, suspects under arrest and interrogation becoming anonymous sources to newspapers during their arrest is a new one to me, and exceedingly week as an explanation, notwithstanding my having granted it theoretical possibility status.  Scott apparently told the Mexicans to keep her incommunicado.  That means don't let her talk to anyone outside the interrogation room. 

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Why they would follow his instructions on the one hand -- arrest her -- but disobey them on the other -- leak her story -- is unaccounted for by you. 

 

No, I accounted for it. With reasoned speculation.

It is you who have not accounted for it.

 

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

 Again -- Excelsior is a leftist paper; it's printing information that further entangles Oswald wth Soviets and Cubans. That fact needs to be massaged a bit more, I suggest, so that its full ramifications can percolate to the surface.  

 

Okay. let me know if you come up with anything.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

It's entirely a speculative possibility offered by you, as to authorship.  Got it.  Thanks for clarifying.  It is one possibility, and it's still conclusory.  You have assumed the answer. 

 

Well what did you expect? You expected me to spell out exactly what happened, and give source material to back it up?

Instead of expecting ME to do that, why don't you do it yourself?

 

20 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Assuming the answer fails definitionally to meet the definition of reasoned

 

Well I thought it was reasonable to conclude that the CIA might have been aware of Azcue being replaced.

And apparently I was right! Because David Boylan has shown in his post above that the CIA did indeed know of Azcue's replacement! Thanks David.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

23 hours ago, David Boylan said:

The CIA's SAS branch was well aware of Azcue's pending departure date of 10/4/63. Win Scott was putting on pressure to recruit him prior to this date.

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

I understand of course the CIA is monitoring Soviet activity in Mexico and Azcue in particular, whom CIA would like to recruit although they state he is not a likely target for such.  No mystery there.  This understanding however does nothing towards clarifying why CIA would blow it's own monitoring operation by including information in a forged Oswald letter that would reveal the existence of the monitoring.

 

I don't know about your theory Matt, but in my theory the mention of Azcue's replacement in the Kostin Letter does NOT blow the cover on the CIA's monitoring operation of the Cuban Consulate, or of Eusebio Azcue.

According to my theory, yes the letter was written by the CIA plotters... BUT the only thing the Soviets would think when they received the letter was that it was OSWALD who was aware of Azcue's replacement. Not the CIA. (Of course, Oswald was oblivious to the whole thing.)

As a matter of fact, this dovetails nicely with how the CIA plotters made it look like Oswald was in cahoots with the Cubans! First, Elena Garro's accusations that Oswald was friendly with Silvia Duran and a bunch of her associates, and then Gilberto Alvarado's accusation that Oswald was paid $6500 in the Cuban Consulate for the killing. Well, the mention of Azcue's replacement in "Oswald's" Kostin letter made it appear that Oswald was VERY familiar with the goings on at the Cuban Consulate!

 

So the Kostin letter accomplished two things. It showed the FBI -- in their assassination investigation -- that Oswald was dealing with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov; AND that Oswald was very familiar with the Cuban Consulate's goings on.

No wonder J. Edgar Hoover seriously considered that a communist plot was behind the assassination.