“BELIEVE FACT THAT LITENSOR AWARE OF THIS CONTACT (FROM OUR JOINT OPERATION) AND PASSED DATA TO COS IMPORTANT”
Winston Scott, Mexico City Chief of Station, November 23, 1963 (1)
Sometime this past August I began a project that I think will benefit the entire research community. I hope to complete it before the new year. In the work that I have done, I came across a document that I felt may open up doors for us getting to the truth in Mexico City. Others have identified this document in their work, but for me, it was new and fresh and raises many questions. Sometimes, renewed examination can spur on research being conducted by others in the community.
The document indicates that the President of Mexico (Litensor)Adolfo Lopez Mateos (3) met with Winston Scott, CIA Station Chief, on November 23, 1963. Scott states in this cable to CIA that he thought the meeting would be about the President of Mexico expressing his condolences. It turns out, the meeting was to provide the CIA with information about Lee Harvey Oswald’s phone call to the Cuban embassy on September 28, 1963. (4) The interesting part about this cable is that there was nothing in the September 28, 1963 phone calls that identified Oswald. Why did the president bring this phone call to Scott’s attention and not the calls that were made later, in which the caller identified himself as Oswald? Why did Winston Scott himself close out the cable stating the importance of this information?
Not only was the Mexican government on top of the phone calls, they were also following up on leads, further indicating that they were moving faster than the CIA in following up on the Oswald story in Mexico City. At 5PM on November 23 the same day Scott met with the president, the CIA had to cancel its surveillance of KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov because they were bumping into Mexican Secret Service Agents already on the job. It was clear that the Mexican Government was working off of the same tapes of the LIENVOY operations. In addition, the cable makes special note that the CIA had not told the Mexican authorities about Kostikov and the fact that he had met with Oswald. (5)
This raises a number of questions. The Lienvoy operation, as detailed by Bill Simpich in his book, State Secret (6), was a joint operation between the United States and Mexico. It should have been obvious to the President of Mexico that the United States would have had access to the information about the phone call. Why did he think it important enough to have a face to face meeting with Scott? Why did they use such an important channel to communicate this information?
There are further questions that come to mind when referring to this information. We know that recordings were made by the United States and that testimony indicates they were erased prior to the assassination. This is a huge controversy! Were they erased? Were they not erased? Did the Mexican government also posses tapes? Was the Mexican government running their own operations independent of the CIA? There has to be an explanation for the fact that the President of Mexico delivered this message!
The CIA agents from Mexico City claimed that the tapes were erased, yet there is evidence that FBI Agents heard the tapes and reported it was not Oswald. This controversy has NEVER been satisfactorily answered for many researchers. I contend that both are possible to be accurate when taking into consideration that the Mexican government clearly had access to the recordings as well based on this documented cable. It is possible that the CIA told the truth, they did erase the tapes and that the tapes that the FBI listened to came from the Mexican government. Hoover certainly had his own connections in Mexico City and if the Government of Mexico had tapes, they certainly would not have wanted this information out there. It would also make sense, that they would not ever have admitted that the Mexican government was working on them with the wiretapping project.
The final piece to this document is the routing slip that I have located for the cable. It indicates that Winston Scott may have created a memorandum about his contact with the President of Mexico. If there is a memorandum, I have not been able to locate it. It most certainly would contain more information about this cable, and add clarity to the conversation about the wiretap.
My hope is that with all of the outstanding researchers in the community, that maybe we can find the memo the Scott wrote about this interaction. In addition, are there people out there, who know how to access information from the Mexican government? Do they still possess the tapes or the transcripts? Did they have other information that we are not aware of that would be beneficial in our search for the truth? There is evidence that they were moving faster than our own CIA in the investigation of Oswald in Mexico City. Did they run an investigation of him at the time of Oswald’s visit? Have we truly explored all of the avenues including those independent of our own government archives? I am wondering what Adolfo Lopez Mateos had in his own files about what transpired between himself and Win Scott.
I apologize for the questions throughout the blog today, as they have been bottled up inside of me for months.
Matt “Hitman” Scheufele 11/26/2015
(1) NARA Record Number: 104-10422-10149 CABLE: COS HAD URGENT CALL TO SEE LITENSOR 23 NOV
(2) Great Crackdowns in CIA History: LITEMPO and The Tlatelolco Massacre
(3) State Secret Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald by Bill Simpich
(4) NARA Record Number: 104-10422-10149 CABLE: COS HAD URGENT CALL TO SEE LITENSOR 23 NOV
(5)NARA Record Number: 104-10438-10094 CABLE: TEAM REPORTS KOSTIKOV UNDER MEXICAN SURVEILLANCE
(6) State Secret Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald by Bill Simpich
(7)NARA Record Number: 104-10055-10045 CONDOLENCES OVER LOSS OF PRES KENNEDY AND OSWALD CALLS TO SOVIET EMBASSY IN MEXICO
There is no credible evidence that Billy Lovelady was not the man photographed in the famous photograph known as Altgens-6. This photograph was taken just after the second shot was fired at President Kennedy. The President’s hands are up around his throat indicating he had been hit. What many people who claim Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent have clung to over the years, is that it was Lee Harvey Oswald on the steps of the Book Depository in the background . They are grasping at straws and to sustain this theory requires great magic tricks.
Here are the police reports, including the statements, and the affidavits of the people who were indeed present on the steps. You can read them for yourselves, or you can take my word, that not one single person who was present on the steps, mentions Lee Harvey Oswald being there. I place these links here to allow the first hand witnesses be heard above the noise of the people who profess falsehoods in their attempts to erase the historical record showing no care or concern for the truth.
Finally, I leave you with the FBI report from 1964 when this was first investigated. Those who continue to cling to this fallacy caused it to be investigated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977. The Committee came to the same conclusion that Billy Lovelady was on the steps.
Once again, Ms. Baker is taking historical documents and working them into the “Mythological World of Oswald” as told by Judyth Vary Baker. Ms. Baker’s hypothesis is that the FBI lied by typing over a report changing the time of Officer JD Tippit’s death from 1:15 to 1:25. (1)
The first document that Ms. Baker refers to in her post is the authorization for an autopsy to be completed on Officer JD Tippit. It is a document completed by the Justice of the Peace, Joe B. Brown Jr. authorizing Dr. Earl F. Rose to complete an autopsy on the slain police officer. (2)
In looking at the document, it should be noted that Ms. Baker correctly identifies the time of death as 1:15 PM on November 22, 1963. What is absent from Ms. Baker’s use of this document is the comment next to it that says “D O A Methodist Hospital”. What this does is establish that Tippit arrived at the hospital dead. This arrival time was at 1:15 PM. The reality is we do not know what time Tippit died based on this document because he was not alive when he arrived. The body of the text on this form clearly states that he was dead on arrival at the hospital. The document was signed by Brown at 3:00 PM giving permission for the autopsy and for the release of the body to the Dudley Funeral Home after its completion. We know that Dr. Rose began his autopsy at 3:15 minutes after Judge Brown signed the authorization. (3)
Ms. Baker takes this document and compares it to an FBI report completed on November 29, 1963 by FBI Agent Robert C. Lish. She claims that the FBI typed over the document changing the time from 1:15 to 1:25. The document that she cites to make this claim is a report filed by Special Agent Robert C. Lish. on November 29, 1963. This document indicates that JD Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:25 PM. SA Lish is reporting on the paperwork on Officer Tippit in possession of the Dudley Funeral Home. The report shows that Officer Tippet was pronounced dead by Dr. Liguori at 1:25 PM.
One must ask, why would this document say 3:25? Did the funeral home make a mistake? It is based on the funeral home documents that SA NISH created this report so that can explain why it has 3:25 in his document. Fortunately a very important person, Dr. Ligouri was also interviewed. SA Nish reports that Dr. Ligouri stated that Officer Tippit was “pronounced dead” by him at 3:25. Why would Dr. Ligouri state to the FBI that he was dead at 3:25? It is easy to jump to the conclusion that this document was also altered to incriminate Lee Oswald. Or it was typed on the same typewriter that just does not effectively do its job. (4)
So what explains the discrepancy? Going back to the first document, the 1:15 would demonstrate the time of arrival based on the way autopsy request is written. It does not indicate is the time he was pronounced dead. What happens when a person is brought into a hospital? The doctors in the emergency room very often take measures to revive the person who is laying before them on the table. They do not pronounce the patient dead and then begin life saving measures. As a matter of fact, one would imagine that in 1963 there would have been as much a sense of urgency to save a police officer as there was to save President Kennedy. Is there evidence that this took place?
It turns out there is evidence that this did take place. A Dallas police officer responding to the call of Tippit being shot, intercepted the ambulance on the way to the hospital. The two officers, (5) RA Davenport and WR Bardin also place the time of death at 1:15. This actually looks like they had originally put 1:25 and then retyped over it. Changing it back to 1:15. The point is however that he was dead upon arrival at 1:15 according to the document signed by Judge Brown. The interesting part of their report is that they wrote about the doctor taking life saving measures attempting to bring Tippit “back to life”. When examining the radio traffic of the Dallas Police Department, the radio transmission to the patrol cars indicated that at 1:28 PM an announcement was made over the radio waves that it was Officer JD Tippit who had been shot and believe to be pronounced DOA. (6) All of this fits perfectly with the following timeline:
1:08 Tippit radios in about suspicious person (Police Transmission Time)
1:15 Tippit arrives at the hospital. (Hospital Time)
1:15-1:25 Life saving measures begin. (Hospital Time)
1:25 Dr. Ligouri Prounces Tippit Dead (Hospital Time)
1:28 Announcement of Tippit DOA over the radio. (Police Transmission Time)
Keeping in mind that these times, are not on the synchronized atomic clocks that work with our cell phones. There is the potential for differences in the timeline but it is a finite twenty minute timeline in length. The point is yet again, Ms. Baker is taking liberties with historical documents to make a hypothesis that would have involved many moving parts. The Dallas police reports would have had to have been doctored, since Officer Tippit’s murder would have been under their jurisdiction and this would have to align with the FBI reports, the hospital documents, the funeral home documents and every individual report filed by a police officer. Judge Brown and Dr. Ligouri would have had to have been complicit in this as well as the police officers who were in the emergency room with Tippit. To support her hypothesis there would be too many moving parts to sustain it. The timeline presented here works and makes sense. Once again, the Baker Oswald Mythology is not sustainable with this evidence that supports a reasonable explanation.
“When you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that’s where you get people to believe…”
Glenn Beck, June 8, 2006
JUDYTH BAKER INCORRECTLY CLAIMS THAT THE CIA DID NOT KNOW THAT OSWALD WAS IN MEXICO CITY ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1963
Judyth Baker claimed on August 5, 2015 many things about Oswald and his trip to Mexico City in her attempt to attack a critic of her book. Her post is a perfect representation of how to blend fact into a story to created a believed myth. “NOTE THAT THE CIA LOOKED FOR LEE IN MEXICO CITY BY SEPT, 27 –BEFORE THAT DATE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THEM.” (1) Ms. Baker begins to use the Lopez Report to support her claims. The Lopez Report which does indeed state they were unable to determine how or why headquarters cabled the CIA in Mexico City directing them to investigate the transcripts back to September 27. This statement in the Lopez report was in reference to a cable sent by Birch O’Neil to Mexico City requesting that they begin their search for information about Oswald starting on September 27.(2)
THE LOPEZ REPORT ACTUALLY LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN TO THE FACT THAT THE CIA MAY HAVE HAD OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
What Baker does not point out is that the report also was open to the possibility that there was human intelligence shared between the FBI and the CIA about the dates. The report continues by stating that it does not really matter how the information was acquired by the CIA, but that it does mean that CIA headquarters was possibly aware of these visits prior to the assassination. This article supports their conclusion. The Lopez report does not indicate that the CIA knew about the visit prior to the actual visits as Baker leads her followers to believe. Baker, leaving out the fact that the Lopez report was open to other investigative means to determine the September 27, 1963 date is the perfect example of how a little truth being excluded can support the myth. (3) The next page of the Lopez Report addresses this issue further stating that there were cables to headquarters that contained information that linked Oswald’s October 1 phone call to a visit to the phone call from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy on September 28. (4)The knowledge of these cables alone could have been the reason Birch O’Neil expanded the search. This hypothesis does not hold true when looking at the evidence. The answer to how Birch O’Neil knew to expand the search to September 27 will be explained as we consider other sources of information.
THE CIA INVESTIGATED OSWALD’S VISIT TO THE SOVIET EMBASSY RISKING ASSETS TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE THE EMBASSY
Col. Oleg Nechiporenko was the KGB Colonel who first interviewed Oswald on September 27, 1963 inside the Soviet Embassy. As Nechiporenko tells the story, Valerie Kostikov passed Oswald onto Nechiporenko after an amusing interaction between Oswald and Kostikov. Oswald did not think Kostiov was a Russian and had requested to speak with a Soviet. (5) As Nochiporenko conducted his interview with Oswald, he said that he “silently cursed” Kostikov for it because as their conversation continued, he lost interest in Oswald. (6) It is also interesting to note that Nechiporenko says Oswald’s Russian was terrible, “…his pronunciation was bad, and he really mangled the grammar…” (7)
Nechiporenko writes that the CIA attempted to get information about the Oswald visit to their embassy through someone named John. KGB Pavel Yastikov was the target of a CIA operation prior to the assassination in 1963 by the CIA by LIOVAL-1, John Emil Blankenship, an American professor in Mexico City who taught English at a college. (8) While the connection between LIOVAL-1 was made prior to the assassination in early 1963, LIOVAL-1 was used to gain information about Oswald’s visit to the Soviet Embassy since Yastikov had interviewed Oswald on September 28th with KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov.(9) LIOVAL-1 referred to in Nechiporenko’s book was given the name “Pez” when he took on an operational interest after he asked them questions about Oswald’s trips to the Soviet Embassy. This line of questioning by LIOVAL-1 was reported to CIA Headquarters in June 1964. (10) LIOVAL-1 reported that Yastikov wished to purchase the same type of rifle used by Kennedy’s assassination. He also reported that Oswald’s erratic behavior inside of the Soviet Embassy, led Yastikov to believe that Oswald did not have the ability to assassinate Kennedy. The CIA decided to attempt to recruit Yastikov through LIOVAL-1, but there were also concerns that LIOVAL-1 had been recruited by the Soviets.(11) This conclusion was based on the assessment of another Soviet Defector who reviewed the voluminous Yastikov Mexico City P-File, the bulk of which came from LIOVAL-1 who went fishing with Yastikov two weekends a month.(12)Four years of developing a friendship around fishing trips resulted in Yastikov being given an offer by the CIA.(13)
CHIEF OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE JAMES JESUS ANGLETON HAD OTHER SOURCES TO INVESTIGATE WHAT TRANSPIRED INSIDE THE EMBASSY
The CIA had other sources and methods connected to famed mole hunter James Jesus Angleton. LIOVAL-1 was managed by Paul Dillon. (14) Dillon was in charge of many aspects of operations involving the Soviet Union including defector Yuri Nosenko. Based on the recruitment attempt of Yastikov and the defection of Nosenko, there is little doubt that Paul Dillon worked with Angleton. (15) Angleton (Pseudonym Kingsman) was immediately involved on November 22 in communication with Mexico City. Angleton had transcripts of phone calls made by Luisa Calderone, a Cuban Embassy Employee who was caught on the wiretap joking about the Kennedy Assassination on November 22 saying, “I knew about it before Kennedy.”(16) . The interesting thing about these transcripts to Angleton is that there does not appear to be a record of cable traffic to document it, just a hand written note. (17) Either Angleton was in Mexico City and it was handed to him or there appears to be a backdoor channel by which information was sent to Angleton directly because there is no evidence that this was sent to Angleton through cable traffic. If the transcripts were sent out through cable traffic, why did they not send the transcript directly to JC King (Galbond) directly? This note leads one to believe that this was filtered top down according to this from Angleton down to King. Additionally, the handwritten note specifically states that they were not yet sharing this information with the FBI, indicating that they were protecting their source, HTLINGUAL.
THESE SOURCES MAY HAVE TRIGGERED THE SEPTEMBER 27 CABLE FROM HEADQUARTERS
Two logical hypothesis that can be produced from this information. One hypothesis is that it was practice to send transcripts to Angleton on Soviet targets, possibly though backdoor channels. Another hypotheseis is that LIOVAL-1 could very well have provided information prior to the assassination about the visit from one of his fishing trips with Yastikov. The transcript hypothesis make more sense, as it was clear they were trying to figure out who the man was that visited the Cubans and Soviets on September 27th. A review at HQ by Angleton’s staff would have helped to widen the focus of the investigation. The Lopez Report is open to this as has been pointed out above. However, there is a more likely hypothesis that needs to be explored. While plausible, these two hypothesis lack a sound basis in evidence. The most plausible hypothesis is that there was another source of information which interestingly enough, turns out to be Lee Harvey Oswald himself.
BAKER CLAIMS THE CIA WAS FRAMING OSWALD TO LOOK BAD BY MEETING WITH KGB ASSASSINATIONS AGENT VALERIE KOSTIKOV
Baker asserts that the CIA was framing Oswald with a meeting with Kostikov.(18) As you will see, Oswald himself ties himself to Kostikov, without the help of the CIA. All of the evidence above and the investigation by LIOVAL-1 does not point to anyone framing Oswald. It points to the CIA painstakingly trying to figure out what happened inside of the Soviet Embassy into mid 1964. This was done even at the risk of compromising the relationship between LIOVAL-1 and Yastikov as written about by Nechiporenko. The CIA tried desperately to figure out if it was Kostikov. Is this the behavior of an organization trying to frame Oswald, or is it the behavior by the CIA desperately trying to determine if the Soviet Union was behind the assassination?
OSWALD’S OWN LETTER DISPROVES BAKER’S CLAIMS HE WAS ON ASSIGNMENT FOR THE CIA
Oswald wrote to the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC in early November about his meeting with Kostikov. He wrote about his dislike for the Cuban Consulate Azcue who went back to Cuba after Oswald’s visit and wrote with praise for the people inside of the Soviet Embassy. This letter demolishes the Oswald Myth created by Baker. First, if Oswald was on an aborted mission, and did everything he could in Mexico City to get to Cuba there was no reason to write the Soviet Embassy because the mission was over. (19) Most important however, is the fact that there is no reason to frame Oswald with anything, he identified meeting with “Kostin” (Kostikov) in his letter. Baker’s Oswald Mythology continues to fall apart.
THE CIA LETTER OPENING PROGRAM HTLINGUAL WAS RUN BY JAMES ANGLETON
So the question becomes did the CIA know about this letter? The CIA HTLINGUAL program was a mail opening program that was run out of the office of James Jesus Angleton. Oswald was on the list for mail opening since his attempt to defect to the Soviet Union. (20) He stayed on the list for nine months. (21) However, they were still intercepting mail going into the Soviet Embassy in DC. As is indicated in the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation, these intercepts would not have been stored in any persons 201 file due to the secrecy of the program. As of November 26, Angleton himself had reviewed an FBI report and through HTLINGUAL sources informed J. Edgar Hoover that Oswald had used the name “Alik” and that this may be “significant” in relation to the Alex Hidell name associated with Oswald. (22) The most logical conclusion is that in addition to providing the FBI with the information about Oswald’s nickname to the FBI, the information gained from HTLINGUAL determined to expand the search for information in Mexico City to September 27, 1963.
HTLINGUAL INTERCEPTED OSWALD’S NOVEMBER 9 LETTER PRIOR TO THE ASSASSINATION
Is there evidence that the HTLINGUAL program intercepted the Oswald letter? The FBI had decided in 1958 to speak to the post office about starting a letter opening program. They were informed that they were a little late, that the CIA already had one operating. (23) One can only wonder how Hoover reacted to find that the CIA was conducting a domestic operation on American citizens. What we do know, is that the FBI was receiving information from this program. The FBI had a typed copy of Oswald’s letter and had distributed the letter to the FBI Office in Dallas TX. prior to the assassination. (24) James Hosty writes in his book, Assignment Oswald, that it was part of the Oswald file, and that he did not have the ability to question the Oswald’s about it because it would have revealed the mail opening program to the Oswalds. (25) On November 23, Hosty acquired a hand written rough draft written by Oswald from the Paine residence. (26) In addition to this, the Soviet Ambassador provided the state department with the letter itself on November 30. (27)The signature on the typed letter demonstrates that Oswald signed the letter himself. The letter would become part of the Warren Report as CE-315. Without a doubt, the CIA and FBI must have enjoyed the fact that they no longer had to protect the HTLINGUAL source because of this information from the Soviets.
JAMES ANGLETON POSSESSED ALL OF THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO EXPAND THE SEARCH TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1963
What this does mean is that James Angleton upon reading the letter in his files, knew instantly that Oswald had visited the Cuban Embassy prior to his visit to the Soviet Embassy. It is entirely logical that Angleton would then expand the known day that the Oswald cable of October 8, 1963 indicated the visit of Saturday, September 28th to Friday, September 27th as the Cuban Consulate was traditionally closed on Saturday. Birch O’Neil, Angleton’s right hand man, sent the cable that widened the search by a day. (28) A little over five hours after receiving that cable, Mexico City had found the transcripts of phone calls that seemed to indicate that Oswald had been in the Cuban Embassy based on a conversations between Sylvia Duran and KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov indicating that Oswald had been in both embassies on Friday, September 27th. (29) Like a master spy, Angleton confirmed the information in Oswald’s letter about being in the Cuban Embassy without letting Mexico City know he had intelligence about this. More importantly to the CIA, why was Oswald in contact with the head of KGB Assassinations in the region?
MEXICO CITY ESTABLISHES OSWALD’S ARRIVAL TIME TWO HOURS LATER
In Mexico City, Clark Anderson of the FBI was furnished information on November 23 that Lee Harvey Oswald had entered Mexico on September 26, 1963 at Laredo. Clark Anderson was involved in almost all decisions around the investigation being conducted in Mexico City. But the fact that he knew when Oswald crossed the border would also have been reported to Washington and it is perfectly logical that headquarters limited the search to these dates. (30)Ambassador Mann sent a telegram to the Secretary of State at 9:00 PM indicating that they had contacted all US Consular Border posts and requested a search. By the evening shift Mexico City had been informed that Oswald had entered via Laredo on September 26. (31) Win Scott sent a memo indicating that the Laredo Consulate notified the ambassador at 7:00 PM of Oswald’s entry on September 26. (32)The 7:00 AM notes of the Mexico City Station on what they knew on November 24 indicated that they knew exactly the date Oswald entered into Mexico as well. (33) There was no need to expand LIENVOY before this date.
BAKER INCORRECTLY ASSERTS THAT THE OCTOBER 10 CABLE WAS UNSOLICITED
Baker continues making her point implying that the CIA Headquarters sent unsolicited information about Oswald to Station Chief Win Scott on October 10, 1963. “FOR WHY WOULD CIA SEND A CABLE TO MEXICO CITY ON OCT. 10, 1963, ABOUT LEE OSWALD UNLESS IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR MEXICO CITY’s CIA STATION CHIEF TO KNOW ABOUT LEE OSWALD?” (34) Ms. Baker is historically accurate to stating that headquarters did send information to Win Scott, Chief of Station, Mexico City.(34) CIA Headquarters did not send this cable to Mexico City unsolicited as Baker claims! To fully understand how and why this CABLE was sent, one must look at all of the events prior to it being sent.
On September 27, 1963 at 4:05 PM the CIA phone intercept program, LIENVOY intercepted a phone call from Sylvia Duran inside of the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy.(35) It was this phone call that was finally attributed to Oswald when Mexico City expanded their search to September 27th at the request of Birch O’Neil. The phone call was translated and on the morning of September 28 it was in the hands of Win Scott. The conversation was of immediate interest to Win Scott because, although it did not have a name attached to it, Duran stated that she had an American with her who wanted a travel VISA to get to the Soviet Union. As part of the station protocol, any American or English speaking person that made contact with either the Cuban or the Soviet Embassies were a priority for the station.
WIN SCOTT WANTED THE UNIDENTIFIED AMERICAN IDENTIFIED
Scott wrote on the top of the transcripts, “Is it possible to identify?” He wanted to know who the American was. The transcript demonstrates that on September 28, 1963 Win Scott was curious about who the American was inside of the embassy with Duran on Friday, September 27, 1963. (36) The LIENVOY program and it’s operations are well documented in Bill Simpich’s work, State Secret. This operation was one of the most closely guarded secrets. Win Scott, received all of the transcripts every day and read them personally and he was aware that there was an American inside of the Cuban Embassy who had visited the Soviet Embassy. They were not able to take action or link this to Oswald until after the assassination of President Kennedy.
The CIA could not do anything about the phone calls of September 27th phone calls because they were phone calls in which no name was identified. It was not until October 1, 1963 that a phone call was made in which the caller used the name “Lee Oswald”.
1. ACC LIENVOY 1 OCT 63, AMERICAN MALE WHO SPOKE BROKEN RUSSIAN SAID HIS NAME LEE OSWALD (PHONETIC), STATED HE AT SOVEMB ON 28 SEPT WHEN SPOKE WITH CONSUL WHOM HE BELIEVED BE VALERIY VLAMIMIIOVI KOSTIKIV. SUBJ ASKED SOV GUARD IVAN OBEYDKOV WHO ANSWERED, IF THERE ANYTING NEW RE TELEGRAM TO WASHINGTON. OBEYDKOV UPON CHECKING SAID NOTHING RECEIVED YET, BUT REQUEST HAD BEEN SENT. (37)
CIA CABLE MEXI 6453 PROVES THAT MEXICO CITY REQUESTED THE INFORMATION
This cable is famous because it contained the photograph of the “Mystery Man” and the description of an individual who was not Oswald. The cable had inaccurately linked the man who made the phone call to the man in the photographs. This cable has provided the fuel to the fire that the “Mystery Man” was impersonating Oswald for years. This cable was sent on October 9, 1963 to headquarters. This cable, MEXI 6453 absolutely proves that Ms. Baker has completely misrepresented the October 10, 1963 Cable in her attempt to prove that the CIA sent Oswald to Mexico City.
The highlighted portion of this is used to demonstrate the tracking numbers used by the CIA in their cables. The highlighted portion of this cable indicates that the cable was sent from Mexico City (MEXI) and the number assigned to the cable was 6453. These numbers were specific to cables and were sent in sequential order. The next cable from Mexico City would be 6454. Note the date of the cable is October 9, 1963.
The numbers on the cable are very important. It will be used in any and all cables between headquarters about this cable so that it can be referenced. Headquarters responded to this cable with the information about Lee Harvey Oswald. The point is there is absolutely no evidence that headquarters wanted to notify Win Scott about Lee Harvey Oswald’s presence in Mexico City. The October 10th cable that Baker references does not prove that Oswald was working in an operational capacity because it was a response to information sent from Mexico City.
When examining the October 10, 1963 it clearly identifies that headquarters is responding to Mexico City with information about Oswald. It is a response, it is not unsolicited as she would have her readers believe. The highlighted section clearly identifies the reference to cable 6453. This is the prime example of how an actual historical document can be used to perpetuate a myth. It is not an accurate portrayal of the historical record that has been so carefully presented by the research of John Newman, Bill Simpich, and Jefferson Morely. All who have painstakingly written great works that explain the CIA operations in Mexico City. While there are issues raised by these cables and their content, it is not remotely fair to the historical record to use these primary sources or to imply that the works of Newman and Morely somehow support the claims she makes in reference to these documents.
FACTS VERSES THE BAKER MYTH
The facts in this article clearly demonstrate how a little bit of truth has been worked into the Oswald mythology created by Author Judyth Baker. Lee Harvey Oswald visited Mexico City. The CIA in Mexico City was attempting to figure out who he was as of September 28. On October 9 there was a cable sent from Mexico City that triggered information about Oswald on October 10 from CIA Headquarters. It was not unsolicited information, as Ms. Baker would have us believe, nor does it prove that he was working in an operational capacity.
Five hours after Birch O’Neil, under the direction of James Jesus Angleton expanded the search for information in a cable to Mexico City asking them to start searching on September 27, 1963 for information about Oswald the September 27th transcripts were linked to Oswald. It was information that Lee Harvey Oswald himself had unwittingly provided to the CIA and FBI when he wrote the Russian Embassy in Washington D.C. on November 9, 1963. This letter was intercepted by HTLINGUAL, a program run by James Jesus Angleton. While Ms. Baker is correct that the Lopez report indicated that there was evidence that CIA Headquarters may have had prior knowledge of the trip she fails to mention that the report leaves the door open to leads that came from other sources. The record shows, that there was no knowledge of this information prior to the HTLINGUAL intercepted letter of November 9. This ends the myth that the Birch O’Neil cable somehow proves that the CIA knew of Lee Harvey Oswald’s trip to Mexico City prior to the trip.
The investigation conducted by the CIA after the assassination does not support prior knowledge of Oswald’s visit from an operational sense. Baker has claimed that Oswald was debriefed upon his return. The work of LIOVAL-1 in the year after the assassination does not support this. The CIA would have no reason to be investigating what had transpired in the Soviet Embassy if Oswald had been “debriefed”. It does not support her assertion that they were setting Oswald up with Kostikov to frame him. There would have been no need for further investigation. What the record shows is that they risked the LIOVAL-1 operation, which appears to have been a recruitment operation, to learn what had happened inside of the Soviet Embassy. The record shows, that they were attempting to determine what if any contact had happened with Kostikov. It does not support the Oswald Mythology as told by Judy Baker.
Ms. Baker continues to blur the historical record leading people down the path of the Oswald Mythology that she has created. Her continued efforts to support this myth, by including historically accurate information, would lend the casual reader to find her knowledgeable and supported by the historical record. The Oswald Mythology that she wants us to believe has not been accurate about Kerry Thornley, Eric Rogers, Sylvia Duran, and now Oswald’s trip to Mexico City. Sadly, she is becoming one of the main impediments to us gaining access to the truth.
Included below the sources is her post of August 5, 2015 as a record of her continued attempts to bolster this mythology at the expense of the truth.
Matt “The Hitman” Scheufele
September 4, 2015
A special thanks to Rob Clark and Bill Simpich. Rob’s podcast introduced me to Nochiporenko’s book. Bill Simpich continues to speak with me about the Mexico City operations. Both of you have been tremendous inspirations for my work.
Recently author Judyth Vary Baker used some historical documents to make some points on Facebook that were not accurately portrayed. Much like the inaccurate insertion of Kerry Thornley and Eric Rogers into her memoir she has recently taken some events that occurred in Mexico City and has attempted to use them to support her story. This is part one of a two part response to her claims on her Facebook page. She takes aim at the CIA and Sylvia Duran in her post. These assertions do not stand up when examined with all of the evidence you will see in this article.
SYLVIA DURAN’S ARREST IS QUITE LOGICAL
Sylvia Duran was arrested twice by the Mexican authorities. What Baker makes seems sinister is actually very logical. Duran was arrested initially because she did not have any kind of diplomatic cover. Duran was recorded on a tape of two phone calls from the Cuban Embassy to the Soviet Embassy on September 27,1963. The phone calls were made on behalf of an unidentified America looking to travel to Cuba. Duran was a Mexican Citizen and therefore was easily apprehended without causing an international incident (1) She was not arrested to torture her and get her to confess to an affair, she was arrested the first time because of the phone call and the fact that this phone call had been tied to Lee Harvey Oswald’s visit to Mexico City.
CIA HEADQUARTERS DID NOT WANT DURAN ARRESTED
The first arrest and the second arrests of Duran were not authorized by CIA headquarters. At the time of the first arrest, a phone call from Chief of the Western Hemisphere/3 John Whitten (Pseudonym John Scelso) to Win Scott requested that Duran NOT be arrested, but Scott informed him it was too late. (2) This is also documented in a cable from CIA Mexico City to headquarters stating, “…SYLVIA DURAN AND HER HUSBAND HAD ALREADY BEEN ARRESTED.”(3) Whitten responded with a cable from headquarters to the Mexico City Station.
1. ARREST OF SILVIA DURAN IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS MATTER WHICH COULD PREJUDICE ODYOKE (UNITED STATES) FREEDOM OF ACTION ON ENTIRE QUESTION OF PBRUMEN (CUBAN) RESPONSIBILITY. WITH FULL REGARD FOR MEXICAN INTERESTS, REQUEST YOU ENSURE THAT HER ARREST IS KEPT ABSOLUTELY SECRET NO INFORMATION FROM HER IS PUBLISHED OR LEAKED, THAT ALL SUCH INFO IS CABLES TO US, AND THAT FACT OF HER ARREST AND HER STATEMENTS ARE NOT SPREAD TO LEFTIST OR DISLOYAL CIRCLES IN THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT
2. WE ARE TRYING TO GET MORE INFO ON OSWALD FROM ODENVY (FBI) AND WILL ADVISE DIRECTOR THROUGH ODENVY (FBI) MEXI.,., (4)
Deputy Station Chief, Alan White cabled headquarters on November 24, 1963 about the results of the Duran interrogation. Sylvia Duran and her entire family who were having a party were arrested. Duran blamed a relative for her arrest, so the CIA was not connected by her to her arrest, and the phone taps were still secret. The interrogation revealed that Oswald thought he would be able to travel to Cuba through an arrangement with the Soviets. That this was not so, and he was rude to the Soviets and that he became abusive in the Cuban Embassy when his efforts to get to Cuba were thwarted. (5) In addition, a human source within the Cuban Embassy explained that Duran returned to the embassy, satisfied with the way she had conducted herself during the arrest. The source reported that she had returned to work on November 25th. Interestingly the source inside of the embassy states that she “had no fear of confrontation.” (6)
DURAN PHYSICALLY FOUGHT WITH THE POLICE AT THE TIME OF HER ARREST
Duran testified before the HSCA in 1978. She spoke of her arrest and provided the committee with details about her arrest. Duran did not go quietly stating that when they told her she was being arrested, she refused to go with the police officers wishing to see a judges order. They then proceeded to put their hands on her, they grabbed her hands and she began to kick them to try and stop them from taking her. She stated that they covered her mouth and loaded her into a station wagon. (7) This is the only time she refers to being physically handled by the Mexican authorities in her testimony. Later in the questioning, the physicality of the arrest was again brought up and brought up the man she kicked in the “balls” at the first arrest was quite upset when they arrested her the second time. She admits she was scared, and they attempted to intimidate her, but she says she answered all of their questions truthfully. (8)
THE ALVARDO STORY CAUSED AMBASSADOR MANN TO WANT DURAN REARRESTED
After Sylvia Duran was released from her first interview, a man by the name of Gilberto Alvarado contacted the American Embassy on November 25, 1963 with a story that he witnessed Lee Harvey Oswald receive $6,500 from a red-haired Cuban inside the Cuban Embassy on September 18, 1963. Alvardo described that Oswald was friendly with a female employee of the embassy. (9) There is plenty to the Alvarado story that can be written but this is not the focus of this article. David Atlee Phillips was responsible for initially investigating Alvarado’s story, and initially found his story to be credible and his the cable to CIA indicated, Alvardo was able to identify members of the Cuban Embassy from photographs and what their jobs were within the embassy. (10) The investigation of Alvarado began to not ring true and by November 27, 1963 the CIA reported their doubts of his story to the FBI and Washington, DC, with the hypothesis that the story Alvarado was telling was designed by the government of Nicaragua to worsen relations between the US and Cuba. (11)
Alvardo’s story again focused the CIA’s attention on Sylvia Duran. It was not to establish that she had an affair. Duran was the ONLY person who was employed in the embassy who did not have diplomatic immunity. There was a communication from CIA headquarters again stressing that they did not want Sylvia Duran arrested. This appears to be in direct response to Ambassador Mann wanting to pursue the Cuban Assassination angle to its fullest potential. (12) On the same day there was a second communication from CIA headquarters again stressing that they did not want Sylvia Duran arrested but to place her under direct surveillance of the CIA or the Mexican authorities. This direction was in direct response to investigate the Alvarado story further. (13)
DURAN ARRESTED AGAIN AGAINST THE WISHES OF CIA HEADQUARTERS
Despite the directive from headquarters, the Mexican authorities decided to arrest Sylvia Duran. At 12:15 on November 27, Scott was notified that Mexican authorities had arrested Duran. (14) This information was passed from CIA headquarters directly to the White House. (15) Duran however, testified before the HSCA that she was not planning on leaving the country for Cuba. (16)
It is well documented that Ambassador Mann believed that there was a Cuban conspiracy that was being uncovered in Mexico City. He was frustrated by CIA headquarters, and my suspicion is that the Mexican authorities were directed through informal channels to arrest Sylvia Duran a second time. Ambassador Mann himself cabled CIA headquarters stating that there were two stories circulating from the Mexican Police, that Duran was arrested because she was going to leave for Cuba and a later story that they were trying to prevent her from leaving because she was a witness. This cable includes a firm statement from the Ambassador that they had not directed the Mexican authorities to arrest Duran. However, the cable exemplifies the ferocity in Mann’s desire to chase down the Alvarado lead by asking for permission to arrest Cuban consular officers Eusebio Azcue, Alfredo Mirabal, and secretary Luisa Calderon, all of whom were Cuban nationals. Luisa Calderon was identified as the woman that Avarado claimed was communicating with Oswald. In addition she was recorded on the wiretap of the embassy joking that she knew about the assassination before Kennedy (17). It is no wonder that Ambassador Mann believed the Alvarado story and wanted it pursued to the point where he wanted Cuban diplomats arrested. (18)
The rearrest prompted this response from Richard Helms at headquarters:
…TO BE CERTAIN THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US, WE WANT TO INSURE THAT NEITHER SLVIA DURAN NOR CUBANS GET IMPRESSION THAT AMERICANS BEHIND HER REARREST. IN OTHER WORDS WE WANT MEXICAN AUTHORITIES TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHOLE AFFAIR. (19)
THE CIA PROVIDED QUESTIONS TO DURAN’s INTERROGATORS
Duran was held for two days. The results of this investigation indicate no interest in Duran’s potential affair with Oswald, but it does contain questions related specifically to the Alvarado story. Win Scott added comments to the cable from Helms. He stated that the Mexican authorities should attempt to get the questions answered and that the CIA was still able to provide questions to the Mexican police, but that Americans should not have any direct contact with her. (20)And what was the focus of the second interrogation of Duran, according to the report of the transcripts, there is evidence that the details of the Alvarado story was at least part of the focus. There were questions asked about Calderon and then there are these statement in the report:
11. In answer to special questions, DURAN said that only she and the Consul are in the Consulate. She said that the first time that Lee Harvey OSWALD was in the Consulate in the morning, to request information about getting to Cuba, she did not observe him very well. In the afternoon, however, when he had the argument with the Consul, she did observe him closely and is sure that he was not wearing glasses.
12. There is no red-headed negro of that description in the Embassy. Lately, no new person has arrived at the Embassy. (21)
The special questions were asked of her. Alvarado’s story continued to fall apart. It is here that the FBI directs the CIA to turn Alvarado over to the Mexicans. The FBI wanted them to interrogate Alvarado and for them to conduct the polygraph of him. Since they had questioned Duran, they wanted Alvarado to be investigated by them as well, to determine if their stories matched at all. This directive was given to the CIA on November 28 and in the same communication we learn that the Mexicans were preparing to release Duran. It is clear, the CIA was not at all interested in any alleged affair on the part of Duran, but they were interested in determining if the Alvarado story had any truth to it. (22) In the end the Alvardo story did not hold water, and Alvarado recanted it.
ALLEGATIONS THAT DURAN WAS WITH OSWALD AT A PARTY 1964
As for the allegations that Duran slept with Oswald, Ms. Baker should heed her own advice in her post. She quotes from Dr. John Newman and his book Oswald and the CIA. Unfortunately, Ms. Baker does not read the portion of his work about the Duran/Oswald affair. Dr. Newman clearly points out through his outstanding research that the rumors of the affair between Oswald and Duran did not reach the CIA until after the Warren Report was published. This is a critical hole in her statement that Duran was tortured to admit that she was romantically involved with Oswald on behalf of the CIA.
The story which evolved over time made it’s way to Win Scott’s desk, on October 5, 1964. (23) In the original version of the story, Ms. Elena Garra de Paz, cousin of Sylvia Duran’s husband, Ruben, claimed to have attended a party in which Lee Harvey Oswald was present at the Duran’s house. The information was passed onto the FBI and she was interviewed on November 24, 1963. There was no mention of Duran having an affair with Oswald in the FBI interview of Elena. (24) Win Scott also wrote a memorandum about the interview and it does not include any details of an affair between Duran and Oswald. At this point both the FBI and Win Scott believe there is not much to report about the allegations because the dates are not in alignment with the established Oswald timeline in Mexico City.
ALLEGATIONS THAT DURAN WAS OSWALD’S MISTRESS 1965
By December 10, 1965, State Department Officer, Charles Thomas speaks with Elena, she add’s a detail to the story, that Sylvia Duran was Lee Harvey Oswald’s lover. In addition she makes reference to a red-haired Cuban. This brings back into question the information from Alvarado and his story of a red-headed Cuban who had given Oswald money inside of the Cuban Embassy. What was Win Scott’s reaction to the information that had crossed his desk?
“What an imagination she has!?!” If the CIA wanted to paint Oswald as the lover of Sylvia Duran, would this be the reaction that anyone would suspect? This is followed by the question posed to Anne Goodpasture, “Should we send to Hqs?” Again, if the CIA were indeed trying to perpetuate the lie of an Oswald and Duran affair as Ms. Baker alleges, why would they debate sending this information to headquarters? Winn Scott clearly did not believe that this had any credibility and again, in another memorandum written by the FBI to the Ambassador that Elena’s allegations were investigated and unsubstantiated. There was no further action necessary. Again Win Scott writes at the top, “Can we send in a report to HQS?” (25)
Finally a cable is sent to headquarters letting the CIA know that her allegations are not substantiated. In notes at the bottom of the dispatch between Deputy Chief of Station Allan White, and Win Scott, Scott writes, “She is also nuts.” (26)
Newman concludes that there is credibility to Duran’s assertions that she did not have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald because she had had an affair with Cuban Ambassador Lechuga and admitted to it. When Duran was interviewed for Newman’s book Oswald and the CIA, she denied the affair stating, “No, no, no. Of course not. I had a relation with someone in the embassy, but not with Oswald…he was somebody you couldn’t pay attention to.” (27) She had high standards, was clearly drawn to powerful men, something Oswald was not based on his behavior inside the consulate.
OSWALD DURAN AFFAIR REPORTED BY ASSET 1967
Finally, in 1967 at the time of the Garrison investigation, the story began to take life again. The following dispatch from the Mexico City station to Chief of the Western Hemisphere completely eviscerates Ms. Baker’s statement that Silvia Duran was “tortured to admit that she slept with Lee Harvey Oswald.” A CIA source, LIRING/3 informed his case officer that he had spoken with Duran:
Sylvia Duran informed him that she first met Oswald when he applied for a visa and had gone out with him several times since she liked him from the start. She admitted that she had sexual relations with him but insisted that she had no idea of his plans. When the news of the assassination broke she stated that she was immediately taken into custody by the Mexican police and interrogated thoroughly and beaten until she admitted that she had an affair with Oswald. (28)
MEXICAN POLICE NEVER REPORTED AFFAIR IN 1963/CIA NOT CONCERNED WITH THE AFFAIR
While this comment appears to support the “torture” this is in contrast to Duran’s HSCA testimony where she speaks about resisting arrest and fighting the police. In addition this conflicts with the reports of her return to work after the first arrest. But what is VERY contradictory to Ms. Baker’s assertion that the CIA wanted to force her to admit the affair, we have this reaction from the Mexico City station to headquarters about this, the first confirmation that can be found in any CIA document is the following statement:
The fact that Silvia Duran had sexual intercourse with Lee Harvey OSWALD on several occasions when the latter was in Mexico City is probably new, but adds little to the OSWALD case. The Mexican Police did not report the extent of the DURAN-OSWALD relationship to this Station. (29)
BAKER’S CLAIMS DO NOT HOLD UP AGAINST THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE
One can see how Ms. Baker’s statements on her Facebook page are misleading.
The CIA did not want Sylvia Duran arrested the first time.
The CIA did not want Sylvia Duran arrested the second time.
The CIA provided Mexican authorities with questions for Duran to verify the Alvarado story.
The historical record is clear that the FBI investigated the claims of relations with Oswald and found them unsubstantiated.
The CIA did not care that Duran had relations with Oswald and there is no evidence that they wanted Duran tortured to admit the affair.
It should be noted that in addition to making these claims on Facebook about Duran and the reason for her arrest, she presents a similar statement in her book Me & Lee: How I came to Know, Love, and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald, Future work will demonstrate that her presentation about Lee Harvey Oswald’s trip to Mexico City, is not what she would like her reader to believe, and is not supported by primary sources.
Baker is absolutely correct about one thing, Oswald was in Mexico City.
Part II will be coming soon.
Please note the name Sylvia is spelled Silvia in many of the primary documents. I have tried to keep it Sylvia throughout but when I have cited documents, I kept the spelling from the primary source.
The Cold War led the United States to battle the spread of Communism into the hemisphere. When the Cold War erupted after World War II, the United States tapped into the unsung soldiers of the victory over the AXIS from the OSS, to become the foundation of the CIA . These behind the scenes intelligence operatives formed the backbone of the United States operations against the spread of communism into our hemisphere.
To fight this battle, the newly formed agency needed to penetrate foreign countries and get boots onto the ground. To do this, a marriage began between the corporate elite in the United States, who were threatened by everything that Communism stood for, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Corporate America was eager to join in support of this endeavor. They had everything to gain by favorable relationships with dictators in the region, through imbalanced agreements that made dictators wealthy and corporations increase their profits. They had everything to lose from the spread of communism. It was only natural, that the CIA would enter into relationships, providing their agents cover and their operations a place to launch(1).
One such example of a company that was used in this capacity was Zapata Oil. Zapata Oil was founded by George H. W. Bush with the help of a “former” CIA Staff Employee Thomas James Devine (2). There have been many allegations that Zapata Offshore Company was involved in supporting the operations for the Bay of Pigs invasion(3). The Zapata Oil Company was building rigs forty miles off of the coast of Cuba during this time period (4). During the late 1950’s the CIA attempted to use assets in the petroleum industry to use to launch attacks on Cuban petroleum assets (5).
It appears that the CIA in its “Offical History of the Bay of Pigs: Part III” found such ventures to be less than successful. One such mission against the Cuban petroleum industry was conducted by one of the ships used in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Barbara J , in its attack on a refinery at Santiago de Cuba. This attack was considered to be one of the more successful attacks, but it managed to only stop production for less than 48 hours(6).
In reviewing this document, an interesting statement appears. It certainly demonstrates that someone outside of the CIA had made contact with Joseph Caldwell King, the Chief of the Western Hemisphere in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Richard M. Bissell, the Deputy Director of Plans, wanted this contact developed as seen below.
In a discussion of planned para-military operations against Cuba, it was reported that on 14 July 1960,Chief, Western Hemisphere Division was approached “by [ 29 ]. He [Chief, WH/D] indicated that [ 29 ] will be willing to cooperate, perhaps even carry the ball on certain selected [sabatoge] targets. DD/P gave permission to push this contact immediately.” (7)
Many have taken circumstantial evidence about the Bay of Pigs to tie it to George H. W. Bush. It is easy to draw such conclusions, since the Operational name for the Bay of Pigs was Operation Zapata, the name of his company. In addition, he had a habit of naming his aircraft and his boats after his wife, Barbara. Another ship used in the Bay of Pigs was Houston, the home for his company. Again,this is all circumstantial. However, one must wonder who the redacted name [ 29 ] is since this document was released in 1998. It clearly would mean that it is someone still alive at the time. Many CIA agents are not redacted in the document, including David Atlee Phillips and the entire group of CIA staff that worked under him in preparation for the Bay of Pigs. With the use of the ship Barbara J one begins to wonder if the this person, [ 29 ], was either George H. W. Bush or maybe Thomas James Devine. In any case, the circumstantial evidence, while plentiful, is not concrete evidence, despite what many hypothesize.
Thomas James Devine is one of the biggest pieces of solid evidence that the CIA was involved in the Zapata Oil business (8). A CIA memorandum of 1968 (9) indicates that when Devine left the CIA in 1953, as he joined Zapata Oil, to go into private business. When the Zapata Oil operations were sold, Thomas Devine was cleared to become a “cleared and witting commercial asset under project WUBRINY on June 12, 1963. While he was cleared in June, he was operational two months earlier. WU/BRINY 1 (10) who researchers have identified as Thomas Devine, met with George De Morenshidlt and Clemard James Charles and on Thursday, April 25 (11) and on Friday, April 26 (12)with at the Knickerbocker Club, in NYC . WU/BRINY1 reports in on meeting with them again on Monday, April 29. WU/BRINY 1 appears to have had a chance meeting with DeMorenshidlt and Charles, at the National Airport (NARA Record Number: 104-10164-10088) in Washington, DC , on May 9. On May 15, another meeting with DeMorenchidlt occurred in presence of two other CIA assets WU/BRINY 2 and Frank Stone who oversaw the operation (13), at the Sheraton East hotel on May 21, 1963.
Thomas Devine met again met with DeMorenshidlt May 21, 1963 alone (14) at the offices of WUSALINE (Train, Cabot and Associates) (15), an investment banking firm a known CIA front involved heavily in Latin America. The point of all of this is to demonstrate the use of the business cover for many of its operatives in Latin America, and that on paper people may have left the CIA on paper, they were also operating for the CIA in business capacities as well.
Many have hypothesized that all of the contacts with DeMorenshildt in this time period have sinister implications around the assassination of John F. Kennedy. DeMorenshidlt had been in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald for six months prior to his first contact with Thomas Devine. The attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963 allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald, was two weeks prior to the first meeting with Devine on April 25. DeMorenshildt admitted to discussing the attempt on General Walker with Lee in his testimony before the Warren Commission(16).
Those who would speculate that his meetings with Thomas Devine were positive meetings have not read the contact reports completely. They are ignoring the fact that Thomas Devine himself, was not impressed with DeMorenshildt. After his second meeting with George DeMorenshildt and Charles on April 26th he reported that “both men have an element of bluff in their presentation(17).” He continues to point out that “deMor was a “paper grabber” stating that every available handout in the office…was sought by deMor…” The meeting of April 26th triggered a trace report request by Frank Stone who Devine reported to. If the CIA were actually running George DeMorenshildt or employing him in an operational capacity, they would not have requested the trace. The trace brought back hits in his 201 file with information filed by WH/Mexico(18). The contents are further revealed in a contact report filed by Stone when he communicated the information to Devine. He reports to him that there was a lot of “derogatory information” and that DeMorenshildt had written to the State Department that he was sending a manuscript to Russia about his trip to Mexico that contained “derogatory” information about the United States. He had apparently offered to remove the objectionable materials. Devine apparently believed that DeMorenshildt was looking to blackmail with the manuscript, and may be open to selling it. The contact report ends with Stone informing Devine of this information so he would be prepared should they meet again and that he should “handle himself accordingly(19).” It cannot be denied that George DeMorenshidlt had made contact with the CIA, it appears to be from these contact reports, that he was not an asset under their control, nor was he viewed in a favorable light. There is another manuscript that DeMorenshildt would later write about Lee Harvey Oswald. Seeing Thomas Devine’s interpretation of his propensity to “bluff” and possibly “blackmail” one has to wonder if what he was looking to do with his material on Oswald.
George DeMorenschildt would also be in contact with the Department of Defense during this time. On May 7, 1963 DeMorenschidlt made contact with Dorothe Matlock (20), of the Office of the Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence (21). She testified to the HSCA that her official title was Assistant Director of the Office of Intelligence. She was responsible for being the liaison between the Department of Defense and the CIA, as well as being responsible for the debriefing of working with the Interagency Defector Committee with CIA agent Tony Czajkowski (22). This agency was heavily involved in Cuban domestic contacts, and the debriefing of Cubans who have come to the US. Some believe that the contact between Mrs. Matlock and DeMorenshidlt, was for him to report on Oswald. The HSCA did interview her on her interactions with DeMorenshildt. Based on this report there is evidence that after meeting with DeMorenshildt at this time, that her office wanted to distance themselves from DeMorenshildt and Charles, but recommended that operations be put into contact with them (23). Matlock also had suspicions about DeMorenshildt to the point that she contacted the FBI about him.
The whole picture of the preceding evidence is one in which multiple intelligence agencies utilized business contacts to accomplish their objectives. We have evidence of joint relationships between the CIA and Zapata Oil in relation to sabotage of Cuban petroleum facilities, The Bay of Pigs, as well as evidence of recommended operational contact with Clemard Charles James and the desire to overthrow Papa Doc Duvalier, something Charles would be arrested for later on. It is clear that business contacts were very important and were explored. What is even more clear, is that George DeMorenshildt was not well liked by those in the intelligence circles. It is also clear, that many who believe he was in on the conspiracy, have used the Haiti meetings to promote that he was a CIA handler for Oswald. The historical record would indicate that this is not so, based on the manner in which the intelligence circles reacted to his attempts to get support for his Haiti scheme. These same circles, in particular the propaganda machine set up for the Bay of Pigs, would come into play around the accused assassin and a trip to Mexico City.
Matt “The Hitman” Scheufele
(1) Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation: Volume III, PG 56
(2) MEMORANDUM:MESSRS. GEORGE BUSH AND THOMAS J. DEVINE
(3) The Kennedy Assassination: The Nixon-Bush Connection
(4) King, Nicholas (1980). George Bush: A Biography. Dodd Mead. ISBN 0-396-07919-9.
(5) Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation: Volume II pg. 234
(6) The Official History of the Bay of Pigs: Part III Appendix E Attack on Petroleum Refiner£ at Santiago de Cuba 13-14 March 1961
(7) OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE , BAY OF PIGS OPERATION VOLUME III pg. 235
(8) MEMORANDUM:MESSRS. GEORGE BUSH AND THOMAS J. DEVINE
(9) Memorandum for DO/Security Subject: Thomas James Devine
(10) Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the … By Russ Baker, pg 105
(11) CONTACT REPORT: A MEETING WAS HELD IN THE LIBRARY OF THE KNICKERBOCKER
(12) Contact Report WUBRINY Haitian Operation
(13) Contact Report WUBRINY – George DeMorenshildt 15 May 1963
(14) Contact Report George DeMorenshidlt 21 May 1963
(15) Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the …By Russ Baker, pg. 106
(16) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume IX Page 249
(17) Contact Report WUBRINY Haitian Operation 26 April 1963
(18) Memorandum for DO/COEO 9 MAY 1963
(19) Contact Report WUBRINY – George DeMorenshildt 15 May 1963
(20) HSCA Report, Volume XII Current Section: V. De Mohrenschildt’s Activities in Haiti
(21) The Dorothe K. Matlack Human Intelligence Training Facility
(22) THE JFK CASE: THE TWELVE WHO BUILT THE OSWALD LEGEND (Part 8: The CIA-Army Intelligence Mambo) By Bill Simpich
One of the pieces of evidence that is used in debates about the location of Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of the assassination is Captain Will Fritz’s handwritten notes about the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. An argument that has been around since the assassination is that Lee Oswald was on the steps in the famous Altgens-6 photograph. One thing that is not debatable is that Cpt. Fritz’s notes do not support this argument.
What is important to understand is that there were two FBI Agents in the room at the time of the interrogation. They filed reports as well as Fritz who filed his own report. When examining these reports, you can clearly see that Lee Harvey Oswald did not claim to be “out with Bill Shelley in front” at the time of the assassination as some would have you believe.
The order of the questions he asked Lee Harvey Oswald is very important. It is consistent with the FBI report and Fritz’s reporting of the interrogation. Fritz’s report reads like this:
“I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor. Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in. I asked him why he left the building, and he said there was so much excitement he didn’t think there would be any more work done that day, and that as this company wasn’t particular about their hours, that they did not punch a clock, and that he thought it would be just as well that he left for the rest of the afternoon.”
In examining this, one can say that Fritz omitted that Oswald said he was out front with Shelley. Some might even draw the conclusion that this is evidence that Fritz was in on it and ignored Oswald’s claims to have been out front. This does not hold water. FBI agent James W. Bookout was also in the room and present during the interrogation of Oswald. His report reads, interestingly enough, closer to Fritz’s notes than Fritz’s report does.
Fritz’s notes, like Bookout’s report, reads strikingly similar in the following order; 2nd floor coke when officer came in; to 1st floor had lunch; out front with Bill Shelley; left work. All in the exact same order as Fritz’s notes. It is important to note that during this interrogation, Oswald had not made reference to eating lunch with two other employees in the depository which comes into play in another questioning session, quite different from the order he expressed here.
Further substantiating that Oswald did not claim to be outside during the assassination is Bill Shelley’s testimony when questioned by Mr. Ball in during his Warren Commission Testimony. The questions are strikingly similar to Frtiz’s handwritten notes. Oswald made claims about seeing weapons in the Book Depository, and Mr. Ball questioned him about it. In reference to the claim that Oswald was outside at the time of the assassination Shelley is asked the following questions:
Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
Mr. SHELLEY. At the police station when they brought him in.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him in the building at any time after 12?
Mr. SHELLEY. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot see Oswald in the building?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you tell anybody to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn’t tell anybody to leave the building at all?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
It is very clear, that Mr. Shelley was not with Lee Harvey Oswald on the steps of the School Book Depository Building before, during or after the assassination of President Kennedy. The line of questioning would be consistent with the story that Oswald was trying to spin to the investigators. That he went outside after the assassination, met with Will Shelley outside of the building and decided to go home because Shelley had told him there would be no work for the rest of the day.
Usually, when confronted with testimony that refutes that Oswald was on the steps, accusations arise that witnesses were intimidated into saying things at the time of their testimony before the Warren Commission. Thankfully, we have eyewitness testimony given by Mr. Shelley, and many other witnesses within hours of the assassination through depositions. Please consider that there are no witnesses in any deposition that place Oswald outside at the time of the shooting. Not a single one. But let’s focus on Mr. Shelley and his statements to the police.
The police had two statements taken by Mr. Shelley. The first statement was about his location at the time of the assassination and his actions in that time period. Based on his Warren Commission testimony he was in the police station when Oswald was brought in. It appears to me based on the affidavit, that they were questioning Oswald and he had attempted to indicate that Shelley had sent him home. Since I do not have access to who was present when Shelley gave his statement, I am making the assumption that the discrepancy between Captain Fritz’s report and FBI Agent Bookout is simply explained by the fact that Fritz determined Shelley had not interacted with Oswald because he had this affidavit. I have not found any evidence that Bookout was present for Shelley’s interview or affidavit, so his report contains the information that Oswald claimed to have gone outside with Shelley after the assassination. In neither affidavit does Shelley place Oswald outside with him at any point in time.
It is abundantly clear that in the second affidavit the focus of the investigation had changed. They had begun investigating Lee Harvey Oswald’s story that started in the first interrogation and the claim that Oswald made about being sent home by Shelley, when he went outside after the assassination. It is clear from his statement that Lee Harvey Oswald was not with him after noon. It is also clear that he did not send him home.
Sadly, when it comes to researching the Kennedy Assassination, many researchers find a piece of evidence without researching it completely. This appears to be the case with Cpt. Frtiz’s handwritten notes on the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. When looking at the document, in context, with other primary sources, it does not hold water that Lee Harvey Oswald claimed to have been outside during the assassination. Too much misinformation is being spread in people’s zeal to promote Oswald’s innocence, and other such theories, without checking the context of the information. It is making it more challenging than ever to find the truth with so many outlandish incompletely researched claims circulating on the internet.