23-01-2015, 05:45 PM
From the HSCA subcommittee meetings I found the following letter from 10 days prior to the presentation of the WCR as the galleys are being reviewed and/or corrected… Feels like a little vindication of the ideas I am pursuing
Slawson and Fonzi deal exclusively with Oswald in Mexico. These are the first few thoughts from a WC lawyer that there was serious doubt about Mexico. He also expresses his displeasure over Marina not turning in the Ticket stub from Mexico until Aug 27[SUP]th[/SUP]…
While CORNWELL who is questioning Liebleler wants to know if the Marina evidence stub #13688 for Del Norte found in Aug 64, which did not exist - could have been "fabricated"…
hmmm... maybe the evidence IS the conspiracy after all... :
:
The final series of parts for the final article are in process with 2 of the 3 parts being edited and formatted now. Each part is about 35-40 pages yet 50% of that are the images to support the text.
Part 3a preview below...
DJ
Mr. LIEBELER. I did not ask the FBI for an explanation and they never offered me one.
Mr. CORNWELL. The reason I ask the question is I suppose there might be some chance that the evidence had been fabricated and did not even exist in November 1963. Is that correct? Did you even ask to see if they had checked this location earlier and found nothing?
Mr. LIEBELER. I don't recall making that request.
HSCA Hearing and Volumes V11 p236
JFK Exhibit No. 37
[Memorandum]
SEPTEMBER 14, 1964.
To: Mr. Willens.
From: Mr. Liebeler.
e. The paragraph on bus transportation starting "There is no firm evidence" should be completely rewritten. I do not think there is "convincing evidence" that Oswald was on the buses as stated. One sentence says he was apparently one of four passengers bound for a point beyond Texas. The next suggests that he bought a ticket in Houston for Laredo, which is in Texas. The McFarland testimony is given too much weight. I don't think Mexican immigration records show the time of day he crossed the border. Slawson told me he got the time of crossing from the scheduled arrival of the bus. Now we are using it to show that since he crossed at that time he had to be on the bus.
f . Since we have no direct evidence that Oswald boarded bus 5133 in Houston, the first sentence of the next paragraph ("Hence, the only time . . .") should be changed. That also obviates the necessity that he had to go from New Orleans to Dallas and thence too Houston. There really is almost no evidence at all that he left Houston on that bus and there is really no reason why we should suggest there is . The point can be made without saying that and to seem to rely on really weak evidence is to invite trouble.
g. Again-later in the same paragraph-more reliance on the McFarlands. Their affidavit is very weak-we should not fight it.
h. Then the single ticket from Houston to Laredo again-which probably could not have been Oswald if he were one of the four heading for points beyond Laredo.
i. Also, the assumption that the Twiford call was a local call. Why speculate, make the arguments-he probably would not have called at all if he were not in Houston or going to be in Houston.
j. The conclusion that the evidence is persuasive that Oswald was not in Dallas on September 25 is too strong.
Part 3a preview:
Opening eyes: THE EVIDENCE IS THE CONSPIRACY
In virtually the same manner as the "Oswald at the window with a rifle" evidence was created and submitted as evidence circumstantially incriminating Oswald, the evidence for this trip to and from Mexico follows the same M.O. We can definitely understand the need not to tip the Cubans or Russians regarding one of the, if not THE world's largest communication interception operation by either publishing the Mystery Man's photo or by publishing anything in the report which would divulge sources and means. This carefulness cannot be said for the travel portion of this trip, the location of his stay or in the activities he would have engaged while there. These details of the Mexico story take a backseat to the serious events related to his supposed time there and the events recorded which would incriminate our man Oswald. Their relative unimportance in the scheme of things makes them that much more easy to hide them in plain sight within the evidence.
While speculation is grand, there remains not a stitch of corroborated evidence that our or any Oswald existed outside of the hotel or the Cuban/Russia embassy/consulate. There is also no corroborated evidence it was actually Oswald at the hotel or government buildings at all.
The orchestrated removal of Richard Sprague from leading the House Select Committee's investigation into the assassination of JFK had more to do with the CIA's evidence from Mexico as opposed to anything else. From Gaeton Fonzi's, "The Last Investigation", we learn from Sprague that the CIA's Secrecy Agreement was born out of Sprague's desire to see ALL the Mexico City evidence; the "In Mexico" incriminating evidence of which we come to find there are thousands upon thousands of pages all with the same conclusion: we really don't have the evidence to corroborate that any one person took any part of this trip, so they created some.
Before we proceed let's take a moment and take a mindset break. In 1963 the average citizen did not exhibit the same levels of paranoia towards their government as we see today. And for good reason, "Conspiracies" were something the Commies ran when trying to steal our secrets and upset our way of life. Who believes anything we're told anymore? Today we KNOW conspiracies are part of how government is, was and always will be run. In 1963, the US government was still the good guys to the everyday person. The WCR and a handful of wolves within the democracy would change all that forever.
The stay in Mexico itself is defined by CIA/DFS documentation and FBI reports. In the Mary Ferrell Warren Commission Documents (CIA/FBI/SS/State) database alone there are over 1200 references to "MEXICO" with thousands of other references in a variety of other locations related to the CIA's Mexico records. What we have not finally concluded is whether a real person actually traveled in and out of Mexico at the start and end of these activities, whether there is a direct connection between the man claimed to be traveling to and from Mexico and the activities at the Cuban and Russian consulates/embassies or whether select parts or the entirety of the Mexico visit evidence was created in reports and provided testimony to tell a story.
To begin, we will look at how the evidence of the trip ended with Oswald in Dallas. Then we can address a call on the morning of Nov 23[SUP]rd[/SUP] which must convey the start and end dates of this trip as well as which border crossing was used when according to records reviewed to date there was no communication between the CIA and anyone else related to this trip from Oct 24[SUP]th[/SUP] thru Nov 22[SUP]nd[/SUP] especially nothing having to do with the travel aspect such as mode of transport, location of border crossing, hotel, etc…
Treasury's INS officers in Laredo (or Washington DC for that matter) were made aware of these dates and that specific border crossing) - especially given that the photos are from Oct 4[SUP]th[/SUP] yet the info offered pointed to his leaving on the 2nd from an "unnamed governmental agency". We will attempt to prove that the limited knowledge of those following the request of this "unnamed governmental agency" who asked Lester Johnson of the INS to call Mr. PUGH, Mr. KLINE and Mr. MAY in Laredo had to have come to them from a very small circle of possibilities.
Slawson and Fonzi deal exclusively with Oswald in Mexico. These are the first few thoughts from a WC lawyer that there was serious doubt about Mexico. He also expresses his displeasure over Marina not turning in the Ticket stub from Mexico until Aug 27[SUP]th[/SUP]…
While CORNWELL who is questioning Liebleler wants to know if the Marina evidence stub #13688 for Del Norte found in Aug 64, which did not exist - could have been "fabricated"…
hmmm... maybe the evidence IS the conspiracy after all... :
:The final series of parts for the final article are in process with 2 of the 3 parts being edited and formatted now. Each part is about 35-40 pages yet 50% of that are the images to support the text.
Part 3a preview below...
DJ
Mr. LIEBELER. I did not ask the FBI for an explanation and they never offered me one.
Mr. CORNWELL. The reason I ask the question is I suppose there might be some chance that the evidence had been fabricated and did not even exist in November 1963. Is that correct? Did you even ask to see if they had checked this location earlier and found nothing?
Mr. LIEBELER. I don't recall making that request.
HSCA Hearing and Volumes V11 p236
JFK Exhibit No. 37
[Memorandum]
SEPTEMBER 14, 1964.
To: Mr. Willens.
From: Mr. Liebeler.
e. The paragraph on bus transportation starting "There is no firm evidence" should be completely rewritten. I do not think there is "convincing evidence" that Oswald was on the buses as stated. One sentence says he was apparently one of four passengers bound for a point beyond Texas. The next suggests that he bought a ticket in Houston for Laredo, which is in Texas. The McFarland testimony is given too much weight. I don't think Mexican immigration records show the time of day he crossed the border. Slawson told me he got the time of crossing from the scheduled arrival of the bus. Now we are using it to show that since he crossed at that time he had to be on the bus.
f . Since we have no direct evidence that Oswald boarded bus 5133 in Houston, the first sentence of the next paragraph ("Hence, the only time . . .") should be changed. That also obviates the necessity that he had to go from New Orleans to Dallas and thence too Houston. There really is almost no evidence at all that he left Houston on that bus and there is really no reason why we should suggest there is . The point can be made without saying that and to seem to rely on really weak evidence is to invite trouble.
g. Again-later in the same paragraph-more reliance on the McFarlands. Their affidavit is very weak-we should not fight it.
h. Then the single ticket from Houston to Laredo again-which probably could not have been Oswald if he were one of the four heading for points beyond Laredo.
i. Also, the assumption that the Twiford call was a local call. Why speculate, make the arguments-he probably would not have called at all if he were not in Houston or going to be in Houston.
j. The conclusion that the evidence is persuasive that Oswald was not in Dallas on September 25 is too strong.
Part 3a preview:
Opening eyes: THE EVIDENCE IS THE CONSPIRACY
In virtually the same manner as the "Oswald at the window with a rifle" evidence was created and submitted as evidence circumstantially incriminating Oswald, the evidence for this trip to and from Mexico follows the same M.O. We can definitely understand the need not to tip the Cubans or Russians regarding one of the, if not THE world's largest communication interception operation by either publishing the Mystery Man's photo or by publishing anything in the report which would divulge sources and means. This carefulness cannot be said for the travel portion of this trip, the location of his stay or in the activities he would have engaged while there. These details of the Mexico story take a backseat to the serious events related to his supposed time there and the events recorded which would incriminate our man Oswald. Their relative unimportance in the scheme of things makes them that much more easy to hide them in plain sight within the evidence.
While speculation is grand, there remains not a stitch of corroborated evidence that our or any Oswald existed outside of the hotel or the Cuban/Russia embassy/consulate. There is also no corroborated evidence it was actually Oswald at the hotel or government buildings at all.
The orchestrated removal of Richard Sprague from leading the House Select Committee's investigation into the assassination of JFK had more to do with the CIA's evidence from Mexico as opposed to anything else. From Gaeton Fonzi's, "The Last Investigation", we learn from Sprague that the CIA's Secrecy Agreement was born out of Sprague's desire to see ALL the Mexico City evidence; the "In Mexico" incriminating evidence of which we come to find there are thousands upon thousands of pages all with the same conclusion: we really don't have the evidence to corroborate that any one person took any part of this trip, so they created some.
Before we proceed let's take a moment and take a mindset break. In 1963 the average citizen did not exhibit the same levels of paranoia towards their government as we see today. And for good reason, "Conspiracies" were something the Commies ran when trying to steal our secrets and upset our way of life. Who believes anything we're told anymore? Today we KNOW conspiracies are part of how government is, was and always will be run. In 1963, the US government was still the good guys to the everyday person. The WCR and a handful of wolves within the democracy would change all that forever.
The stay in Mexico itself is defined by CIA/DFS documentation and FBI reports. In the Mary Ferrell Warren Commission Documents (CIA/FBI/SS/State) database alone there are over 1200 references to "MEXICO" with thousands of other references in a variety of other locations related to the CIA's Mexico records. What we have not finally concluded is whether a real person actually traveled in and out of Mexico at the start and end of these activities, whether there is a direct connection between the man claimed to be traveling to and from Mexico and the activities at the Cuban and Russian consulates/embassies or whether select parts or the entirety of the Mexico visit evidence was created in reports and provided testimony to tell a story.
To begin, we will look at how the evidence of the trip ended with Oswald in Dallas. Then we can address a call on the morning of Nov 23[SUP]rd[/SUP] which must convey the start and end dates of this trip as well as which border crossing was used when according to records reviewed to date there was no communication between the CIA and anyone else related to this trip from Oct 24[SUP]th[/SUP] thru Nov 22[SUP]nd[/SUP] especially nothing having to do with the travel aspect such as mode of transport, location of border crossing, hotel, etc…
Treasury's INS officers in Laredo (or Washington DC for that matter) were made aware of these dates and that specific border crossing) - especially given that the photos are from Oct 4[SUP]th[/SUP] yet the info offered pointed to his leaving on the 2nd from an "unnamed governmental agency". We will attempt to prove that the limited knowledge of those following the request of this "unnamed governmental agency" who asked Lester Johnson of the INS to call Mr. PUGH, Mr. KLINE and Mr. MAY in Laredo had to have come to them from a very small circle of possibilities.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter