Confusing 11-19-63 FBI Memo - 11-19-63 Sac, WMFO to Dir, FBI 105-82555-78

[Nick Rose]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/f..._0002a.htm
WHAT IS THIS?
Does anyone have any insight or interpretation of this document?

[Tracy Riddle]

Nick, this FBI memo was a response to the typed letter Oswald allegedly sent the Russian embassy in Washington (dated November 9, postmarked in Irving 11/12. The FBI intercepted it as part of their program of reading mail going to the Soviets):

"FROM LEE H. OSWALD, P.O. BOX 6225, DALLAS, TEXAS - MARINA NICHILAYEVA OSWALD, SOVIET CITIZEN - TO: CONSULAR DIVISION EMBASSY USSR WASHINGTON D.C. NOV. 9, 1963 - Dear Sirs: 1. This is to inform you of recent events since my meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico. 2. I was unable to remain in Mexico idefinily because of my mexican visa restrictions which was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance on requesting a new visa unless I used my real name, so I returned to the United States. 3. I had not planned to contact the Soviet embassy in Mexico so they were unprepared, had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business. 4. Of corse, the Soviet embassy was not at fault, they were, as I say unprepared, the Cuban consulate was guilty of a gross breach of regulations, I am glad he has since been replced. 5. The Federal Bureu of Investigation is not now interested in my activities in the progressive organization 'Fair Play For Cuba Committee', of which I was secretary in New Orleans (state Louisiana) since I no longer reside in that state. However, the FBI has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1st. Agent James P. Hosty warned me that if I engaged in F.P.C.C. activities in Texas the FBI will again taken an 'interest' in me. 6. This agent also 'suggested' to Marina Nichilayeva that she could remain in the United States under FBI 'protection,' that is, she could defect from the Soviet Uion, of course, I and my wife strongly protested these tactics by the notorious FBI. 7. Please inform us of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visa's as soon as they come. 8. Also, this is to inform you of the birth on October 20, 1963 of a DAUGHTER, AUDREY MARINA OSWALD in DALLAS, TEXAS, to my wife."

[Nick Rose]

Thanks Tracy.

I deleted the bulk of my post, which in the context of your reply seemed off-the-mark.

I did try searching for info on that file, by name, and by file number.
Google returned only, and exactly, three hits.
Two were the file itself, and one was a very poor overview of the memo in a google book document, which explained little.[

One other question I did come up against when reviewing some of the Mexico files.
It looks like, in one instance where he goes in to the Russian Embassy in Mexico, the description of the event apparently describes Oswald as speaking in "broken" "hardly recognizable" Russian. If this is correct, it seems to conflict with Marina's account of a near-fluent Russian speaking Oswald.

Are we back to a case of "two oswalds" on this basis, or am I misreading *who* spoke in the broken Russian? (i can only assume it was not the Russian consulate?)

PS - I also do note that Oswald DOES say "complete OUR business" but again it is veiled. Are we to assume that the Russian consulate knew what business he is talking about? Going tangential again, is there any method for making assumptions about what response Oswald was hoping for when he asked the Russian Consulate previously about word on a response from Washington? Can it at least be clarified if he was looking for a response from the *Russian* embassy in Washington, or if he was seeking word from a US source? (i am now assuming it was the former, since the later makes little sense in view of the fact that he is in a Russian Embassy, but???)

[Tracy Riddle]

Most researchers believe that Oswald was impersonated by someone in Mexico City (the phone call in broken Russian is definitely an impersonation). Even Hoover told LBJ that someone was impersonating LHO at the embassy. I suspect the typed letter to the Russian embassy was also done by someone else. This was all part of the effort to implicate the KGB and Castro in the upcoming assassination.

[Jim Hargrove]

Most researchers believe that Oswald was impersonated by someone in Mexico City (the phone call in broken Russian is definitely an impersonation). Even Hoover told LBJ that someone was impersonating LHO at the embassy. I suspect the typed letter to the Russian embassy was also done by someone else. This was all part of the effort to implicate the KGB and Castro in the upcoming assassination.

If we're to believe in the legitimacy of the Mexico City photos supplied by the Cuban government (to the HSCA) and the earlier photo supplied by the CIA in '63, there were two different men impersonating Oswald (neither resembling the historic LHO). The Cuban picture shows a slight, blond-haired fellow matching descriptions of some consulate personnel (and maybe Sylvia Duran in her unaltered remarks). The CIA picture, supposedly from the Russian Embassy, shows a much larger fellow who kind of looks like a football player. Agree that the letter was probably a forgery to blame Castro and Cuba.

Jim

[Nick Rose]

Most researchers believe that Oswald was impersonated by someone in Mexico City (the phone call in broken Russian is definitely an impersonation). Even Hoover told LBJ that someone was impersonating LHO at the embassy. I suspect the typed letter to the Russian embassy was also done by someone else. This was all part of the effort to implicate the KGB and Castro in the upcoming assassination.

Yes. Tracy, I think we are on the same page here.
However going back to my original post, the one thing I will still cling to as seeming relevant is the notion that TWO things were going on in Mexico -- one on top of the other.

Reviewing the comments of LHO while in custody (here, at Mae Brussels) I am now even more-so convinced that Oswald AND an impersonator must have been in Mexico ... Oswald probably on some mission (possibly even as JVB claims?) and then some clique in the CIA working on top of Oswald's actual presence in an effort to either obfuscate or frame or both.

11\22 4:04PM, Fritz's Office:
OSWALD: " I was never in Mexico City. I have been in Tijuana"

ABOVE IN GLARING CONTRADICTION WITH BELOW:
11\24, Fritz's Office, Final Interrogation:
OSWALD: " It didn't cost much to go to Mexico. It cost me some $26, a small, ridiculous amount to eat, and another ridiculous small amount to stay all night. . . . I went to the Mexican Embassy to try to get this permission to go to Russia by way of Cuba. . . . I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City. I went to the Russian Embassy to go to Russia by way of Cuba. They told me to come back in `thirty days.' "

In reading and re-reading all of Oswald's statements from the time of his arrest in the movie theater through on to his murder, I can not help but notice numerous inconsistencies in his statements. Is he unsure if he should tell the "truth" or remain in line with his "cover story" or what?

Either way, to your notion that Mexico City was a frame up, and that Oswald was not there.
In his final interrogation, he contradicts his earlier statement which agrees with your notion, and outright says, "I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City".

One other inconsistency I would like to bring up at the moment because it has been giving me some trouble as well (although not from his arrest) -- Why does Oswald in his televised FPFC interview say that he was in the marines and rose "to the rank of Buck Sergent" (which I understand to be E-4) and then to the same affect, in a French magazine interview that his mother gives (which I saw in a WCE somewhere) she claims something similar that, I believe she says, he rose to the rank of "corporal".

Yet his transcripts clearly show him no higher than PFC (E-2)

???

[Nick Rose]

Most researchers believe that Oswald was impersonated by someone in Mexico City (the phone call in broken Russian is definitely an impersonation). Even Hoover told LBJ that someone was impersonating LHO at the embassy. I suspect the typed letter to the Russian embassy was also done by someone else. This was all part of the effort to implicate the KGB and Castro in the upcoming assassination.

If we're to believe in the legitimacy of the Mexico City photos supplied by the Cuban government (to the HSCA) and the earlier photo supplied by the CIA in '63, there were two different men impersonating Oswald (neither resembling the historic LHO). The Cuban picture shows a slight, blond-haired fellow matching descriptions of some consulate personnel (and maybe Sylvia Duran in her unaltered remarks). The CIA picture, supposedly from the Russian Embassy, shows a much larger fellow who kind of looks like a football player. Agree that the letter was probably a forgery to blame Castro and Cuba.

Jim

Yes jim. I am familiar with the imperonators, but see my above post.
Why is Oswald, 3 days after denying he was ever in Mexico City, then contradicting himself and admitting exactly what the file records claim? Going off of his brother's claims that his responses sounded "mechanical", is it possible Oswald was at some point after 11/22 "coached" himself on saying certain things? Or his he telling the "truth"? His statements regarding his method of travel home, Mrs. Paine, and a few other particulars lead me to the conclusion that Oswald is actually obfuscating "something" in his interrogations, as his story seems to make slight changes. At one point he even says, "It wasn't actually true as to how I got home". On top of his statements regarding Mrs. Paine, it seems indeed like he is obfuscating.

[Tracy Riddle]

Nick, the only person who "heard" Oswald say he went to Mexico City was postal inspector Harry Holmes, who claims Oswald said it during his last interrogation. No one else heard this. Holmes lied repeatedly to the WC about the circumstances of Oswald's mail, PO Box regulations, etc. Holmes was an FBI informant who most likely was monitoring Oswald's mail from late 1962 on.

[Jim Hargrove]

Yes jim. I am familiar with the imperonators, but see my above post.
Why is Oswald, 3 days after denying he was ever in Mexico City, then contradicting himself and admitting exactly what the file records claim? Going off of his brother's claims that his responses sounded "mechanical", is it possible Oswald was at some point after 11/22 "coached" himself on saying certain things? Or his he telling the "truth"? His statements regarding his method of travel home, Mrs. Paine, and a few other particulars lead me to the conclusion that Oswald is actually obfuscating "something" in his interrogations, as his story seems to make slight changes. At one point he even says, "It wasn't actually true as to how I got home". On top of his statements regarding Mrs. Paine, it seems indeed like he is obfuscating.

Nick,

I'm not too sure about claims of what "Oswald" said about Mexico City, but the behavior of the CIA is now abundantly clear. Phillips--others in the Agency--surely were humiliated by the inability to produce photos or audio tapes of anyone resembling LHO in Mexico City. Cameras failed, backup cameras failed and, at least at the Soviet Embassy entrance, the backup backup camera failed. Tape recording "routinely erased." Sheesh! This should have embarrassed the Keystone Cops!

And it surely embarrassed the CIA.

Jim

[Nick Rose]

Cameras failed, backup cameras failed and, at least at the Soviet Embassy entrance, the backup backup camera failed.

Yeah I somehow SO doubt that.

And it surely embarrassed the CIA.

And i somehow doubt this as well.
In light of everything else, one can only view this "embarrassment" as cover for illicit activity.
Or do you mean they were embarrassed by what was clearly a ruse on their behalf?
Sort of like the husband who is "sorry" when he is caught cheating.

And thank you both, Jim and Tracy, for your on topic replies to my post.
Exactly the sort of information I was looking for. Given that the records are so spread out, and citations are often few, it is hard to know when what you are reading is factual or not, and it is nice to have members reply on topics they may feel are old-hat, if only to give a new member some ground to work from.