Jim DiEugenio Wrote:One of the most ignored parts of the Lopez Report is the section dealing with the CIA's failure to do an inquiry into the alleged presence of Oswald in the Soviet embassy in the seven weeks between the alleged appearance and the assassination.
Lopez and Hardway say that there is very little question this should have been done. Especially considering the rules that were set down about American/Russian speakers in the embassy, and the alleged contact by "Oswald" with a very high up officer, Kostikov.
One of the main points in my work is that I believe that Goodpasture and Phillips in MC, and Angleton at HQ did all they could to conceal these questions and delay any inquiry about 1.) If it was Oswald, and 2.) Did he really meet with Kostikov.
The fact that there was no inquiry allowed the assumption that Oswald was there to continue, but it also allowed the alleged meeting with Kostikov to stay very low key and closely held.
If you ask me, Anne Goodpasture has flown under the radar for too long. She has been treated with kid gloves by too many people. In fact, if I recall, Bugliosi did not even mention her in his book, and Morley didn't ask her enough tough questions
One of the most incriminating parts of the Lopez Report is near the beginning. Lopez and Hardway are trying to find out who had the first pass on the photo and audio surveillance on the Cuban and Soviet embassies each day. Goodpasture said she didn't know and started throwing out names for them to find out.
Lo and behold, after wasting time and effort interviewing others, it turns out that the person who had immediate access was HER!
Now, if that does not make you a bit suspicious Vince and Jeff, then what the heck does?
In other words, why would she lie about something as simple as that?
Jim... I believe this has much more to do with Simpich's work than anything else... the CIA and State were doing "something" and covering each other's butts...
what they were doing had little to do with the Oswald & JFK, imo. Given what the CIA knew about Oswald, using his false middle name from the 201 file seems to me to support Bill's work.
The FBI (and many others) knew about the link to Kostikov from Hosty's I&NS source by Oct 18th, Jeff Woosley who had the Oct 16 letter from Scott declaring it WAS Kostikov for sure, no ifs.
If the CIA was trying to keep that info close to the vest, this memo doesn't help. IMO, the man representing himself as Oswald to the Russian embassy, Azcue and Duran is NOT the man Ruby shot.
I dont believe that Kostikov was involved.
I've mentioned this before... does the File photo of Kostikov in 1958 look like Oswald to you?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Namely, if it was Oswald. That is the key question.
This goes to the whole skullduggery that Goodpasture did on the man in Mexico masquerade.
Which Lopez and Hardway expose as a complete sham. In other words, she knew at a very early date it was wrong. And, in fact, Dan and Ed identify who he really was and maintain she had to have known who he was.
As per Win Scott, please read what I wrote in the first essay about Angleton, Goodpasture and Scott's death. That was not Oswald. And she knew it.
Sometimes I wonder: How many people have actually read the entire Lopez Report? I read it twice. Once in its first declassified format to prepare for my interview with Eddie Lopez. And then again, when I rewrote Destiny Betrayed.
Danny and Eddie stick to the facts. Which is why their work is invaluable.
When I interviewed Eddie at his home in Rochester back in the nineties, he told me something very revealing, and which has never left me.
Back then, when the first cut of the Lopez Report has just been disseminated, nobody knew who the heck Anne Goodpasture was.
But no one reading the report, even in that early format, could possibly avoid how important she is to the whole Mexico City charade.
Dan and Ed spend a lot of time on all the lies she told them.
So I naturally asked Eddie, "Who the heck was she? What was her function?"
Eddie explained to me that, in addition to being Win Scott's Girl Friday, she handled Phillips' operations when he was away, since he spent so much time at Langley and JM/WAVE.
In light of that fact, then I think it makes much more sense as to why she had to lie to Dan and Ed about her prime and pivotal role in the daily photographic and audio coverage from the two embassies. And this fact gets absolutely highlighted to the point of a solar eclipse when her role in the Mystery man photo is examined. Which is why I put so much stress on that in my second essay.
If the HSCA had passed on those indictments Danny and Eddie had prepared, I have very little doubt that both Phillips and Goodpasture would have been convicted. If I had only one choice of which trial to attend, it would have been hers. Because all the pressure would have been there to either rat out Phillips, or go to jail yourself.
And, by the way, it was Eddie who told me that this is the reason they prepared the indictments. He said, "Jim, the only way these CIA sluts will tell the truth is if you threaten to put them in jail."
Someone clarify something for me please: That memo shows a "carbon copy" going to . . . Lee Henry Oswald? Or does the "P" designate a file that it's copied to?
Here is the passage from my second essay that I think is so incriminating of Goodpasture:
One of the most fascinating parts of the Lopez Report is its description of Goodpasture's role in the famous Mystery Man photo debacle. This is a photo the Warren Commission printed that was allegedly identified by the CIA as Oswald outside the Russian compound. Yet it was clearly not Oswald. Lopez and Hardway tried to find out why this happened. There had been a search of the photographic surveillance for Oswald the first week of October in order to link his picture to a call allegedly from him to the Soviet Embassy.[SUP]137[/SUP] But the delay in finding the photo of Oswald supposedly resulted in the cable not getting to CIA HQ until October 8, 1963. Yet, even after the delay, this photo was not of Oswald. So why was it sent? The excuse Goodpasture gave in the Lopez Report is that it was the only photo of a non-Latin taken the day of the call, i.e. 10/1/63.[SUP]138[/SUP] (Goodpasture also testified that, in these situations, they would check the photos for a few days in advance of the call. [SUP]139[/SUP]) Goodpasture testified that since that photo was the only one of a non-Latin male during this period, this is why she chose to send it to CIA HQ. It is imperative to note here that Bugliosi accepts this same rationale from David Phillips in Reclaiming History. Which clearly implies that he and Goodpasture collaborated on this excuse.[SUP]140[/SUP]
But it's not true. Lopez and Hardway discovered that there was another non-Latin male photographed on 9/27, and he had not been identified at that time.[SUP]141[/SUP] Why was his photo not considered or sent? What makes this lie even worse is that the authors write that Goodpasture tried to change this man's name to a Latin sounding one to conceal this fact from them.[SUP]142[/SUP]
But further, the photo of the Mystery Man was not taken on October 1st or prior to that. It was taken on 10/2/63, the day after the call.[SUP]143[/SUP] Why is this important? If the photo was taken on October 1st, it could conceivably be of Oswald, since he was still in Mexico City. But if it was taken on 10/2 it likely could not have been him since he left early that morning. Goodpasture tried to explain all this as benign and not devious: a simple error in reading a log sheet. But unfortunately for her Lopez and Hardway found the log sheet. It is in black type with the separate days being marked off in columns typed inred percentage marks![SUP]144[/SUP] Under those circumstances Lopez and Hardway termed this "mistake" implausible. They found it even more implausible that Goodpasture would not realize this rather large identification error for 13 years- -that is until 1976. What cinched the case for this being another lie was that the authors discovered a CIA cable to Mexico City dated 11/23/63. It said that the photo Goodpasture sent to them of Oswald outside the Russian Embassy was not Oswald. The cable then requested a recheck of the photos.[SUP]145[/SUP] It turns out the Mystery Man was photographed two more times in October, and the CIA probably knew who he was: KGB officer Yuri Moskalev.[SUP]146[/SUP] After analyzing the situation, Lopez and Hardway concluded that Goodpasture actually knew by October 11th that the Mystery Man was not Oswald.[SUP]147[/SUP] But she couldn't admit that. The illusion had to be maintained that they were confused down there.
But there is another possible reason for Goodpasture's "mistake". There was no CIA phone transcript of Oswald to link the photo to on October 2nd. So she had to push it forward a day to make the link between the photo and transcript stick.
Jim - the phone calls and the visits to these embassies do NOT include the Oswald Ruby killed. That man was not there per the testimonies of Azcue and Duran as well as the evidence offered from Mexico.
Duran is very specific that this person does not return after Friday's visits
CORNWELL - Let's just talk hypothetically for a moment. Is there any chance that he was at the Consulate on more than one day?
TIRADO - No. I r[B]ead yesterday, an article in the Reader's digest, and they say he was at the Consulate on three occasions. He was in Friday, Saturday, and Monday...That's not true, that's false.
[/B] CORNWELL - All right. Let's try a different hypothetical. If the one in the Reader's Digest is definitely wrong, is it possible that he first came on like a Thursday, and then came back on a Friday?
TIRADO - No, because I am positively sure about it. That he came in the same day.and Azcue tells us he was not the man on TV who Ruby killed - he watched that scene...
Mr. THONE. Consul Azcue, did I understand, and I may not have gotten it right
this morning, that when you went back to Cuba you saw a film which depicted the
shooting by a Mr. Ruby of Lee Harvey Oswald, and at the time you were concerned
that this wasn't the same person at all that was at the consul applying for a
visa?
Senor AZCUE. Exactly. Only 2 months back I had seen the individual who
appeared at the consulate. So I had his image clearly engraved in my mind, and I
did not recognize him in the movie.
Mr. THONE. Exactly. Now my question. Did
you report this to the Cuban Government, and if so to whom and what happened on
your report in this regard?
Senor AZCUE. I reported this to some of my
friends in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But in fact, in truth I was aware of
the fact that it was testimony of my own, it was of my own imagination. And that
the conditions under which I had seen him in the film at the time he was killed,
with distorted features as a result of pain, it is conceivable that I might be
mistaken. I reaffirmed my view when Attorney Garrison of New Orleans stated that
the Oswald who visited or was at the consulate was not the one who allegedly
killed Kennedy, because of the date he departed New Orleans and the date he had
visited the consulate in Cuba. So that confirmed my own view, and at that point
I believed that as being the truth. And then I communicated this. And that was
probably filed, recorded. I did not write a report. I made an oral report. But
it would be necessary to investigate whether such a report in writing exists or
does not. But that was the time when I saw my own views confirmed in my opinion
that there were two Oswalds. Garrison shares the same opinion.
Quote:One of the most fascinating parts of the Lopez Report is its description of Goodpasture's role in the famous Mystery Man photo debacle. This is a photo the Warren Commission printed that was allegedly identified by the CIA as Oswald outside the Russian compound. Yet it was clearly not Oswald. Lopez and Hardway tried to find out why this happened. There had been a search of the photographic surveillance for Oswald the first week of October in order to link his picture to a call allegedly from him to the Soviet Embassy.[SUP]137[/SUP] But the delay in finding the photo of Oswald supposedly resulted in the cable not getting to CIA HQ until October 8, 1963. Yet, even after the delay, this photo was not of Oswald. So why was it sent? The excuse Goodpasture gave in the Lopez Report is that it was the only photo of a non-Latin taken the day of the call, i.e. 10/1/63.[SUP]138[/SUP] (Goodpasture also testified that, in these situations, they would check the photos for a few days in advance of the call. [SUP]139[/SUP]) Goodpasture testified that since that photo was the only one of a non-Latin male during this period, this is why she chose to send it to CIA HQ. It is imperative to note here that Bugliosi accepts this same rationale from David Phillips in Reclaiming History. Which clearly implies that he and Goodpasture collaborated on this excuse.[SUP]140[/SUP]
But it's not true. Lopez and Hardway discovered that there was another non-Latin male photographed on 9/27, and he had not been identified at that time.[SUP]141[/SUP] Why was his photo not considered or sent? What makes this lie even worse is that the authors write that Goodpasture tried to change this man's name to a Latin sounding one to conceal this fact from them.[SUP]142[/SUP]
But further, the photo of the Mystery Man was not taken on October 1st or prior to that. It was taken on 10/2/63, the day after the call.[SUP]143[/SUP] Why is this important? If the photo was taken on October 1st, it could conceivably be of Oswald, since he was still in Mexico City. But if it was taken on 10/2 it likely could not have been him since he left early that morning. Goodpasture tried to explain all this as benign and not devious: a simple error in reading a log sheet. But unfortunately for her Lopez and Hardway found the log sheet. It is in black type with the separate days being marked off in columns typed inred percentage marks![SUP]144[/SUP] Under those circumstances Lopez and Hardway termed this "mistake" implausible. They found it even more implausible that Goodpasture would not realize this rather large identification error for 13 years- -that is until 1976. What cinched the case for this being another lie was that the authors discovered a CIA cable to Mexico City dated 11/23/63. It said that the photo Goodpasture sent to them of Oswald outside the Russian Embassy was not Oswald. The cable then requested a recheck of the photos.[SUP]145[/SUP] It turns out the Mystery Man was photographed two more times in October, and the CIA probably knew who he was: KGB officer Yuri Moskalev.[SUP]146[/SUP] After analyzing the situation, Lopez and Hardway concluded that Goodpasture actually knew by October 11th that the Mystery Man was not Oswald.[SUP]147[/SUP] But she couldn't admit that. The illusion had to be maintained that they were confused down there.
But there is another possible reason for Goodpasture's "mistake". There was no CIA phone transcript of Oswald to link the photo to on October 2nd. So she had to push it forward a day to make the link between the photo and transcript stick.
I hate to do this Jim but the photo in the WCR is from Oct 4th, not the 2nd.... and you are correct, no photos were taken on Oct 1st. It was also WILLARD C CURTIS (Win Scott) who reconfirms the lie...
The white shirt Mystery Man photos are from the 2nd, while the black shirt photos are the 4th... he was also photographed on the 15th, twice.
FBI investigation claims he left the hotel on the 1st, not the 2nd... and since the reports place these photos supposedly of Oswald on the 1st, the bogus bus manifest which has him leaving in the afternoon of the 2nd made sense... until that bus didn't work due to the late departure timing.
In the face of this report, the FBI still has him leaving prior to the 4th and informing the CIA that the man in the photo is not Oswald on Oct 22.
They all knew it was not Oswald's photo or voice... yet the conclusion that their Oswald had been there was never changed or dropped.
Since our Oswald was never there we have to accept that the entire charade has at least two if not many purposes... Bill's mole hunt is very possible and supported by the evidence.. Incrimination of Oswald and/or creating bona fides for him as an FPCC informant...
-----------------------
Michael...
This is the slip where Scott is asking that P-8573, a "P" file be set up on Lee Henry and that all docs would be cc's to that file among many others.
What I'd like to know and I think Bill has the answer... the redacted line just below that reads "50-2-4-1" with "1" having the number "5" handwritten in...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
No doubt that some folks are familiar with the way the CIA operates, Winston Scott was the CIA "station chief" in Mexico and severed there from 1956-1969.
Everyone within the CIA is assigned their own job description, like Hunt, Poyle was at the top of his game as a propagandist. I don't want to be the one to tell you, it's better if you find out for yourselves, that way, you'll see what I'm saying.
As I've said, my sources in Miami informed me that Poyle was apart of the whole propaganda about Oswald and his apparent phone conversation which was taped and handed over to the FBI. Poyle was stationed in Mexico on 11/22/1963. And, that tape has never been made public. If Oswald did make that call, and the CIA did turn over that tape to the FBI, then why is that tape not been made public?
Please do let me know what you find in connection with Poyle.
Scott Kaiser Wrote:No doubt that some folks are familiar with the way the CIA operates, Winston Scott was the CIA "station chief" in Mexico and severed there from 1956-1969.
Everyone within the CIA is assigned their own job description, like Hunt, Poyle was at the top of his game as a propagandist. I don't want to be the one to tell you, it's better if you find out for yourselves, that way, you'll see what I'm saying.
As I've said, my sources in Miami informed me that Poyle was apart of the whole propaganda about Oswald and his apparent phone conversation which was taped and handed over to the FBI. Poyle was stationed in Mexico on 11/22/1963. And, that tape has never been made public. If Oswald did make that call, and the CIA did turn over that tape to the FBI, then why is that tape not been made public?
Please do let me know what you find in connection with Poyle.
Is there any connection between Joel David Kaplan, Victor Stadter, Harvey Orville Dayle (Doyle) and this "POYLE" character you describe?
Do you have any one specific thing you can point to as POYLE's work?
Well Scott... the propaganda about Oswald and Mexico begins on October 7, 1963 when David Atlee Phillips arrives as the newly named Cuban Chief
Oct 8 is the LADILLINGER memo inwhich Goodpasture (with Win Scott as releasing officer) has Manell create a memo reporting on what LIENVOY turned up on Oct 1.
Goodpasture, working with LADILLINGER (Soviet Desk officer Barbara Murphy Manell), took what was obviously a photo from 12:22 on Oct 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and represented it as Oct 1 to match the call transcript.
Another CIA release from 10/8 regretfully talks about CHOADEN (Philliips)'s tight scehdule and "FEINRIDER" eta Oct 17th. Do you know who FEINRIDER or Friend of SI was?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Quote:Is there any connection between Joel David Kaplan, Victor Stadter, Harvey Orville Dayle (Doyle) and this "POYLE" character you describe?
How would I know? I'm looking into Poyle only because he was with Sturgis the day my father was murdered.
Quote:Do you have any one specific thing you can point to as POYLE's work?
Does anyone?
Quote:Well Scott... the propaganda about Oswald and Mexico begins on October 7, 1963 when David Atlee Phillips arrives as the newly named Cuban Chief
What do you think Poyle was? Aside from being imprisoned for awhile in Fidel Castro's prison? Wouldn't you think that Phillips, Forton and Win Scott knew about Poyle in Mexico on 11/22/1963?
Quote:Oct 8 is the LADILLINGER memo inwhich Goodpasture (with Win Scott as releasing officer) has Manell create a memo reporting on what LIENVOY turned up on Oct 1.
Are you sure there aren't any other memos generated after Oct 1st 1963? Including, any generated after November 22, 1963? Dig man dig! Don't believe everything you read from those documents. Poyle says he first encountered my father on August 28, 1973, that's NOT true, we now know that Poyle FIRST encountered my father on August 23, 1973 five days earlier when my father was showing the photos he had around to many of the Miami Cubans as well as Poyle.
Quote:Do you know who FEINRIDER or Friend of SI was?
