Declassified: The CIA "Oswald" and Mexico City

[Jim DiEugenio]

David

Due to very busy work schedule i don't have time to debate on forums but i felt the need to post just this reply regarding Mexico City, Simpich and the Mole hunt.
According to Simpich:
"I offer the hypothesis that David Morales ran a piggy-backed operation on top of an anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee operation run by CIA officer John Tilton and FBI agent Lambert Anderson, outwitted both Angleton and Goodpasture, brought down the President, and got away with it. Whether or not Bill Harvey was part of this operation, his people were all over it and merit further scrutiny...
Others have argued to me that Angleton and covert action chief David Phillips were part of a plan to kill Kennedy, but my present perspective is that both of them like Goodpasture and operations chief Richard Helms, who I believe were in on the molehunt - were entrapped by the impersonation.
Angleton and Phillips drove the cover-up for their own protection. Otherwise, their careers and reputations would have been ruined, to say nothing of the future of the CIA. Phillips told investigator Kevin Walsh shortly before he died that he believed American intelligence officers were involved in the assassination. Angleton's last words were filled with regret and sorrow. "I've made so many mistakes."
I do not agree with his conclusions. I mean David, you so fiercely defend Armstrong with respect to Harvey and Lee, and you do not do the same when it comes with his Mexico explanation? And you prefer Simpich's thesis that exonerates Angleton and Phillips? Really?
When Newman has presented his view about Angleton and now he is going to after Phillips in his new books? And Lopez and Hardway that investigated it the incident in detail, haven spoken in person to all the players and had access to CIA HQ, why should i believe what Simpich says?
I would agree that a mole hunt was going on, but this does not exclude that Angleton was part of the plot.
Angleton said to Trento that E. H Hunt was sent to Dallas the day of the assassination on orders from a highly ranked KGB mole inside the CIA. Later Trento said that he believed that Angleton was really trying to hide his connection to Hunt and that he had probably sent him down there. Angleton never caught a mole, and later a CIA investigation concluded that maybe Angleton was a mole himself. It seems that Angleton was using his mole hunt as a cover to carry out his own agenda.
Imagine a Congressman asking Angleton what was he involvement down in Mexico. Would he have answered "i was planning to assassinate a US President" or "I was doing a mole hunt"?
So why to believe Simpich and his theory that it was Morales the man who outfoxed the rest of the CIA?

I have always admired VV's simplicity and his independence of mind.

Let me take the longer view on this and offer some perspective on it.

The idea of the so called "marked cards" thesis and the Oswald file, actually began years ago. It was started by Peter Scott in an article called something like "Oswald and The Search for Popov's Mole" published in, I think, The Fourth Decade. Replete with espionage jargon like "Barium Meals' it was one of the most obtuse and I felt, laboriously constructed essays I ever saw on the Kennedy case.

Scott was trying to explain away any inconsistencies in Oswald's file by saying that Angleton, or an assistant of some sort, had placed them there in order to search for the mole that had betrayed Petr Popov. Popov was a defector in place who had offered his services to the CIA in 1952. He was uncovered in 1959 and subsequently executed.

Scott tried to say that Angleton was using certain inconstencies in the Oswald file to detect the mole from 1959 in 1963. And anyone who passed these on was somehow radioactive.

There was a serious problem with this byzantine construct: Popov was not betrayed by any mole. As Tom Mangold demonstrates in his fine book on Angleton, Popov was found out because an embassy officer tried to mail a letter to Popov via a mail drop. Unawares, he had been followed. The Soviets emptied the mail box and found the letter to Popov.

Now, as Mangold delineates it, Angleton knew the real reason for Popov's discovery. But he shielded it from without because it furthered Golitsyn's idea about a mole in the CIA's ranks.

But yet we are supposed to believe that Angleton did this "marked cards" exercise anyway?

Go figure. But anyway, that is how this started as far as I can determine. And Simpich states this is where he got the idea in Part 3 of his Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend series.

[Drew Phipps]

It's interesting that Popov also appeared to be the spy that reported to the US (in April 1958) that the KGB had full technical specs on the U2, and we know that Oswald was also connected with the U2.

Perhaps Oswald's "defection" to the USSR beginning in Sept. 1959 was designed as a gauge of the USSR's remaining level of interest in U2 information. (btw, Richard Bissell was a U2 guy.) Popov had already been removed from active duty at that point. Oswald's actual defection appears to correspond roughly with Popov's arrest (October 1959).

In any event, whether or not Oswald was an "agent" or not, the CIA would certainly have had a reason to "obscure" his motives and background, upon his defection.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Another oddity about this whole thesis.

In Mangold's entire book, he never mentions Angleton using the "marked card" method to detect a mole.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Let's talk a bit about Phillips and Oswald to point up another oddity with the "marked cards" theory.

Prior to the whole Mexico City escapade, Oswald was in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area, and then New Orleans. And there is some evidence that he actually did some leafleting in Dallas, before he went to the Crescent City. But once he was in New Orleans, there is little doubt that he went into high gear as an agent provocateur. At first, it was kind of underground and low key; then he went into high gear by leafleting in public. This culminated in the altercation with Bringuier, the photos and films of him that were taken, the court appearance, and Oswald pleading guilty, even though he was not the perpetrator.

Now, let us count the ways that Phillips was familiar with both Oswald, and Banister's operation.

In 1961, the evidence indicates that Phillips was in New Orleans to help prepare for a city wide telethon to raise funds for the anti Castro cause; and he met with Arcacha Smith and Banister at 544 Camp Street. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 105)

The evidence indicates that, after Kennedy cut off funding for the exiles, Phillips raised money from some wealthy Texans to help construct a CIA training camp at Lacombe, LA. When Bob Tanenbaum was counsel for the HSCA, he saw a film of exile training, likely from this camp. In it were Banister, Oswald, and Phillips. He had certain witnesses verify their presence there. (ibid, p. 116)

David Phillips, along with James McCord, was running the CIA's anti-FPCC program in 1963. (ibid, p. 158) Of which, Oswald had to be a part of from what he was doing in New Orleans. In fact, Phillips probably supplied Banister with the Corliss Lamont pamphlet from 1961 that the CIA had ordered at that time. (ibid)

As everyone and their mom knows, Veciana saw Phillips with Oswald in the late summer of 1963 in Dallas at the Southland Center.

This is all important because it all happened before the whole alleged "Oswald in Mexico" occurrence. But my point is this: Does anyone think that Phillips did not know who Oswald was by late August of 1963, and what he looked like? I mean I sure as heck think he did know. How can one deny the totality of this evidence?

Now, considering that Eddie Lopez told me that Goodpasture took care of the Phillips operations when he was not there, what is the probability that he would not have shown her a likeness before he left, or that she would have not have called him once she heard his name?

To me, the probability is about less than five per cent.

This is why I do not buy all this innocent groping around in the dark down in MC, which is what the "marked card" thesis holds to the the case.

[Jim DiEugenio]

A friend just proffered another technical problem with the marked cards thesis in MC:

In order for that scenario to play out, you need the following sequence:

1. an anti-FPCC counterintel operation.
2. an instrusion on that operation (i.e., the Morales set-up).
3. a molehunt initiated to find out who intruded on that operation.

The argument of: why didn't they lay a clearer trail of breadcrumbs for Oswald's entry
into Mexico if the operation were to incriminate him from the start, poses a question
one perhaps needs to think about. But it doesn't really argue in favor of point (1)
until you can prove that Oswald did go there by some other means AND was present
at the consulates. The former may be true, but the latter almost certainly is not.


Therefore, the marked cards MC scenario then becomes subject to a repeated question: why, if they used Oswald in an
anti-FPCC campaign in NO, could they not continue to use him here?

Is there a credible reason which is not suspicious? I don't think there is.

[Albert Doyle]

As everyone and their mom knows, Veciana saw Phillips with Oswald in the late summer of 1963 in Dallas at the Southland Center.

Don't forget Wynne Johnson.

[Drew Phipps]

If information about Oswald was the "deck of marked cards", the whole operation could have begun with his defection. Apparently lacking any nibbles from the Russian side, they could have simply decided to set him into the Cuban situation rather than discard him and start fresh with someone new.

So I don't see why the "intrusion" and the molehunt needs to post-date the anti FPCC operation.

You could speculate that the foiling of several Castro assassination attempts might have suggested a need for a molehunt.

[David Josephs]

If information about Oswald was the "deck of marked cards", the whole operation could have begun with his defection. Apparently lacking any nibbles from the Russian side, they could have simply decided to set him into the Cuban situation rather than discard him and start fresh with someone new.

So I don't see why the "intrusion" and the molehunt needs to post-date the anti FPCC operation.

I believe the "marked card" we are referring to here is the name "HENRY" and little else.

Who would be using "HENRY" after these reports are sent back and forth who SHOULDN'T be using "HENRY" unless they saw these docs.

I'm not sure what people think he was supposed to do in Russia other than what he did... take photos and write notes about what he saw and the capacities of manufacturing.
I believe the Russians were aware of the "false defector" program and used women like Marina to attach themselves to these men and get taken back to the USA.



It is not until he arrives in New Orleans that all his pro-Castro work for anti-Castro bosses begins... the "Oswald Project" begins in April 1963 just after the estranged Michael Paine comes to Neely to pick the Oswalds up for a visit.
10 days later Walker is shot at... not Oswald but conveniently attributed to him... maybe to gain sympathies and credibility from the anti-Walker, pro-Castro groups he is infiltrating...
a couple weeks later Oswald buses to New Orleans alone and the summer of 63 begins... Ruth will move Marina down to New Orleans in May and back from in Sept, just in time for the Mexico Charade...

I believe we are making too much of the decision to use HENRY as the marked card. Had JFK met his end in Chicago as planned, or Tampa for that matter, Oswald's infiltration work would have continued.
Yet by this time the name Oswald was getting more and more intertwined with those who would be on the front lines in the planning and execution of JFK.

Who Oswald was or what he looked/sounded like was of no consequence to whatever was happening within the embassies that week... it was NOT Oswald. Alvarado lied. The FBI knew right off it was not Lee HENRY and said so.
So if anything was being hunted, IMO it was the attempted infiltration of the Cuban embassy in MExico City by either the Mexicans themselves or Cubans trying to see what their embassy was being used for by the US intelligence services.

We must remember that the Cuban Embassy and Duran are not part of the inital info on Oswald... this was all Russian Embassy spying...

On Oct 16th Win Scott sends the "tell all" memo regarding the Oct 1 call (which never happened) to Ambassador Mann that includes: Kostikov contact & "HENRY"
On Oct 18th the FBI sends virtually the same exact info to Hoover
On Oct 22nd Hoover tells MExico that HENRY is NOT correct, it is Lee HARVEY - but now he has been reported as drinking and beating his wife (first mention of this) - this is also the FIRST MENTION of the FPCC or Cuba - yet still no mention of the Cuban Embassy... only the Russians
On Oct 24th the CIA is asking the Navy for photos of Oswald to see if "Lee OSwald in Mexico and Subject are the same individual" (the Navy drags their feet)
All thru Nov, the FBI is checking Mexican sources related to Russian, Cuban or Communist activities or personnel - all negative for Oswald
The Paine typed letter dated Nov 9th refers to FPCC and Havana
Photos sent here and there are all of a man outside the RUSSIAN compound, never the Cuban.
On Nov 22nd the CIA tells us they have found the SAME unidentified man who is possibly Oswald (not) entering the C[B]UBAN EMBASSY on Oct 15th.[/B] This is the first CIA mention of the Cuban Embassy and possibly why the FBI does not claim to know where Oswald is until Nov 1st. We also learn that the same unidentified man visited the Russian Emabssy on Oct 4th.
Also on the 22nd, the CIA mentions copies of coverage for OCT 28 (yet claims it should be Sept)
Also on the 22nd, CIA acknowledges the photo from Oct 4th which they claim was on Oct 1st is the same person as "the only visitor to the SovEmb 28 OCT who could be identical with Oswald" -
Also on Nov 22nd the FBI tell sus that they still have no info on Entry/Exit Mexico and that the CIA advise that subject was in contact with SOVIET EMBASSY - still no mention of Cuban Embassy
Also on the 22nd Win Scott writes JC King to tell him of photos of "a certain person who is known to you"...

Finally, on 11/23 we get our first official CIA releases of the transcripts starting with the Sept 28th call from the Mex station to the CIA Director. He only goes to the Cuban Embassy "because they have it. (my address)"
It is here they claim that they cannot compare voices since 1st tape erased prior to receipt of second call... so between Sept 28 and Oct 1 they erased the tapes?

Finally, on Nov 23rd Amb Mann sends Rusk a note... https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...9&tab=page
it is finally here in this telegram that the STATE DEPT finally puts into words what others have been thinking... this is late in the evening of 11/23

(Alvarado has yet to come forward) "CIRCUMSTANCES ALREADY DEVELOPED HERE POINT TO POSSIBILITY THAT OSWALD MAY HAVE BEEN CASTRO'S AGENT" (The State Dept and CIA were hand in hand with all this while the FBI and I&NS are sent to find buses)

My point to all this is that connecting Oswald to Castro to the assassination does not happen until after the assassination, of course. That whatever was going on during this time with the calls and transcripts and delays and photos and all had little if anything to do with the JFK assassination at THAT point in time. If COULD be used if need be yet even Alvarado gets squashed... the "Castro agent paid to kill JFK" story may have served two purposes...

1) Take the attention away from what was actually going on in Mexico at the time &
2) Continue with the implication of Oswald as an agent of Castro... had the WC been made aware of the assassination attempts on Castro, the false Alvarado story would have been in Context. Painting Alvarado out of the picture kept anyone from continuing with the CASTRO angle...

I truly feel that readers sometimes fail to grasp the breadth or context of activity that was going on within the CIA and FBI at the time.

[Jim DiEugenio]

If information about Oswald was the "deck of marked cards", the whole operation could have begun with his defection. Apparently lacking any nibbles from the Russian side, they could have simply decided to set him into the Cuban situation rather than discard him and start fresh with someone new.

So I don't see why the "intrusion" and the molehunt needs to post-date the anti FPCC operation.

You could speculate that the foiling of several Castro assassination attempts might have suggested a need for a molehunt.

Drew: (from my friend again)

If you are trying to find out who is leaking info, that is a mole hunt. If you are just trying to get a double agent to be accepted into a foreign intel circle, that's not a mole hunt.

Bill, as far as I know, does not claim that the Webster/Oswald business was part of a mole hunt. If anything, false info about LHO enters with the "HENRY" of his 201 file, not before. Bill, as I recall, thinks, like Scott, that LHO may have also been sent to MC as some sort of "dangle", but that Morales knew that he could get Angleton to think there was a mole in the midst of CIA MC Station by using the imposter on the phone, i.e., doubling LHO. The "mole hunt" in this case, if I understand Bill correctly (though it is possible I don't ...), begins with the twin cables containing varying bad or incomplete info concerning the identity of LHO.

In any case, how could using an imposter at the embassies be part of a mole hunt? Did they expect the surveillance photos themselves to be leaked (but as far as I know they weren't)? But that would mean you'd need one real/one imposter, or two imposters, to do the same thing with the photos that was done with the cables.

This all gets so speculative at times, and this is a major problem with the scenario. Its indefiniteness.

[Jim DiEugenio]

"This all gets so speculative at times, and this is a major problem with the scenario. Its indefiniteness."

Let me add here, this is a problem I have with a lot of Peter's material on the JFK case.