Now back to Mexico City, phone calls, taps, tapes and transcriptions.

The first thing we have to look at is how substantially the story of the phone calls and tapes changed during the first 24 hours after the assassination. John Newman has done great work on the documents that lay out the timeline and one thing that becomes obvious is that as of Friday evening and into Saturday, there is no question about the tapes existing, not to mention transcriptions of the various calls they record.  That would be understandable, despite David Phillips’ posturing and overt lies we now know that Oswald was of major interest to both to Mexico City station and the FBI at the time of his visit – as should be, the CIA had recently busted one American calling the Cuban embassy and offering security related information and the FBI was monitoring a double agent in the U.S. that had been meeting in Mexico City with KGB agents. Beyond that, even the Mexico City CIA station history notes that one of the CIA and FBI priorities was monitoring Americans coming to Mexico that might be making intelligence contacts with the Soviets or Cubans.

So on Friday night we have tapes, they are coming to the US and on Saturday morning Hoover tells Johnson that they have compared voices and the guy on the tape is not Oswald  – and its not just Hoover, a memo from one of his senior staff confirms that (but golly gee, nobody ever releases the actual field office memos which discuss the tape review and we all know that memos were one thing the Bureau was very rigors about – you could get assigned to Boise just for not titling them correctly; SAIC careers depended on the accuracy of their memos sent to the Director).

Now we only know about this Hoover/Johnson conversation because somebody actually erased the tape of it but forgot to collect the transcript and make it disappear (for details see Rex Bradford on the 14 minute gap – confirmed after much dialog by the Johnson Library).

We do eventually see Hoover recanting on the voice comparison and his dialog with Johnson (well not so much recanting as just letting it drop dead), but another thing we don’t see is the memos on exactly which FBI agents all the way down to the SAIC were disciplined for embarrassing the Director if a mistake had been made ….we know Hoover did not suffer such embarrassment lightly.

And wouldn’t you know it, as the weekend progresses, Newman documents how the story out of Mexico City changes – tapes, we don’t have any tapes, they were all erased, sorry about that.  Yet we now know that is an out and out lie, one the HSCA let stand, to there shame. But that’s not all that goes away, when the Mexico City translators are interviewed they talk about how “hot” Oswald was in MC during his visit, transcriptions of the calls were a priority (another example of Phillips falsehoods) and beyond that, there were more calls than the Station listed or the CIA admitted.  One asking for money and with other remarks that could be used as putting Oswald in some sort of suspicious relationship with the Soviets or Cubans….but you won’t find those transcripts, although the Tarasof’s remembered them well.

And let’s think about that for a minute – so the tapes (at least one) did exist and the CIA lied about that, was much more interest in Oswald during his visit and they lied about that and there were more calls and more transcripts than they admitted.  So why are they covering all this up and making themselves look foolish?

And if you stop and think about it, its not likely that the Cubans or Russians would be faking the calls and making themselves look suspicious is it?

As I mentioned in the  previous post, the other thing missing is any detail at all about any actual detail which might have indicated where the calls had originated.

There is something very wrong here, and even more suggestive is that Hoover accepts looking like a fool after his call to Johnson, Johnson never brings up the subject again and the CIA just flat out lies about the whole thing.  Now why would all that be?

….as you ponder the question, keep in mind Hoover’s annotation sometime later about a memo proposing the Bureau work together with the CIA on intelligence sharing,  part of Hoover’s remarks are a warning to be cautious because he still recalled how the CIA lied to the FBI about Oswald in Mexico City.

 

Advertisements

About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s