Lee Oswald was an object of special attention to both the FBI and the CIA prior to the President’s assassination and that attention had dramatically escalated only weeks before in Mexico City.

Well OK, it’s not the only lie and but it is a big lie and a very significant one.

And its significance relates to the fact that it was a lie that was only sustained by an entire series of further lies by a series of nominally unconnected people, as well as intentional Agency legal obfuscation which is alive and well some four decades later.

But four decades of research have also proven in several of those lies and certified the obfuscation and that is a story we must be prepared to present during the 50 anniversary of the assassination.

So lets list a few for starters and see if readers can add to the list.

1. An FBI informant file was maintained on Lee Oswald in New Orleans, after the assassination a directive was issued that even the subject of such a file was not to be discussed and agents knowledgeable of the file were protected from having to provide testimony on such a subject.

2. Select files relating to Oswald’s contact with a CIA sponsored exile group in New Orleans are still being legally denied to public access as of 2012.  The CIA case officer for that group was recalled to serve as liaison to the HSCA; his relationship to a group known to be in contact with Oswald was not disclosed during that period.

3. Internally, CIA HQ knowingly lied to the Mexico City station in regard to Lee Oswald and his recent activities in New Orleans.  That lie was admitted by one of the officers signing off on related messages to Mexico City.

4. Transcripts of taped conversations of Lee Oswald in Mexico City disappeared from the record; that was confirmed by the translators involved in the transcription. It was also revealed in a media slip by David Phillips, who proceeded to reverse himself under oath.

5. Lee Oswald and his related phone calls were an object of station priority during his visit to Mexico, that was confirmed by the station translators and denied by various CIA officers. Most dramatically David Phillips presented a totally different, and demonstrably untrue description of Oswald time in Mexico City in his book and his book was approved by the CIA for publication.

6. Tapes of Oswald’s conversations in Mexico City were officially stated to have been destroyed; it is now know that at least one tape was not destroyed – their eventual disposition is unknown.

7.  The Director of the FBI informed the President that Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City, based on the tape mentioned in item 7.  He was forced to recant on his statement – most probably to support the lie about the tapes being destroyed.  In addition, the White House tape containing the record of the discussion between Hoover and Johnson on that point was intentionally erased – as eventually admitted by the Johnson library.

8. The Director of the FBI, in a handwritten annotation to an FBI document, noted that the CIA had lied to the FBI about Oswald in Mexico City.

……I bring up these points for two reasons, first, this is the sort of provable material that we have to be presenting to the public and media during the 50th, to force them to admit that there is a larger story to the assassination than that revealed by either the Warren Commission or the HSCA.

The second reason, is that my friend Bill Simpich has prepared a series of posts relating to the intrigue in Mexico City and we will be posting those here in the coming weeks.  They are detailed, they are deep and they require a ton of work to get around what the CIA was working at concealing.  Its a work still very much in progress where good research could still be done .  There is no doubt that the CIA and FBI did not tell the full story of Lee Oswald, there is some doubt that they even understood it, and the possibility that they may have been afraid to investigate it because of its potential ramifications.  The one thing they must have known though, is that things they were saying were not true….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

2 responses »

  1. Peter Mciver. says:

    What is the evidence for there being an Informant file being held on Lee Oswald in New Orleans? I believe that he was an FBI informant but I am not aware of any documentary proof of that belief.

    • Peter, a good point and that item does suffer fram a lack of “hard” documntation (so does the issue of internal CIA documents relating to Oswald and DRE in New Orleans ). The fact that key FBI agents, especially office staff responsible for Counter Intelligence, were given immunity from testifying about Oswald in New Orleans is documented – one would only admit that Oswald was a person of interest to the office. One of the things that complicates this is the fact that we now know there were levels of FBI “informants”, officially a true informant did receive payment but that was because he would be in an inside position and ultimately could be used as a witness in legal proceedings. There were other levels of unpaid informants who were carried as simply prospects or sources. Which makes it easy for Hoover to deny that Oswald was an informant per se. Joan Mellon presents an interview which confirms that Oswald specifically requested an FBI officer by name when he was jailed after his “fight”, that would be the same individual later given immunity from given testimony. Circumstantial of course. Personally I believe New Orleans FBI office employee William Walter’s statement about finding Oswald’s file cards in the “security type, informant files-105 and 134 classifications”, which indeed are the areas that cover the broader range of “sources” not just paid informants. What makes locating such documentation virtually impossible is that even without any special effort, such files have a very limited retention period. Once the source goes inactive the file is destroyed within one to to years as I recall. Walters is the same individual who reported the “JFK threat teletype” and he stated that that office personnel had been pressured to sign affidavits, not to the fact that the teletype did not exist but to the effect that they would disclose related information. In regard to his asssertion, a document has been found which contains the instruction that related letters or statements about the matter are not to be placed in office files on express instructions of the Deputy Assistant Director, James Adams.”

      Given that sort of context, I think it would be pretty unlikely we would ever find any sort of docuement confirmation out of New Orleans. In regard to certain of the Mexico City allegations, the situation is the same. The translators (Tarasof’s) describe conversations, reports and activities that are no longer in the files. There is no doubt they worked there and had no reason to lie. The same could be said of Walters in New Orleans. My point with several items on the list is that that what has been discovered about Oswald as a serious subject of interest in 1963 is consistent and that togehter they should generate an ongoing sense of skepticism about the official story.

      After all, when we see one document that says the FBI knew exactly what Oswald was doing in his embassy visits and then later we see a note from Hoover himself that the CIa lied to the FBI about Oswald in Mexico City, it should give even the jaded types a bit of pause.

      For those with a copy of SWHT, the New Orleans comments above are discussed in Chapter 14.

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