Post by Rob Caprio on Dec 20, 2021 16:15:11 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.kennedysandking.com/images/2017/jd-documents/goodpasture.png
cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2013/07/18/bff83c1e-1c4e-11e3-9918-005056850598/thumbnail/620x465/b9a1eb7b123389aa3ed1ec1059c09583/LHO_MexicoCity_1.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself with no assistance from anyone else. One of the key events they used in making this proclamation was LHO’s alleged trip to Mexico City in late September 1963. The WC relied on information for this ENTIRE alleged trip from primarily one source—the CIA and the CIA relied on one person for the identification of LHO—Ann Goodpasture.
We will look at this issue in greater detail in this post.
*************************************************
I want to start with a quote from Mark Lane’s book, Plausible Deniability, in regards to the comment about the WC relying on one source for their Mexico City information.
Quote on
At the outset it should be understood that almost all of the information regarding Oswald's alleged visit to Mexico and his contact with the Soviets and Cubans while there had been fabricated by the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. In its report, the Commission cited the CIA as the PRIMARY source for the Mexico City scenario, DECLINING to seek independent CORROBORATION, for the CIA's version of events.
Nevertheless, the Mexico City scenario constitutes the conventional wisdom as promulgated by the CIA and accepted by the Warren Commission. It remains an article of FAITH for those who subsequently ENDORSED the Warren Report, including journalists and official investigating committees. One of the CENTRAL tenets of the lone assassin theory is Lee Harvey Oswald's presence in Mexico City. (Plausible Denial, pp. 45-46) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
Why did the WC NOT seek independent corroboration for the evidence the CIA presented and the WC published? Especially after J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) told President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) that the photograph and audio tape sent to them by the CIA was NOT of LHO? I quoted this earlier in another post.
Quote on
President Johnson: Have you established any more about the [Oswald] visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?
JEH: No, that’s one angle that is very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy; using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do NOT correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a SECOND person who was at the Soviet Embassy. (LBJ Library, LBJ Tapes, 11/23/63, President Johnson Telephone Conversations with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
This is the area outside of the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) that caused the most concern and doubt for some of the WC members. We can see why too. Shortly before LHO’s alleged visit to Mexico City David Atlee Phillips was assigned to the Mexico City station by the CIA. This station was run by Winston Scott and had another employee by the name of Ann Goodpasture. Ms. Goodpasture went back to the days of the O.S.S. in World War II where she worked with two men who are familiar to the JFK assassination community---Richard Helms and H.L. Hunt in the Far East. She was sent to Mexico City by James Jesus Angleton to work on a counter-intelligence case and she would run things when Phillips was not in town.
Author David Martin stated she was part of “Staff D” in his book Wilderness of Mirrors. Part of Staff D was the famous ZR/RIFLE program that dealt with the CIA’s ability to use assassination as a tool. [Wilderness of Mirrors by David Martin, Harper & Row, 1980, pp. 121 & 127] This is important when we consider she is the person who claimed the visitor to the Cuban Consulate was LHO.
In John Newman’s book, Oswald And The CIA, it is said the fact it was said that Goodpasture identified LHO came from David Atlee Phillips as he said so in her retirement letter. He wrote the following about her.
Quote on
She was the case officer who was responsible for the identification of Lee Harvey Oswald in his dealings with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico. (Retirement Letter written by David Atlee Phillips for Ann Goodpasture as cited in Oswald And The CIA, John Newman, Skyhorse Publishing, 2008 edition, p. 374)
Quote off
The question though is WHEN did she make this identification that Phillips mentioned ten years later? Goodpasture would tell the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that she was responsible for simply making copies of intercepts and cable traffic about once a month. She said this was the only interaction she had with Staff D.
Jeremy Gunn. So then the only two things that you did with staff D are those two things that you’ve now discussed?
Goodpasture. That’s all I recall. (Ann Goodpasture ARRB deposition, p. 15)
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf
Quote off
So according to her testimony before the ARRB she was not a regular member of Staff D while in Mexico. She would say before the ARRB that she did NOT report to Phillips at all.
Gunn. For example, did you have any responsibility to report to Mr. Phillips?
Goodpasture. No. (Ibid., p. 22)
Quote off
Others have said differently though as she was reported to be his assistant in covert matters at the Mexico City station. One of Goodpasture’s main jobs was to distribute the transcripts of calls that came into the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy to the appropriate case officer. Another part of Goodpasture’s job in Mexico City was that of liaison between the CIA and the FBI, Army, Navy and Air Force on routine cases.
Ann Goodpasture’s fitness report for 1963 will outline what she did with the CIA station in Mexico City.
Here it is: maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=27671#relPageId=2
You’ll notice it mentions the monitoring of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and the liaison position as well. You’ll then see this comment.
Quote on
Alternate photographer, (flaps and seals technician) (Ann Goodpasture 1963 Fitness Report, p. 1)
www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB204/2.pdf
Quote off
She explains what this is in the ARRB testimony.
Gunn. Other than that particular experience with staff D, did you ever have any involvement with staff D during your years with the agency?
Goodpasture. The only other involvement that I ever had was opening—I was given training in opening letters and they call that flaps and seals because there was a time when there was an INTERCEPT operation and those things were brought in and we opened the mail, removed the grommits, it was not U.S. mail, it was foreign mail, and replaced them and then they went back into the flow of traffic, and I had that when---in early training. I think almost everybody took a course in using of secret writing but I never used that. (Ann Goodpasture ARRB deposition, p. 14) (Emphasis added)
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf
Quote off
So see she was experienced in opening mail that was being spied on and then resealing it so the person or group would NOT know that it had been read already. It mentions she was a case officer “on some CE (counter-espionage) cases” as well, and this is strictly tied to the spy trade. She was so good at her work that it says the CIA station in Mexico City would need “two or three replacements” to do what she did when she left. It also said she did everything in an “outstanding manner.” After such high praise we then see this surprising comment from the deputy chief of the station.
Quote on
Although this employee is a fine INTELLIGENCE OFFICER and has worked very hard for the Chief of Station [Winston Scott], Mexico City, I consider the rating of Outstanding in all specific duties and for over-all performance to be EXCESSIVELY HIGH. (Ann Goodpasture 1963 Fitness Report, p. 2) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
So despite the glowing praise this note says she should NOT be rated as “outstanding” as this is “excessively high” in this person’s opinion (seemingly John Whitten). Perhaps this has something to do with more than just “paying agents too much” as she would claim to have destroyed photographs of LHO entering and leaving the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City.
On September 27, 1963, “LHO” would supposedly go to the Cuban Consulate three times and he would have been automatically photographed by the system the CIA had in place (Robot Star “pulse camera”). Based on his coming and going three times this would have generated six photographs of him IF it was him. As we have seen, these along with the transcripts would have been routed to Ann Goodpasture, who in turn would have given them to David Atlee Phillips. NONE of these photographs were ever given to the WC. In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) asked for the photographs taken at the times “LHO” supposedly went to the Cuban Consulate and they were provided the photographs that had been taken of the Cuban EMBASSY instead! See, the Cuban Consulate was a DIFFERENT building than the Embassy, thus, providing these photographs was worthless. The Robot Star system AUTOMATICALLY photographed you when you entered the CONSULATE so his picture should have been taken SIX TIMES, but where are these photographs?
David Atlee Phillips would try and lie his way out of this fix by claiming the Robot Star camera system was NOT installed until December 1963, but this was quickly shown to be a lie by a CIA dispatch that said the Robot Star system was tested and in working condition on September 27, 1963!
Lopez Report, p. 18: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0031a.gif
Clearly, we see the camera system was in place to photograph LHO IF he had gone to the Cuban Consulate as claimed, but where are these photographs? Another CIA document-- #104-10015-10107—which would be released by the ARRB in 1995 also disagreed with Phillip’s take on events. That document said the photographs of an unidentified American were taken on October 15, 1963, and LHO was not in Mexico anymore even according to the WC! This also shows the Robot Star system was in place long before Phillips said it was.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0035a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0036a.gif
On the basis of HMMA-22307, HMMA-22433 and MEXI 9940, the Committee believes that it is probable that the 'pulse camera' was in operation on the days that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban Consulate...Such a camera would have automatically been triggered to photograph any person entering the Embassy… (Lopez Report, pp. 22-23)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0035a.htm
Quote off
The Lopez report would go on to say that LHO entered and exited from the Cuban and Soviet compounds at least five times, thus, the CIA had TEN opportunities to photograph him. Adding fuel to the fire were comments found in Winston Scott’s manuscript (it would be taken by James Jesus Angleton following Scott’s death) that said, “These visits and conversations [by LHO supposedly] are not hearsay; for persons watching these embassies photographed Oswald entered and left each one; and clocked the time he spent on each visit.” [Lopez Report, p. 23] This in turn caused the HSCA to write this about what he said.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0037a.gif
Scott’s comments are a cause of deep concern to this Committee, for they suggest your Agency’s [CIA] possible withholding of photographic materials highly relevant to this investigation. (Lopez Report, p. 24)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0037a.htm
Quote off
Think about it for a moment, why would the CIA withhold photographic (and voice recordings) that showed LHO was in Mexico City as they claimed? What benefit is there to hide this evidence from the WC and HSCA? Some have said to me over the years this would show LHO was on a mission or somehow tied to the CIA, but I don’t see how anyone could prove that as the official claim was this was just a trip that he took and not tied to any other reason. NO, the only reason the CIA would withhold this evidence is because it did NOT show LHO as claimed.
It would be claimed that the photographic evidence was routinely sent to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA, but when the HSCA looked into this they found that the photographic evidence could NOT have been sent to Langley prior to June 19, 1964!
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0122a.gif
HSCA review of CIA files has revealed no evidence that the photoproduction was routinely sent to Headquarters in 1963.
This committee did not find any indication that photographs from this camera were sent to Headquarters prior to 6/19/64, when Headquarters was notified that some production was being sent by unaccountable transmittal manifest… (Lopez Report, p. 109)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0122a.htm
Quote off
This means the CIA kept the photographic evidence long after the supposed LHO visit and did NOT send it to Langley as they claimed they did. The CIA would claim that they recorded LHO while he was at the Cuban Consulate as well, and based on her role within the station, we have to assume these calls would have been transcribed and given to her and then passed on to Phillips, but again, the Lopez Report shows us something different.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0094a.gif
An examination of the production from the electronic surveillance of the Cuban diplomatic compound’s telephones failed to reveal any telephone conversation that DIRECTLY MENTIONED Oswald or information that clearly and directly referred to him.
An examination of the production from these operations failed to reveal a photograph of Oswald. (Lopez Report, p. 81) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0094a.htm
Quote off
While the HSCA did not rule out a photograph could have existed of LHO due to them getting only partial information from the CIA, to me this shows they never had a photograph of LHO otherwise there is NO reason to NOT show it to the HSCA and the American people. IF LHO was going into the CIA’s station and meeting with Phillips I could understand some reluctance to provide this evidence, but showing he went into the Cuban Consulate as claimed ONLY helps their claim of him trying to go to Cuba.
All of this was kept from the WC too as Director John McCone and Deputy Director Richard Helms NEVER mentioned this to them during their 1964 testimony.
Supposedly one call to the Russian Embassy was marked “urgent” and delivered within 15 minutes of the time it was recorded. At 10:45 a.m. on October 1, 1963, a male voice said he was “Lee Oswald” and spoke in English to the Russian employee at the Russian Embassy. Since the technician had orders to notify the station if an U.S. citizen or English speaking tried to contact the Russian Embassy he had the tape marked and delivered to Ann Goodpasture within 15 minutes. (Lopez Report, p. 126)
Since the WC claimed LHO could speak Russian fluently we have to wonder IF this was LHO, why did he speak in English to the Russian employee? Why not converse in Russian? Were all of these call transcriptions even real? We don’t know as this was said before the HSCA by the Chief of the branch in charge of Mexico City.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0094a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0182a.gif
Q. Were they able to locate the original tapes?
A. I think so.
Q. Do you recall what was done with those tapes?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever---
A. I never heard them.
Q. You never heard them?
A. No.
Q. On what basis do you say the original tapes were found?
A. I had the impression that after the assassination they did a lot of transcribing. I may be wrong… (Lopez Report, pp. 168-169)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0181a.htm
Quote off
Who was doing all this transcribing AFTER the assassination? And why? Shouldn’t these alleged conversations have been transcribed already? Ann Goodpasture would be asked about them too by the HSCA and this is what she told them.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0152a.gif
Q. What happened to that tape containing Oswald’s voice?
A. What happened?
Q. What happened to that tape, yes?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do those tapes exist today?
A. What?
Q. Do those tapes exist today?
A. If they do, I do not know where they are.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that, after the assassination, it has been alleged that some tapes were given to the FBI to listen to and that it was said that these tapes contained Oswald’s voice on them?
A. Someone asked me about that, but I do not think that I had those tapes. I do not remember if it did, and I was not aware that we gave any to the FBI. I do not know whether [CIA CI] got tapes from Mr. Tarasoff and passed them to the FBI, or if the Chief of Station or Deputy passed anything to the FBI. I just do not know. (Lopez Report, p. 168)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0181a.htm
Quote off
Why did they not ask her about the comment regarding “a lot of transcribing” going on after the assassination? What could they have been transcribing if not these supposed calls by LHO? Or, were they replacing what was originally transcribed before the assassination, that probably showed an imposter on it, and redid it to make seem like LHO made the calls?
The Station Chief, Winston Scott, always said the photographs depicted LHO, but if they did, why did he write this to J.C. King (Chief of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division) then?
Quote on
Dear J.C.:
Reference is made to our conversation of November 22 in which I requested permission to give the Legal Attache copies of photographs of a certain person who is known to you (RIF #104-10400-10302).
W. Scott
Quote off
Either J.C, King was aware of LHO, which seems doubtful given his high stature and LHO’s low stature or they were discussing someone else seen in the photographs. What do you think? Another question regarding the photographs involving the Russian Embassy is the day they were taken. The Lopez Report writes the following about this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0152a.gif
The October 1 transcript does not indicate that Oswald visited the Embassy on that day, however, it does indicate a visit on the previous Saturday. Even if he did visit the Embassy on the first of October, the photograph referred to in the cable was NOT TAKEN UNTIL THE SECOND of October, 1963. (Lopez Report, p. 139) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0152a.htm
Quote off
This is very important as the WC had LHO leaving Mexico at 8:30 a.m. on October 2, 1963, so unless they could show he went before that time he would NOT have been there to be photographed. Who was responsible for logging it on October 1? Ann Goodpasture. She was asked to re-check the dates of the photographs after the FBI said they did NOT depict LHO. So if the date is wrong it is her fault. This basic issue was never challenged as everyone just took that they were taken on October 1, 1963, until the HSCA looked into this in 1978. This was not that hard since she was not, nor anyone else from the Mexico City station, called by the WC. Why were they NOT called by the WC? We know the two staff members of the WC listened to the voice recordings in Mexico City based on Jeremy Gunn’s mention of it in Goodpasture’s ARRB deposition, thus, she should have been called as a witness.
Gunn. I have spoken with two Warren Commission staff members who went to Mexico City and who both told me that they heard the tape after the assassination obviously. Do you have any knowledge or information regarding tapes that may have been played to those Warren Commission staff members?
Goodpasture. No. It may have been a tape that Win Scott had squirreled away in his safe. (Ann Goodpasture ARRB deposition, p. 147)
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf
Quote off
More photographs of an unidentified American male would be taken on October 15, 1963, and we know for sure this could NOT have been LHO so it leads one to think this is the same “mystery man” who was photographed earlier on. Ann Goodpasture would be questioned about the date of the photograph by the HSCA.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0152a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0154a.gif
Q. Looking at the log, can you now explain to the Committee why the cable referred to a photograph taken on October 1st when actually it was taken on another day?
A. If you look at the log here you see at the top—it was just an oversight on the part of the person who was writing that cable. It looks as if the date is 1 October, but if you read it very closely you see there are only two frames that were shot on 1 October and 2 October, it starts up with fram[e] number 3, et cetera, et cetera, and there the shots occur. That is the only explanation I can give.
Q. Is your explanation that whomever referred to the log simply looked at the date at the top of the page, the date being October 1st, and did not see any reference to the date October 2nd?
A. Right.
This Committee finds it implausible that Ann Goodpasture, who had the specific duty of “processing for operational leads all Station photosurveillance info pertaining to the Soviet target* since 1960 and had received a rating of outstanding on her annual fitness reports would make such an oversight mistake and not discover it until 1976. This Committee thinks that the fact that the mistaken date of the photograph was not discovered for so long is especially suspect in the light of the fact that on the day after the assassination CIA Headquarters sent a cable to Mexico which said:
*(FBI) says that photos of man entering Soviet Embassy that MEXI sent to Dallas were not of Oswald. Presume MEXI has double-checked dates of these photos and is also checking all pertinent other photos for possible shots of Oswald. (Lopez Report, pp. 140-141)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0153a.htm
Quote off
Clearly the HSCA was not buying her explanation when she was responsible for the checking and double-checking of the dates in question. This is the same woman who the Deputy Station Chief Alan White said had a “marvelous memory” and was “meticulous in detail” too. (Lopez Report, p. 49) So how did she get the date wrong? The photograph in question was taken on October 2, 1963, and at that time LHO would have been gone from Mexico City even by the WC’s standards. This means Ann Goodpasuture lied for fifteen years before the HSCA caught her. She did this because LHO would have been gone and the phone call in which the man said he was “Lee Oswald” tied into the “mystery man” photograph.
The portion of the October 8, 1963, cable to the CIA Director that was written by Goodpasture shows us the photographs was NOT of LHO.
Quote on
ACC (DELETED) 1 OCT 63, AMERICAN MALE WHO SPOKE BROKEN RUSSIAN SAID HIS NAME LEE OSWALD, STATED HE AT SOVEMB ON 28 SEPT WHEN SPOKE WITH CONSUL WHOM HE BELIEVED RE VALERIY VLADIMIROVICH KOSTIKOV. SUBJ ASKED SOV GUARD IVAN OBYEDKOV IF THERE ANYTHING NEW RE TELEGRAM TO WASHINGTON. OBYEDKOV UPON CHECKING SAID NOTHING RECEIVED YET, BUT REQUEST HAD BEEN SENT.
HAVE PHOTOS MALE APPEARS BE AMERICAN ENTERING SOVEMB 1216 HOURS, LEAVING 1222 ON 1 OCT. APPARENT AGE 35, ATHLETIC BUILD, CIRCA 6 FEET, RECEDING HAIRLINE, BALDING TOP, WORE KHAKIS AND SPORT SHIRT. (October 8, 1963 Mexico City Station cable to CIA Headquarters)
Quote off
She wrote the second paragraph after reviewing the “mystery man” photograph, thus, we know she was NOT describing LHO as this sounds nothing like him. Notice how this cable says the man “spoke broken Russian”, but the WC said LHO was fluent in Russian.
There would be a reply from CIA Headquarters that totally ignored the description that Goodpasture had added.
Quote on
LEE OSWALD WHO CONTACTED SOVEMB 1 OCT PROBABLY IDENTICAL LEE HENRY OSWALD (201-289248) BORN 18 OCT 1939, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, FORMER RADAR OPERATOR IN UNITED STATES MARINES WHO DEFECTED TO USSR IN OCT 1959. OSWALD IS FIVE FEET TEN INCHES, ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE POUNDS, LIGHT BROWN WAVY HAIR, BLUE EYES.
LATEST HDQS INFOR WAS REPORT DATED MAY 1962 SAYING HAD DETERMINED OSWALD IS STILL US CITIZEN AND BOTH HE AND HIS SOVIET WIFE HAVE EXIT PERMITS AND DEPT STATE HAD GIVEN APPROVAL FOR THEIR TRAVEL WITH THEIR INFANT CHILD TO USA. (CIA classified message from Director to Mexico City, 10/11/63.)
Quote off
Notice how the CIA Headquarters disregards the description given to them and say the man was “probably identical Lee Henry (sic) Oswald”. This is called denial and wishful thinking to most of us. It is clear from the actual evidence that LHO was not anywhere near the Cuban Consulate or the Russian Embassy as claimed by the CIA and then the WC. LHO had a 201 file with the CIA and there has been differing views on this for many years. Some say this shows he was part of the CIA and some say it means nothing in that regard.
Commission Document (CD) 692: www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=2
Take a look at if yourself as I have put a link to it above. The person who was related to the issue of the CIA 201 file on LHO was Ann Egerter who was part of the CIA’s CI/SIG (Couter-Intelligence/Speical Investigations Group) group, and she was the custodian of this file in October 1963. She too was interviewed by the HSCA about this issue and she would say this about the supposed visit to the Soviet Embassy and the meeting with Valeriy Kostikov who was suspected of being a KGB agent and head of “wetworks” in the Western Hemisphere (this was later rescinded). She said the October 9, 1963, cable caused a lot of ‘excitement” in CIA Headquarters.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0156a.gif
Q. Is this the cable that cause[d] the excitement?
A. Yes, one of them.
Q. Why was excitement caused by this cable?
A. “Contact with Kostikov”.
Q. What is the significance of the contact with Kostikov?
A. I think we considered him a KGB man.
Q. Any other reason for the excitement?
A. He had to be up to something bad to be so anxious to go to the Soviet Union. At least that is the way I felt. (Lopez Report, p. 143)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0156a.htm
Quote off
This is ridiculous when you think about it because LHO had already gone to the Soviet Union and we did NOT think he did anything bad since the State Department lent him money to RETURN to the U.S. in 1962! So why would going back mean he “was up to something bad?” Wasn’t his wife from the Soviet Union? I think so. The issue of contact with Valeriy Kostikov was never shown to be true because it was never shown that LHO went to Mexico City. In fact, the evidence for showing he was impersonated there is plentiful. If this meeting really took place why is his name not seen in either CIA cable about this issue then? And why was this not mentioned to the FBI who had a file on Kostikov already? The answer to this question is it probably would have put LHO under FBI surveillance (much more than the stuff Hosty was supposedly doing in early November 1963) and would have ruined the opportunity to make him the patsy for the assassination since the FBI would have known everything he was doing for the most part. It may have lead them to the conspiracy that was planning to kill JFK as well.
LHO’s middle name was misspelled in the 201 file as well as it is listed as Lee “Henry” Oswald.
CA 201 File Face page: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0105b.gif
How was this mistake made? Some have suggested it was Ann Egerter who did this and one researcher in particular, John Armstrong, has posited it was done to delineate between “Lee” and “Harvey” Oswald. What do you think about that? It is hard to believe this could have been a simple mistake as it is NOT difficult to get the names right of a person you are creating a file for that included newspaper clippings with the name “LEE HARVEY OSWALD” in them. Was this a way of making LHO’s 201 file harder to find or trace? If so, why were they afraid of having anyone see it if LHO was a just a disgruntled loner as claimed? Mariana Oswald’s maiden name was misspelled as well as it was listed as “Pusakova” instead of Prusakova. Again, this information was readily available in the file so there is no reason to make this mistake, thus, it was probably intentional to again make the file harder to trace.
Ann Egerter was one of two people (Jane Roman of Counterintelligence/Liaison) who saw the August 9, 1963 arrest report of LHO’s, but neither of them mentioned this in the October 10, 1963 cables sent about LHO’s supposed visit to the Cuban Consulate or Russian Embassy. Why? The CIA would tell the WC that they had NO knowledge of this arrest when they clearly did. Why? The September 24, 1963, FBI report about this arrest would be relocated in the 201 file when the CIA finally gave it to the WC to make it look like they received it after the assassination. This shows the CIA was covering up their knowledge of LHO prior to the assassination and the person responsible was Ann Egerter since she was the “custodian” of the file.
Another little known fact is that shortly before JFK’s assassination LHO’s 201 file was went to the Mexico City desk within the CIA. Researcher Lisa Pease wrote this in the article “James Jesus Angleton and the Kennedy Assassination, Part II” about this incident.
Quote on
There are strange connections that link these various players. Shortly before the assassination, Oswald’s CI/SIG-held 201 file was transferred to the Mexico City Headquarters desk, responsible to John Whitten and supported by desk officer Charlotte Bustos. (Bustos is identified as Elsie Scaleti in the Lopez Report.4)
Bustos, Ann Egerter of Angleton’s CI/SIG unit (the woman who opened the 201 file on "Lee Henry [sic] Oswald"), and Stephan Roll, Angleton’s CI liaison to the SR (Soviet Russia) division, drafted the two now infamous communications that cause much suspicion of the CIA’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination.5 Although the two communications were drafted at the same time, the cable to CIA in Mexico City describes Oswald as 5’10", 165 pounds, with light brown hair; whereas the teletype to the State Department, Navy and the FBI describes Oswald as being approximately 35 years old, 6’ tall, with an athletic build and a receding hairline. Why would Angleton’s people be collaborating with the Mexico City desk officer to mislead other agencies within the government unless they were in some measure trying to hide or protect Oswald’s identity?
Immediately following the assassination, Bustos allegedly found a photo of Oswald from the CIA’s Mexico City surveillance operations.
www.ctka.net/pr900-ang.html
Quote off
As we have seen there is NO LHO photo from Mexico City to find so Ms. Bustos (a.k.a. Scaleti) just made this up. Egerter would give the HSCA a deposition and she would say the following about the 201 file.
Q. Please correct me if am wrong. In light of the example that you given and the statements that you have made is seems that the purpsoe of CI/SIG was very limited and limited purpose was being [sic] to investigate Agency employees who were for some reason under suspicion.
A. That is correct.
Q. When a 201 file is opened does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may a counerintelligence risk?
A. Well, in general, I would say that is correct.
Q. Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?
A. No, I can’t think of one. (Ann Egerter HSCA deposition, pp. 9-10 cited in James Douglas’s JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 145)
Quote off
Later on in her deposition she would be asked this.
Q. I hope you understand my questions are directed toward trying to find out what the purpose of the CI/SIG Office was and under what circumstances was the opening up of the 201 file [on Oswald]. I am given the impression that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited, primarily to investigate AGENCY EMPLOYEES who for one reason or another might be under suspicion of getting espionage against the United States. Is that an accurate statement of the purpose of CI/SIG?
A. Well, it is employees and also penetration, which is the same thing, of the Agency. (Ibid, p. 20; 146)
Quote off
In fact, Egerter would say the purpose of the CI/SIG was to “spy on the spies” within the Agency. [CIA Memorandum dated May 23, 1968, part of the JFK Collection at the National Archives; cited by Davy, Let Justice Be Done, p. 81] All of this is pointing to showing LHO was either an agent or an asset of the CIA. Further controversy comes when Egerter was asked about an abbreviation of “AG” that appears on the 201 file’s face sheet. She would claim it was NOT her handwriting and that she did NOT know what it meant. However, how hard is it to think it could have meant AGENT (AG)? Based on Egerter's responses it is not hard to draw the conclusion that LHO was either an agent or working for them as an asset on some mission. Obviously when he defected to the USSR this threw them and they opened a 201 file as he had become “counterintelligence risk”. This would tell us that after sending LHO to Russia they suspected that he had become compromised in some way. What way could this have been? Perhaps meeting and marrying Marina Prusakova who’s uncle was a KGB Colonel?
It has also been asked why it took so long to open this 201 file IF the defection was the main reason for doing so as claimed. LHO defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959, so why was the 201 file NOT opened until December 1960? It couldn’t be his meeting Marina since they did not meet until March 1961 supposedly, so what could have happened in late November or early December 1960 that caused this file to be opened? It is obviously open to conjecture, but something caused the CI/SIG (the office that spied on the spies) to open a 201 file on LHO and this shows to many people familiar with this issue that LHO was tied to the CIA in some way.
Once again we see that the claims of the CIA and WC in this area are false as there was NO photograph of LHO entering or leaving the Cuban Consulate as claimed. The photograph that Ann Goodpasture said was taken on October 1, 1963, was really taken on October 2, 1963, a time when LHO would have been gone from Mexico City IF he was ever there to begin with. We have seen the CI/SIG opened a 201 file on LHO and the reason given for this was due to that person “becoming a counterintelligence risk”. How is this possible if LHO had NO ties to the CIA and was a loner as claimed? We saw the CIA’s CI/SIG department also withheld information about LHO’s arrest on August 9, 1963, to avoid a surveillance being setup to monitor him as this may have ruined the plans for him becoming the patsy in JFK’s murder. They also withheld the May 1962 report they did on LHO and filed the paperwork the FBI sent regarding his August arrest in a way to make it appear they did NOT get this until after the assassination when they gave the 201 file to the WC. After all this it is hardly strange to think that many suspect elements of the CIA of being involved in the JFK assassination.
The Lopez Report said it best when they said this in their report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0197a.gif
In view of what is now known about the standard operating procedures and about the Station's actions prior to the assassination, the Station's confusing and somewhat contradictory reporting (the alleged erasure of tape recordings) after the assassination is strange.[Lopez Report, p. 184]
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0197a.htm
Quote off
Based on all of this information and evidence the WC never had access to we see it is impossible for them to have reached the correct conclusion. In fact, when we really look at the evidence it shows it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LHO due to the time the photograph was taken and the description that was given for the person. This shows that LHO never went to the Cuban Consulate or Russian Embassy in Mexico City as the CIA and WC claimed.
www.kennedysandking.com/images/2017/jd-documents/goodpasture.png
cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2013/07/18/bff83c1e-1c4e-11e3-9918-005056850598/thumbnail/620x465/b9a1eb7b123389aa3ed1ec1059c09583/LHO_MexicoCity_1.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself with no assistance from anyone else. One of the key events they used in making this proclamation was LHO’s alleged trip to Mexico City in late September 1963. The WC relied on information for this ENTIRE alleged trip from primarily one source—the CIA and the CIA relied on one person for the identification of LHO—Ann Goodpasture.
We will look at this issue in greater detail in this post.
*************************************************
I want to start with a quote from Mark Lane’s book, Plausible Deniability, in regards to the comment about the WC relying on one source for their Mexico City information.
Quote on
At the outset it should be understood that almost all of the information regarding Oswald's alleged visit to Mexico and his contact with the Soviets and Cubans while there had been fabricated by the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. In its report, the Commission cited the CIA as the PRIMARY source for the Mexico City scenario, DECLINING to seek independent CORROBORATION, for the CIA's version of events.
Nevertheless, the Mexico City scenario constitutes the conventional wisdom as promulgated by the CIA and accepted by the Warren Commission. It remains an article of FAITH for those who subsequently ENDORSED the Warren Report, including journalists and official investigating committees. One of the CENTRAL tenets of the lone assassin theory is Lee Harvey Oswald's presence in Mexico City. (Plausible Denial, pp. 45-46) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
Why did the WC NOT seek independent corroboration for the evidence the CIA presented and the WC published? Especially after J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) told President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) that the photograph and audio tape sent to them by the CIA was NOT of LHO? I quoted this earlier in another post.
Quote on
President Johnson: Have you established any more about the [Oswald] visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?
JEH: No, that’s one angle that is very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy; using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do NOT correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a SECOND person who was at the Soviet Embassy. (LBJ Library, LBJ Tapes, 11/23/63, President Johnson Telephone Conversations with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
This is the area outside of the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) that caused the most concern and doubt for some of the WC members. We can see why too. Shortly before LHO’s alleged visit to Mexico City David Atlee Phillips was assigned to the Mexico City station by the CIA. This station was run by Winston Scott and had another employee by the name of Ann Goodpasture. Ms. Goodpasture went back to the days of the O.S.S. in World War II where she worked with two men who are familiar to the JFK assassination community---Richard Helms and H.L. Hunt in the Far East. She was sent to Mexico City by James Jesus Angleton to work on a counter-intelligence case and she would run things when Phillips was not in town.
Author David Martin stated she was part of “Staff D” in his book Wilderness of Mirrors. Part of Staff D was the famous ZR/RIFLE program that dealt with the CIA’s ability to use assassination as a tool. [Wilderness of Mirrors by David Martin, Harper & Row, 1980, pp. 121 & 127] This is important when we consider she is the person who claimed the visitor to the Cuban Consulate was LHO.
In John Newman’s book, Oswald And The CIA, it is said the fact it was said that Goodpasture identified LHO came from David Atlee Phillips as he said so in her retirement letter. He wrote the following about her.
Quote on
She was the case officer who was responsible for the identification of Lee Harvey Oswald in his dealings with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico. (Retirement Letter written by David Atlee Phillips for Ann Goodpasture as cited in Oswald And The CIA, John Newman, Skyhorse Publishing, 2008 edition, p. 374)
Quote off
The question though is WHEN did she make this identification that Phillips mentioned ten years later? Goodpasture would tell the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that she was responsible for simply making copies of intercepts and cable traffic about once a month. She said this was the only interaction she had with Staff D.
Jeremy Gunn. So then the only two things that you did with staff D are those two things that you’ve now discussed?
Goodpasture. That’s all I recall. (Ann Goodpasture ARRB deposition, p. 15)
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf
Quote off
So according to her testimony before the ARRB she was not a regular member of Staff D while in Mexico. She would say before the ARRB that she did NOT report to Phillips at all.
Gunn. For example, did you have any responsibility to report to Mr. Phillips?
Goodpasture. No. (Ibid., p. 22)
Quote off
Others have said differently though as she was reported to be his assistant in covert matters at the Mexico City station. One of Goodpasture’s main jobs was to distribute the transcripts of calls that came into the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy to the appropriate case officer. Another part of Goodpasture’s job in Mexico City was that of liaison between the CIA and the FBI, Army, Navy and Air Force on routine cases.
Ann Goodpasture’s fitness report for 1963 will outline what she did with the CIA station in Mexico City.
Here it is: maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=27671#relPageId=2
You’ll notice it mentions the monitoring of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and the liaison position as well. You’ll then see this comment.
Quote on
Alternate photographer, (flaps and seals technician) (Ann Goodpasture 1963 Fitness Report, p. 1)
www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB204/2.pdf
Quote off
She explains what this is in the ARRB testimony.
Gunn. Other than that particular experience with staff D, did you ever have any involvement with staff D during your years with the agency?
Goodpasture. The only other involvement that I ever had was opening—I was given training in opening letters and they call that flaps and seals because there was a time when there was an INTERCEPT operation and those things were brought in and we opened the mail, removed the grommits, it was not U.S. mail, it was foreign mail, and replaced them and then they went back into the flow of traffic, and I had that when---in early training. I think almost everybody took a course in using of secret writing but I never used that. (Ann Goodpasture ARRB deposition, p. 14) (Emphasis added)
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf
Quote off
So see she was experienced in opening mail that was being spied on and then resealing it so the person or group would NOT know that it had been read already. It mentions she was a case officer “on some CE (counter-espionage) cases” as well, and this is strictly tied to the spy trade. She was so good at her work that it says the CIA station in Mexico City would need “two or three replacements” to do what she did when she left. It also said she did everything in an “outstanding manner.” After such high praise we then see this surprising comment from the deputy chief of the station.
Quote on
Although this employee is a fine INTELLIGENCE OFFICER and has worked very hard for the Chief of Station [Winston Scott], Mexico City, I consider the rating of Outstanding in all specific duties and for over-all performance to be EXCESSIVELY HIGH. (Ann Goodpasture 1963 Fitness Report, p. 2) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
So despite the glowing praise this note says she should NOT be rated as “outstanding” as this is “excessively high” in this person’s opinion (seemingly John Whitten). Perhaps this has something to do with more than just “paying agents too much” as she would claim to have destroyed photographs of LHO entering and leaving the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City.
On September 27, 1963, “LHO” would supposedly go to the Cuban Consulate three times and he would have been automatically photographed by the system the CIA had in place (Robot Star “pulse camera”). Based on his coming and going three times this would have generated six photographs of him IF it was him. As we have seen, these along with the transcripts would have been routed to Ann Goodpasture, who in turn would have given them to David Atlee Phillips. NONE of these photographs were ever given to the WC. In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) asked for the photographs taken at the times “LHO” supposedly went to the Cuban Consulate and they were provided the photographs that had been taken of the Cuban EMBASSY instead! See, the Cuban Consulate was a DIFFERENT building than the Embassy, thus, providing these photographs was worthless. The Robot Star system AUTOMATICALLY photographed you when you entered the CONSULATE so his picture should have been taken SIX TIMES, but where are these photographs?
David Atlee Phillips would try and lie his way out of this fix by claiming the Robot Star camera system was NOT installed until December 1963, but this was quickly shown to be a lie by a CIA dispatch that said the Robot Star system was tested and in working condition on September 27, 1963!
Lopez Report, p. 18: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0031a.gif
Clearly, we see the camera system was in place to photograph LHO IF he had gone to the Cuban Consulate as claimed, but where are these photographs? Another CIA document-- #104-10015-10107—which would be released by the ARRB in 1995 also disagreed with Phillip’s take on events. That document said the photographs of an unidentified American were taken on October 15, 1963, and LHO was not in Mexico anymore even according to the WC! This also shows the Robot Star system was in place long before Phillips said it was.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0035a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0036a.gif
On the basis of HMMA-22307, HMMA-22433 and MEXI 9940, the Committee believes that it is probable that the 'pulse camera' was in operation on the days that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban Consulate...Such a camera would have automatically been triggered to photograph any person entering the Embassy… (Lopez Report, pp. 22-23)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0035a.htm
Quote off
The Lopez report would go on to say that LHO entered and exited from the Cuban and Soviet compounds at least five times, thus, the CIA had TEN opportunities to photograph him. Adding fuel to the fire were comments found in Winston Scott’s manuscript (it would be taken by James Jesus Angleton following Scott’s death) that said, “These visits and conversations [by LHO supposedly] are not hearsay; for persons watching these embassies photographed Oswald entered and left each one; and clocked the time he spent on each visit.” [Lopez Report, p. 23] This in turn caused the HSCA to write this about what he said.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0037a.gif
Scott’s comments are a cause of deep concern to this Committee, for they suggest your Agency’s [CIA] possible withholding of photographic materials highly relevant to this investigation. (Lopez Report, p. 24)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0037a.htm
Quote off
Think about it for a moment, why would the CIA withhold photographic (and voice recordings) that showed LHO was in Mexico City as they claimed? What benefit is there to hide this evidence from the WC and HSCA? Some have said to me over the years this would show LHO was on a mission or somehow tied to the CIA, but I don’t see how anyone could prove that as the official claim was this was just a trip that he took and not tied to any other reason. NO, the only reason the CIA would withhold this evidence is because it did NOT show LHO as claimed.
It would be claimed that the photographic evidence was routinely sent to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA, but when the HSCA looked into this they found that the photographic evidence could NOT have been sent to Langley prior to June 19, 1964!
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0122a.gif
HSCA review of CIA files has revealed no evidence that the photoproduction was routinely sent to Headquarters in 1963.
This committee did not find any indication that photographs from this camera were sent to Headquarters prior to 6/19/64, when Headquarters was notified that some production was being sent by unaccountable transmittal manifest… (Lopez Report, p. 109)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0122a.htm
Quote off
This means the CIA kept the photographic evidence long after the supposed LHO visit and did NOT send it to Langley as they claimed they did. The CIA would claim that they recorded LHO while he was at the Cuban Consulate as well, and based on her role within the station, we have to assume these calls would have been transcribed and given to her and then passed on to Phillips, but again, the Lopez Report shows us something different.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0094a.gif
An examination of the production from the electronic surveillance of the Cuban diplomatic compound’s telephones failed to reveal any telephone conversation that DIRECTLY MENTIONED Oswald or information that clearly and directly referred to him.
An examination of the production from these operations failed to reveal a photograph of Oswald. (Lopez Report, p. 81) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0094a.htm
Quote off
While the HSCA did not rule out a photograph could have existed of LHO due to them getting only partial information from the CIA, to me this shows they never had a photograph of LHO otherwise there is NO reason to NOT show it to the HSCA and the American people. IF LHO was going into the CIA’s station and meeting with Phillips I could understand some reluctance to provide this evidence, but showing he went into the Cuban Consulate as claimed ONLY helps their claim of him trying to go to Cuba.
All of this was kept from the WC too as Director John McCone and Deputy Director Richard Helms NEVER mentioned this to them during their 1964 testimony.
Supposedly one call to the Russian Embassy was marked “urgent” and delivered within 15 minutes of the time it was recorded. At 10:45 a.m. on October 1, 1963, a male voice said he was “Lee Oswald” and spoke in English to the Russian employee at the Russian Embassy. Since the technician had orders to notify the station if an U.S. citizen or English speaking tried to contact the Russian Embassy he had the tape marked and delivered to Ann Goodpasture within 15 minutes. (Lopez Report, p. 126)
Since the WC claimed LHO could speak Russian fluently we have to wonder IF this was LHO, why did he speak in English to the Russian employee? Why not converse in Russian? Were all of these call transcriptions even real? We don’t know as this was said before the HSCA by the Chief of the branch in charge of Mexico City.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0094a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0182a.gif
Q. Were they able to locate the original tapes?
A. I think so.
Q. Do you recall what was done with those tapes?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever---
A. I never heard them.
Q. You never heard them?
A. No.
Q. On what basis do you say the original tapes were found?
A. I had the impression that after the assassination they did a lot of transcribing. I may be wrong… (Lopez Report, pp. 168-169)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0181a.htm
Quote off
Who was doing all this transcribing AFTER the assassination? And why? Shouldn’t these alleged conversations have been transcribed already? Ann Goodpasture would be asked about them too by the HSCA and this is what she told them.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0152a.gif
Q. What happened to that tape containing Oswald’s voice?
A. What happened?
Q. What happened to that tape, yes?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do those tapes exist today?
A. What?
Q. Do those tapes exist today?
A. If they do, I do not know where they are.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that, after the assassination, it has been alleged that some tapes were given to the FBI to listen to and that it was said that these tapes contained Oswald’s voice on them?
A. Someone asked me about that, but I do not think that I had those tapes. I do not remember if it did, and I was not aware that we gave any to the FBI. I do not know whether [CIA CI] got tapes from Mr. Tarasoff and passed them to the FBI, or if the Chief of Station or Deputy passed anything to the FBI. I just do not know. (Lopez Report, p. 168)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0181a.htm
Quote off
Why did they not ask her about the comment regarding “a lot of transcribing” going on after the assassination? What could they have been transcribing if not these supposed calls by LHO? Or, were they replacing what was originally transcribed before the assassination, that probably showed an imposter on it, and redid it to make seem like LHO made the calls?
The Station Chief, Winston Scott, always said the photographs depicted LHO, but if they did, why did he write this to J.C. King (Chief of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division) then?
Quote on
Dear J.C.:
Reference is made to our conversation of November 22 in which I requested permission to give the Legal Attache copies of photographs of a certain person who is known to you (RIF #104-10400-10302).
W. Scott
Quote off
Either J.C, King was aware of LHO, which seems doubtful given his high stature and LHO’s low stature or they were discussing someone else seen in the photographs. What do you think? Another question regarding the photographs involving the Russian Embassy is the day they were taken. The Lopez Report writes the following about this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0152a.gif
The October 1 transcript does not indicate that Oswald visited the Embassy on that day, however, it does indicate a visit on the previous Saturday. Even if he did visit the Embassy on the first of October, the photograph referred to in the cable was NOT TAKEN UNTIL THE SECOND of October, 1963. (Lopez Report, p. 139) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0152a.htm
Quote off
This is very important as the WC had LHO leaving Mexico at 8:30 a.m. on October 2, 1963, so unless they could show he went before that time he would NOT have been there to be photographed. Who was responsible for logging it on October 1? Ann Goodpasture. She was asked to re-check the dates of the photographs after the FBI said they did NOT depict LHO. So if the date is wrong it is her fault. This basic issue was never challenged as everyone just took that they were taken on October 1, 1963, until the HSCA looked into this in 1978. This was not that hard since she was not, nor anyone else from the Mexico City station, called by the WC. Why were they NOT called by the WC? We know the two staff members of the WC listened to the voice recordings in Mexico City based on Jeremy Gunn’s mention of it in Goodpasture’s ARRB deposition, thus, she should have been called as a witness.
Gunn. I have spoken with two Warren Commission staff members who went to Mexico City and who both told me that they heard the tape after the assassination obviously. Do you have any knowledge or information regarding tapes that may have been played to those Warren Commission staff members?
Goodpasture. No. It may have been a tape that Win Scott had squirreled away in his safe. (Ann Goodpasture ARRB deposition, p. 147)
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf
Quote off
More photographs of an unidentified American male would be taken on October 15, 1963, and we know for sure this could NOT have been LHO so it leads one to think this is the same “mystery man” who was photographed earlier on. Ann Goodpasture would be questioned about the date of the photograph by the HSCA.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0152a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0154a.gif
Q. Looking at the log, can you now explain to the Committee why the cable referred to a photograph taken on October 1st when actually it was taken on another day?
A. If you look at the log here you see at the top—it was just an oversight on the part of the person who was writing that cable. It looks as if the date is 1 October, but if you read it very closely you see there are only two frames that were shot on 1 October and 2 October, it starts up with fram[e] number 3, et cetera, et cetera, and there the shots occur. That is the only explanation I can give.
Q. Is your explanation that whomever referred to the log simply looked at the date at the top of the page, the date being October 1st, and did not see any reference to the date October 2nd?
A. Right.
This Committee finds it implausible that Ann Goodpasture, who had the specific duty of “processing for operational leads all Station photosurveillance info pertaining to the Soviet target* since 1960 and had received a rating of outstanding on her annual fitness reports would make such an oversight mistake and not discover it until 1976. This Committee thinks that the fact that the mistaken date of the photograph was not discovered for so long is especially suspect in the light of the fact that on the day after the assassination CIA Headquarters sent a cable to Mexico which said:
*(FBI) says that photos of man entering Soviet Embassy that MEXI sent to Dallas were not of Oswald. Presume MEXI has double-checked dates of these photos and is also checking all pertinent other photos for possible shots of Oswald. (Lopez Report, pp. 140-141)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0153a.htm
Quote off
Clearly the HSCA was not buying her explanation when she was responsible for the checking and double-checking of the dates in question. This is the same woman who the Deputy Station Chief Alan White said had a “marvelous memory” and was “meticulous in detail” too. (Lopez Report, p. 49) So how did she get the date wrong? The photograph in question was taken on October 2, 1963, and at that time LHO would have been gone from Mexico City even by the WC’s standards. This means Ann Goodpasuture lied for fifteen years before the HSCA caught her. She did this because LHO would have been gone and the phone call in which the man said he was “Lee Oswald” tied into the “mystery man” photograph.
The portion of the October 8, 1963, cable to the CIA Director that was written by Goodpasture shows us the photographs was NOT of LHO.
Quote on
ACC (DELETED) 1 OCT 63, AMERICAN MALE WHO SPOKE BROKEN RUSSIAN SAID HIS NAME LEE OSWALD, STATED HE AT SOVEMB ON 28 SEPT WHEN SPOKE WITH CONSUL WHOM HE BELIEVED RE VALERIY VLADIMIROVICH KOSTIKOV. SUBJ ASKED SOV GUARD IVAN OBYEDKOV IF THERE ANYTHING NEW RE TELEGRAM TO WASHINGTON. OBYEDKOV UPON CHECKING SAID NOTHING RECEIVED YET, BUT REQUEST HAD BEEN SENT.
HAVE PHOTOS MALE APPEARS BE AMERICAN ENTERING SOVEMB 1216 HOURS, LEAVING 1222 ON 1 OCT. APPARENT AGE 35, ATHLETIC BUILD, CIRCA 6 FEET, RECEDING HAIRLINE, BALDING TOP, WORE KHAKIS AND SPORT SHIRT. (October 8, 1963 Mexico City Station cable to CIA Headquarters)
Quote off
She wrote the second paragraph after reviewing the “mystery man” photograph, thus, we know she was NOT describing LHO as this sounds nothing like him. Notice how this cable says the man “spoke broken Russian”, but the WC said LHO was fluent in Russian.
There would be a reply from CIA Headquarters that totally ignored the description that Goodpasture had added.
Quote on
LEE OSWALD WHO CONTACTED SOVEMB 1 OCT PROBABLY IDENTICAL LEE HENRY OSWALD (201-289248) BORN 18 OCT 1939, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, FORMER RADAR OPERATOR IN UNITED STATES MARINES WHO DEFECTED TO USSR IN OCT 1959. OSWALD IS FIVE FEET TEN INCHES, ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE POUNDS, LIGHT BROWN WAVY HAIR, BLUE EYES.
LATEST HDQS INFOR WAS REPORT DATED MAY 1962 SAYING HAD DETERMINED OSWALD IS STILL US CITIZEN AND BOTH HE AND HIS SOVIET WIFE HAVE EXIT PERMITS AND DEPT STATE HAD GIVEN APPROVAL FOR THEIR TRAVEL WITH THEIR INFANT CHILD TO USA. (CIA classified message from Director to Mexico City, 10/11/63.)
Quote off
Notice how the CIA Headquarters disregards the description given to them and say the man was “probably identical Lee Henry (sic) Oswald”. This is called denial and wishful thinking to most of us. It is clear from the actual evidence that LHO was not anywhere near the Cuban Consulate or the Russian Embassy as claimed by the CIA and then the WC. LHO had a 201 file with the CIA and there has been differing views on this for many years. Some say this shows he was part of the CIA and some say it means nothing in that regard.
Commission Document (CD) 692: www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=2
Take a look at if yourself as I have put a link to it above. The person who was related to the issue of the CIA 201 file on LHO was Ann Egerter who was part of the CIA’s CI/SIG (Couter-Intelligence/Speical Investigations Group) group, and she was the custodian of this file in October 1963. She too was interviewed by the HSCA about this issue and she would say this about the supposed visit to the Soviet Embassy and the meeting with Valeriy Kostikov who was suspected of being a KGB agent and head of “wetworks” in the Western Hemisphere (this was later rescinded). She said the October 9, 1963, cable caused a lot of ‘excitement” in CIA Headquarters.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0156a.gif
Q. Is this the cable that cause[d] the excitement?
A. Yes, one of them.
Q. Why was excitement caused by this cable?
A. “Contact with Kostikov”.
Q. What is the significance of the contact with Kostikov?
A. I think we considered him a KGB man.
Q. Any other reason for the excitement?
A. He had to be up to something bad to be so anxious to go to the Soviet Union. At least that is the way I felt. (Lopez Report, p. 143)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0156a.htm
Quote off
This is ridiculous when you think about it because LHO had already gone to the Soviet Union and we did NOT think he did anything bad since the State Department lent him money to RETURN to the U.S. in 1962! So why would going back mean he “was up to something bad?” Wasn’t his wife from the Soviet Union? I think so. The issue of contact with Valeriy Kostikov was never shown to be true because it was never shown that LHO went to Mexico City. In fact, the evidence for showing he was impersonated there is plentiful. If this meeting really took place why is his name not seen in either CIA cable about this issue then? And why was this not mentioned to the FBI who had a file on Kostikov already? The answer to this question is it probably would have put LHO under FBI surveillance (much more than the stuff Hosty was supposedly doing in early November 1963) and would have ruined the opportunity to make him the patsy for the assassination since the FBI would have known everything he was doing for the most part. It may have lead them to the conspiracy that was planning to kill JFK as well.
LHO’s middle name was misspelled in the 201 file as well as it is listed as Lee “Henry” Oswald.
CA 201 File Face page: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/pages/HSCA_Vol4_0105b.gif
How was this mistake made? Some have suggested it was Ann Egerter who did this and one researcher in particular, John Armstrong, has posited it was done to delineate between “Lee” and “Harvey” Oswald. What do you think about that? It is hard to believe this could have been a simple mistake as it is NOT difficult to get the names right of a person you are creating a file for that included newspaper clippings with the name “LEE HARVEY OSWALD” in them. Was this a way of making LHO’s 201 file harder to find or trace? If so, why were they afraid of having anyone see it if LHO was a just a disgruntled loner as claimed? Mariana Oswald’s maiden name was misspelled as well as it was listed as “Pusakova” instead of Prusakova. Again, this information was readily available in the file so there is no reason to make this mistake, thus, it was probably intentional to again make the file harder to trace.
Ann Egerter was one of two people (Jane Roman of Counterintelligence/Liaison) who saw the August 9, 1963 arrest report of LHO’s, but neither of them mentioned this in the October 10, 1963 cables sent about LHO’s supposed visit to the Cuban Consulate or Russian Embassy. Why? The CIA would tell the WC that they had NO knowledge of this arrest when they clearly did. Why? The September 24, 1963, FBI report about this arrest would be relocated in the 201 file when the CIA finally gave it to the WC to make it look like they received it after the assassination. This shows the CIA was covering up their knowledge of LHO prior to the assassination and the person responsible was Ann Egerter since she was the “custodian” of the file.
Another little known fact is that shortly before JFK’s assassination LHO’s 201 file was went to the Mexico City desk within the CIA. Researcher Lisa Pease wrote this in the article “James Jesus Angleton and the Kennedy Assassination, Part II” about this incident.
Quote on
There are strange connections that link these various players. Shortly before the assassination, Oswald’s CI/SIG-held 201 file was transferred to the Mexico City Headquarters desk, responsible to John Whitten and supported by desk officer Charlotte Bustos. (Bustos is identified as Elsie Scaleti in the Lopez Report.4)
Bustos, Ann Egerter of Angleton’s CI/SIG unit (the woman who opened the 201 file on "Lee Henry [sic] Oswald"), and Stephan Roll, Angleton’s CI liaison to the SR (Soviet Russia) division, drafted the two now infamous communications that cause much suspicion of the CIA’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination.5 Although the two communications were drafted at the same time, the cable to CIA in Mexico City describes Oswald as 5’10", 165 pounds, with light brown hair; whereas the teletype to the State Department, Navy and the FBI describes Oswald as being approximately 35 years old, 6’ tall, with an athletic build and a receding hairline. Why would Angleton’s people be collaborating with the Mexico City desk officer to mislead other agencies within the government unless they were in some measure trying to hide or protect Oswald’s identity?
Immediately following the assassination, Bustos allegedly found a photo of Oswald from the CIA’s Mexico City surveillance operations.
www.ctka.net/pr900-ang.html
Quote off
As we have seen there is NO LHO photo from Mexico City to find so Ms. Bustos (a.k.a. Scaleti) just made this up. Egerter would give the HSCA a deposition and she would say the following about the 201 file.
Q. Please correct me if am wrong. In light of the example that you given and the statements that you have made is seems that the purpsoe of CI/SIG was very limited and limited purpose was being [sic] to investigate Agency employees who were for some reason under suspicion.
A. That is correct.
Q. When a 201 file is opened does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may a counerintelligence risk?
A. Well, in general, I would say that is correct.
Q. Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?
A. No, I can’t think of one. (Ann Egerter HSCA deposition, pp. 9-10 cited in James Douglas’s JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 145)
Quote off
Later on in her deposition she would be asked this.
Q. I hope you understand my questions are directed toward trying to find out what the purpose of the CI/SIG Office was and under what circumstances was the opening up of the 201 file [on Oswald]. I am given the impression that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited, primarily to investigate AGENCY EMPLOYEES who for one reason or another might be under suspicion of getting espionage against the United States. Is that an accurate statement of the purpose of CI/SIG?
A. Well, it is employees and also penetration, which is the same thing, of the Agency. (Ibid, p. 20; 146)
Quote off
In fact, Egerter would say the purpose of the CI/SIG was to “spy on the spies” within the Agency. [CIA Memorandum dated May 23, 1968, part of the JFK Collection at the National Archives; cited by Davy, Let Justice Be Done, p. 81] All of this is pointing to showing LHO was either an agent or an asset of the CIA. Further controversy comes when Egerter was asked about an abbreviation of “AG” that appears on the 201 file’s face sheet. She would claim it was NOT her handwriting and that she did NOT know what it meant. However, how hard is it to think it could have meant AGENT (AG)? Based on Egerter's responses it is not hard to draw the conclusion that LHO was either an agent or working for them as an asset on some mission. Obviously when he defected to the USSR this threw them and they opened a 201 file as he had become “counterintelligence risk”. This would tell us that after sending LHO to Russia they suspected that he had become compromised in some way. What way could this have been? Perhaps meeting and marrying Marina Prusakova who’s uncle was a KGB Colonel?
It has also been asked why it took so long to open this 201 file IF the defection was the main reason for doing so as claimed. LHO defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959, so why was the 201 file NOT opened until December 1960? It couldn’t be his meeting Marina since they did not meet until March 1961 supposedly, so what could have happened in late November or early December 1960 that caused this file to be opened? It is obviously open to conjecture, but something caused the CI/SIG (the office that spied on the spies) to open a 201 file on LHO and this shows to many people familiar with this issue that LHO was tied to the CIA in some way.
Once again we see that the claims of the CIA and WC in this area are false as there was NO photograph of LHO entering or leaving the Cuban Consulate as claimed. The photograph that Ann Goodpasture said was taken on October 1, 1963, was really taken on October 2, 1963, a time when LHO would have been gone from Mexico City IF he was ever there to begin with. We have seen the CI/SIG opened a 201 file on LHO and the reason given for this was due to that person “becoming a counterintelligence risk”. How is this possible if LHO had NO ties to the CIA and was a loner as claimed? We saw the CIA’s CI/SIG department also withheld information about LHO’s arrest on August 9, 1963, to avoid a surveillance being setup to monitor him as this may have ruined the plans for him becoming the patsy in JFK’s murder. They also withheld the May 1962 report they did on LHO and filed the paperwork the FBI sent regarding his August arrest in a way to make it appear they did NOT get this until after the assassination when they gave the 201 file to the WC. After all this it is hardly strange to think that many suspect elements of the CIA of being involved in the JFK assassination.
The Lopez Report said it best when they said this in their report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0197a.gif
In view of what is now known about the standard operating procedures and about the Station's actions prior to the assassination, the Station's confusing and somewhat contradictory reporting (the alleged erasure of tape recordings) after the assassination is strange.[Lopez Report, p. 184]
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0197a.htm
Quote off
Based on all of this information and evidence the WC never had access to we see it is impossible for them to have reached the correct conclusion. In fact, when we really look at the evidence it shows it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LHO due to the time the photograph was taken and the description that was given for the person. This shows that LHO never went to the Cuban Consulate or Russian Embassy in Mexico City as the CIA and WC claimed.