Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics: Revelations from CIA Records on the Assassination

Peter Dale Scott's book, which is actually a collection of essays from 'Deep Politics Quarterly', is a veritable gem - both for the serious researcher and anyone invested in a deeper understanding of history surrounding the Kennedy assassination. Dale Scott's thrust and objective is clear and was originally articulated in a 1995 essay in Deep Politics Quarterly, wherein he noted the stake Americans have is "not just to learn about the government's secretiveness with respect to this one assassination" but to "create a precedent against the rule of secrecy that has so vitiated democracy in this country" since the end of WWII. In 1995, Scott also advised us that 3 different stratagems needed to be distinguished by the researcher: 1) a sophisticated intelligence operation (or complex of operations), i.e. to frame Lee Oswald, 2) the conspiracy to kill the President and 3) the ensuing cover-up.The problem is that all too often a lazy (or compromised) corporate media has never properly separated these stratagems. Indeed, in many cases they've ignored both (1) and (3) - the latter hardly surprising given "Operation Mockingbird"- and made fun of "tin foil hats" in (2). Indeed, as Scott has observed, in the 30th anniversary year of 1993 - in the wake of "Posnermania" (and Bugliosi-fever) - the corporate media simply trotted out the same recycled canards including that of a (Scott, page 23):"neurotic frustrated by neglect, and 'angered' (Posner's words) that 'others failed to recognize the stature he thought he deserved."This codswallop was then additionally integrated into the CIA- confected narrative that Oswald was a "KGB -linked assassin" hired to kill Kennedy. It was based on a supposed "Oswald" phone call to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City with a KGB agent, Valeriy Kostikov. From this, and the visit of a fake Oswald to the Embassy (see the asset "masquerading" as Oswald in Mexico City in the photo and also description supplied from a CIA cable dated Oct. 10,1963 by John Newman in his 'Oswald and CIA', p. 398) a series of falsified cables was generated under the fake name "Lee Henry Oswald"* (cf. Scott, p. 18, 31) . These became part of a CI/SIG (Counter Intelligence Special Investigation Group) file on Oswald dating back to 1960, and as Scott notes, it has their handiwork all over the false trail.Scott conjectures that the false name of 'Lee Henry Oswald' may have been used to deceive investigators into Kennedy's killing. It may also have been what agent James Jesus Angleton called a 'marked card' operation in which falsified information 'like a bent card' is passed through an intelligence channel to see where it ends up.(cf. p. 18)While the "Oswald as KGB assassin" ruse was never used or published in its Report by the Warren Commission, as Scott observes, "it almost certainly contributed to the Warren Commission's determination to close the case as the work of a lone assassin"To me the most astounding sections of Scott's book had to do with the level of deceit used by the CIA to attempt to incriminate Oswald. All this needs to be seen in the context of the five documents the CIA released on Oswald in October of 1963. As Scott notes:(p. 25):"at least three show signs of CIA doctoring and the first, which does not, was nevertheless so misleading as to be possibly dishonest."This was the cable from the Mexico City Station on Oct. 8 that stated Oswald had appeared at the Soviet Embassy on Oct. 1, claiming he had spoken with Valeriy Kostikov three days earlier. (Kostikov was top man in the KGB's "Department Thirteen" - responsible for assassinations.) As Scott further notes, ibid., this is why American Rightists made use of any sources they could to try to parlay this into something to force the WC's hand into a "phase one" conclusion. 'Phase one' meant the Soviet -KGB assassin story, which later evolved to become the "phase two" lone assassin narrative, because the Warrenites were too terrified of nuclear war to go with it (apart from the fact it was false, see e.g Ch III. p. 23).In addition (p. 28) , when they submitted Oswald's 201-file to the Warren Commission (under the header of Commission Document 692) they did not indicate it clearly or mark it as such. Instead, as Dale Scott (and also John Newman) observed the CIA buried it in a Sept. 24 "memorandum" relocated to a much later position in the file , making it appear as if it had been falsely drafted after the culpable Oct. 10 fake cables. (Scott writes, ibid., that technically this subterfuge and dodge was a "felony under Section 1001 of the U.S. Criminal Code".)Throughout the book, and particularly in Chapters IV and VIII, Scott also tosses cold water on the "Oswald i Mexico City" baloney. The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was never there, but a rather hulking impostor was, who spoke terrible Russian and tried to pass himself off as Oswald at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City even uttering the words: "I'm going to kill Kennedy!" Such a ruse in the case of the real Oswald would be stupid if it wasn't already pathetic - the signature of desperate people willing to do anything to frame him)This also conforms with the findings of HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi ('The Last Investigation', pp. 294-95) who cited Danny Hardway and Eddie Lopez - whose work led to the Lopez Report- and Hardway's questioning of David Atlee Phillips (station chief in Mexico City). As reported by Fonzi (p. 295):"In questioning (David Atlee)Phillips, Hardway was also working from information that had been dug up on a couple of secret trips to Mexico City made by Lopez, and investigator Harold Leap. Without the Agency's permission, they had located and interviewed a couple of CIA assets who had worked inside the Cuban Consulate at the time. The Agency never revealed this to the Warren Commission, but it actually had planted spies within the Cuban compound. That may be relevant to the fact that, in the end, the only 'proof' that the real Oswald was inside the Cuban Consulate were his photographs and his signature on his visa application."While in Mexico City, Lopez and Leap also spoke with the agency personnel who had listened to and were involved in translating and transcribing the tape of the man who called the Soviet Embassy. They said that after Oswald's Dallas arrest, when they heard his voice on radio and telecasts, it wasn't the same voice they remembered from the tape. The man who called the Embassy had a "huskier voice and didn't speak as fast as Oswald" , and perhaps most revealing, spoke in very poor, broken Russian (Oswald's Russian wasn't excellent, but it was passable, functional)As Gaeton Fonzi further observes (p. 295)- again agreeing with Peter Dale Scott's take:"In the end, Phillips couldn't explain the contradictions in his testimony about the Agency's surveillance capabilities or why, if the cameras at the Soviet Embassy were working on October 1st -when it photographed the unidentified man passed off as Oswald, there was no photograph of the real Oswald."Those lone nut mythologists who maintain (in the face of the above facts) that Oswald was there, are obligated to provide us with first order evidence to substantiate that. (Hotel records don't cut it since they can easily be based on forged signatures. "Witnesses", i.e. on alleged buses, are only useful if they're able to compare the one they claim to have observed with images of the Lee Oswald arrested in Dallas. Siivia Duran was such a witness, but she was tortured to recant - see below- when she denied that the Oswald encountered in the Cuban Embassy was the same as the one arrested in Big D) At the very least then, we need a verifiable photograph that can unimpeachably be used to put Oswald there. Until that time, the entire 'Oswald in Mexico City' episode must be regarded as specious and a probable concoction of the CIA and their many 'assets' deployed in Mexico City at the time.Regarding Silvia Duran, Scott also references (p. 38 ) Ed Lopez' attempted interview with her, in the aftermath of her torture at the hands of Mexican police. Lopez confirmed that (off the record) she "said she was tortured badly and indeed, on recalling this she had broken down and wept." Ms. Duran's account has been confirmed by Gaeton Fonzi (op. cit., p. 409) noting she was forced to undergo brutal torture for eight hours at the hands of Mexican police to get her to recant her original testimony that the "Oswald" encountered at the Cuban Embassy in Medico City was not the Oswald arrested in Dallas.(She had insisted in her original testimony- account that the Oswald she encountered "was blonde and short" - The Lopez Report, p. 190).So be it. Now ask yourselves this: If Oswald was indeed "guilty" why did the CIA go to such inordinate lengths to distort, hide and obfuscate the truth (i.e. Oswald's CIA files, fake cables etc.) as well as engage in such a complex plan to paint Oswald the bad guy (using Oswald impersonators in Mexico City) - not to mention- recruiting Mexican police to torture a woman for 8 hours merely for telling the truth - to make it presentable for the Warren Commission's ("phase two" or lone nut) narrative?Many of the answers and more will be found in Peter Dale Scott's concise (but densely informative) book.My one gripe about the book is its small (about 9 point) font - but I could not justify awarding it fewer stars on that basis. It is a treasure trove of deep politics arcania that will keep researchers engaged for a long time!.

This "short" book uses a very small font. Be sure to bring your reading glasses with you.If you are a JFK buff who reads for the entertainment value based on speculations about Oswald, this may not be for you. The book strikes me as both academic and bureaucratic. It is very dry, very detailed, and very focused.I enjoyed the book, though, for its apparently honest detailed presentation of the facts. Before I read the book, I was not for sure that Oswald had gone to Mexico City. Afterwards, I was not so sure either. Howver, one thing was for sure, that there was definite meddling of US intelligence at the Mexico City Soviet and Cuban embassies at this timeThe author also covers the story of Sylvia Duran who was a Mexican citizen and Cuban Embassy receptionist in 1963. She met either Oswald or his impostor at this time. On orders from the Mexico City US Embassy and Mexico City CIA head she was beaten by Mexican State Security police until she falsely "admitted" that she slept with Oswald or his impostor. Another fine day for America in the tropics ....Finally, the author lays out the US intelligence assassination plot narrative after JFK's killing. First phase in the immediate hours after the murder is to go with the story that either the Soviets or the Cubans did it. All stops out to make Oswald a Soviet/Cuban operative. The problem with that line, as people in the White House readily knew, was that the American people would demand a nuclear strike against Russia/Cuba. Time for a re-script: Phase 2. Oswald was a lone nut. He acted absolutely alone with no foreign influence. Which was the narrative that the Warren Report went with....As for me, I believe in a conspiracy orchestrated by the CIA involving high US military command persons, high Secret Service persons, and mob elements. I believe Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder and shot his three shots from the TSBD bldg. The one other shot, though, that killed JFK was shot at very close range from the Grassy Knoll by a CIA contract killer. He had several other colleagues posing as fake Secret Service agents in the area to help him make his escape. Dallas Police patrolmen Joe Smith and D V Harkness met a couple of them right after the shots. They mistakenly thought they were legitimate. Look up their Warren Commission testimony--it's online.Other witness testimony from people who were near the Grassy Knoll point to a shot or shots coming from the Knoll. The Zapruder film online at gifer.com offers overwhelming evidence as well, in my opinion, that JFK's killing head shot came from the right front of him. Not to mention the less than one second difference between JFK's fatal head shot and Gov Connally's back shot. Oswald's manual bolt action Manlicher Carcano cannnot be re-bolted and accurately fired in this amount of time. Approx two seconds was the minimum established by expert re-enactors.A good book. It will not prove either side of the controversy but it is likely to not improve your opinion of US intelligence services of that time or the US State Department of that time.

I have mixed feelings about this book, penned by an important commentator on the JFK assassination and staunch critic of the Warren Report, Prof. Peter Dale Scott. This (164 page) verbose report could have accomplished its purpose in one or two pages. To wit, the man appearing at the Cuban consulate in September, 1963 (and making a phone call to the Russian embassy) was an imposter, and not Lee Harvey Oswald, and the CIA (with possible FBI collusion) altered reports toward initially supporting the narrative of an LHO-Russian Intelligence connection, then further altered those reports, away from that conclusion (and toward the “lone, crazed gunman” premise), in order to prevent a nuclear confrontation with the USSR.The second part of this equation is something with which we have been familiar from “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK” (along with the more over-arching conclusion of the Power Elite having engineered the removal of a sitting American chief executive), as it saw Kennedy as an obstacle to the status quo and the "Military Industrial Intelligence Complex." The first component—that there either was no LHO visit to Mexico City, or that whoever did appear at the Cuban consulate was someone other than that individual—was something of which many of us in this field have long been aware. Yet, some strong undergirding of that contention was something I found most welcome, not the least of which would be the opportunity to further cavil at lame-brain commentators like Bugliosi and Posner who STILL tout the vapid (and thoroughly fraudulent) Warren Commission conclusions. No, Virginia, Oswald did not murder President Kennedy and—no—he did not make that supposed trip to Mexico City. ; )

JFK truths

Very good seller, I'm happy with my purchase. Many thanks, I won't hesitate to buy again at your store. Regards.