Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Dallas-Cuba Connection - 2009 Update

by GUS RUSSO



Documents released last week under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIPA) detail a secret CIA-National Archives (NARA)-State Department investigation of Cuban intelligence officer Fabian Escalante and reveal, among other things, that Escalante had an indirect connection to accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, and that my revealing conversation with former Assassinations Record Review Board (ARRB) Executive Director Jeremy Gunn about the Escalante files was accurately reported in my 2008 book, Brothers in Arms.


In January 2006, the German Public Television network WDR aired Wilfried Huismann’s Rendezvous with Death, a 90-minute film exploring the Cuban connection in the Kennedy assassination on which I served as co-writer and investigator. Among the many new pieces of information we touched on was an allegation by President Lyndon B. Johnson aide Martin Underwood that CIA Mexico City Station Chief Winston “Win” Scott told Underwood that the Mexico station worried about unvetted reports that senior Cuban Intelligence operative Fabian Escalante, known as a “wet operations” or assassination specialist, had contact with assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City seven weeks before Kennedy’s murder, and that Escalante had flown into Dallas on the day of the assassination.

In my 2008 book (with Stephen Molton) Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, The Castros, and the Politics of Murder, I discussed how this Escalante information, which first came to me in the 1990s, was turned over to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) against Underwood’s wishes. During a 2003 dinner with former ARRB Executive Director Jeremy Gunn, years after the Board’s dissolution, I asked him what had happened to the information I gave him so many years before. I recorded the conversation and transcribed it that night. I included a verbatim transcript of that recorded conversation in Brothers (p.483):

GUNN: “The single most interesting part of the story is Mexico City, and the single most tantalizing lead we received was your report on Escalante, which we followed up aggressively. I went to CIA and saw their file on him [Escalante], which I can’t discuss because it’s classified. All I will say is that I saw some things there that made my jaw drop. Bottom line, follow Escalante, especially where he was before the assassination [that is, in Minsk and Mexico City]…After we asked for the file, the CIA perked up and took an interest in it. I don’t know what they did about it, but it was clear they hadn’t looked at it in years… I didn’t trust Underwood when he spoke to us and tried to water down what he told you about his meeting with Scott regarding Escalante. Underwood tried his best to put us off until we finally subpoenaed him.” [Emphasis added]

When the German film Rendezvous with Death debuted three years later, I was asked to come to the National Archives to show the film and talk about my research. Again, from Brothers (pp. 483-484):

After my film with Willi [Huismann], Rendezvous With Death, played on television networks in sixteen countries (but not in the US), I was asked to show the film separately to the National Archives JFK staff, the CIA declassification staff, and US Archivist Alan Weinstein and his staff. In all, some sixty government officials watched the film, most taking extensive notes. As a result, there was a swell of interest in declassifying the files on Escalante and other Cuban agents. Using back channels, official new demands have been sent to foreign governments to come clean with what they know. I have been informed that, during this process, Jeremy Gunn was brought in to give his version of the story, and he repeated almost word for word what he had told me in 2003. Other senior members of the ARRB have recently expressed their frustration at not being able to obtain the KGB’s encrypted file on Oswald, which they were offered for a price, before the offer was withdrawn. At this writing, they continue to lobby Washington officials to press for the material. The National Archives has been negotiating behind-the-scenes with the CIA since 2006 to fulfill their pledge to release files relevant the Cubans mentioned in the film, as well as the material Jeremy Gunn perused in the 1990s.

After Brothers was published in October 2008, and excerpted in American Heritage magazine, DC attorney Jim Lesar posted online an email response from Gunn, in which Gunn weighed in on my 2008 recounting of his statements to me five years earlier:

GUNN: “Part of the quote [on page 483 of Brothers] sounds about right but the part about "follow Escalante" is hyped and misleading. Sort of makes me realize that it's better to say nothing at all rather [than] see how others might hear it and then use it. Bottom line – I saw nothing in the file about JFK or the assassination.”

Hyped? As you will see, Gunn told NARA and the CIA in 2006 the same thing he told me three years earlier – namely, to follow Escalante. We know this because the CIA-NARA-State Department investigations of Escalante, and others named in the book and film, continued below the radar for over two years. Among other things, the investigation generated 236 pages of records – including their discussions with Gunn about my reporting – all of which (with the exception four pages withheld by NARA in full) I recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

According to the recently released records, two CIA and seven NARA officials interviewed Jeremy Gunn on March 28, 2006. Among other things, Gunn told them:

  • He read the CIA’s 201 File on Escalante. While Gunn was only given “limited access to the file at the CIA facility in January 1996. There was some discussion of a follow-up session, but it never took place.” The Escalante file “was always an asterisk in his [Gunn’s] mind.” Gunn “did not recall speaking with anyone else on the ARRB about the file…He thinks the issue was not completely resolved in his mind, hence the request for a follow-up visit.” [Emphasis added]
  • “While there was no evidence of contact [in the file], Escalante had an indirect connection to Oswald.” [Emphasis added]
  • Gunn was asked, if Underwood was not a credible source, how did he come up with the name “Escalante” in 1994 to give to me? Gunn didn’t have a direct answer, but a NARA official noted, “That is the one aspect of this issue that made Jeremy curious and continues to stick in his mind.” The NARA official later added one more thing: “The only thing that remained an open question in his [Gunn’s] mind (after reviewing the file) was the tangential connection to Oswald.” [Emphasis added.]
  • “Jeremy’s opinion was that NARA should re-review the Escalante file.” [Emphasis added.][Source: NARA Memo: “Notes From Our Meeting with Jeremy Gunn”; Steve Tilley to David Mengel, 3-28-06]
In other words, follow Escalante. In a recent conversation, a senior NARA official told me that Jeremy Gunn’s testimony played a key role in NARA’s decision to keep lobbying (in vain) for the CIA’s 201 Escalante file, and other materials, for over two years.

The Herculean efforts of the joint NARA officials, touched off by our film and Gunn’s interest in Escalante, while unable to pry the Escalante files from Langley, did produce other memos of interest:

  • In February 2006 US Archivist Allen Weinstein joined the lobbying effort, personally writing long letters to Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs asking that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice obtain extant Soviet and Mexican assassination records. That same month Weinstein wrote CIA Director Porter Goss asking for release of Escalante’s “201” file. Weinstein mentioned a handwritten record that notes the CIA has a file on Escalante in Mexico City prior to 1970. Although Weinstein might be referring to Underwood’s handwritten notes, he seems to be referring to something else, since Underwood’s notes make no mention of “a file on Escalante in Mexico City prior to 1970.” [Emphasis added]
  • On October 18, 2007, the CIA finally responded to the NARA requests, noting: “The JFK Collection at NARA contains the vast majority of documents found in Escalante’s 201 file that pertain to assassination related events, with the exception of a very small amount of information that was previously denied in full and must remain so until 2017.” [Emphasis added] [Source: Letter to Steve Tilley, NARA from Bruce Barkan, CIA Chief of Historical Records Collection.]
  • “A document in the [NARA JFK] Collection discusses the possibility that there were significant records pertaining to Escalante in Mexico City, especially for the period of 1963 to 1964…I understand that everyone at CIA is taking this matter seriously.” [Emphasis added][Source: NARA Memo of 2-14-06 meeting with fifty CIA personnel]
(For this writer, all the new Escalante revelations beg the question: was Jeremy Gunn placed in an uncomfortable position by Lesar’s email to him? In other words, Gunn would have to denigrate my reporting, or else admit his failure to report this important material to the rest of the Board, an embarrassing admission, to be sure. I have spoken in recent days with NARA officials who stated that the Brothers passage about Gunn’s word-for-word restatement to them in 2006 of what he told me in 2003 about Fabian Escalante is completely accurate. Given what is in the new FOIA release, I would argue that, if anything, I underplayed it. No “hype” necessary.)

  • NARA obtained a statement from archivist Vicente Capello, who oversees the Mexican Secret Police records we gained first access to for our film, Rendezvous with Death. Capello “confirmed the existence of a file [in the Mexican General Archive] regarding the supposed orchestration of the assassination of John F. Kennedy by Cubans inside Mexico. Mr. Capello declined to offer details about the document or say whether or not the president of Cuba, Fidel Castro Ruz, participated in the plot.” [Emphasis added] Capello noted that the JFK files had only been opened in 2002, and that Huismann and I were the first reporters who asked to see them.
  • Miscellaneous notes reveal that former ARRB Chairman, Judge John Tunheim, and ARRB member Anna Nelson played key, behind-the-scenes roles in trying to persuade the State Department and the CIA to pursue the records mentioned in Rendezvous. In one email, Nelson noted, “I think all of this is fascinating. Had the State Dept. not messed us up I think we could have gotten some documents from Minsk… [The filmmakers], especially since they are not American, probably had the kind of success we could never get. But of course these are absolutely crucial documents for the collection.” [Source: Email from Nelson to Tilley, 3-21-06]
  • In a NARA interview with Willi Huismann, the director noted that he had re-visited the main Cuban source, “Oscar Marino” (pseudonym), in 2006. According to a NARA email, here is what Huismann recounted: “[He] met with Marino, who had gone to see the film on his own and was quite pleased that he had participated in the project. Marino [is] concerned that Cuban G-2 [Cuba’s CIA] still after him and wants to keep his real identity under wraps. He’s afraid if Cuban G-2 locates him that he will be forced to sign an agreement saying that the interviews were not true and that he was paid one million dollars to participate in the film.” [Source: Email Marty McGann to David Mengel, 7-12-06]
Interesting, isn’t it? Marino was not afraid the Cuban G-2 might kill him. No, he was worried that the G-2 might force him to sign something that would discredit the filmmakers and deny the truth as he saw it. It’s worth noting again that Marino did not receive a penny for his participation. To the contrary, he refused to accept even taxi fare to the airport. One final footnote, Marino passed away in 2008. Efforts are underway to see if we can finally release his true identity.

For those who think that there is nothing new to be learned about the JFK assassination story, here’s a related tidbit to chew on.

Our 2006 film Rendezvous with Death utilized a current Soviet FSB source and a former Cuban intelligence officer, both of whom independently verified that Cuba’s initial contacts with Oswald in 1962 were broached by none other than Rolando Cubela, the Kennedy administration’s 1963 would-be assassin known as AMLASH. While our sources had no further information as to how the Cubela-Oswald contacts were facilitated, we had no doubts about their veracity.

After the publication of Brothers in 2008, I was made aware of a stunning piece of information that might offer a clue to the furtive liaisons: a December 30, 1960, FBI memo that details Cubela’s movements in Mexico City during that period. The document itself is not so surprising, but its location is: the CIA’s 201 File on Lee Oswald’s closest friend in Dallas – oil geologist and occasional CIA contact, George DeMohrenschildt, who had his own Cuban travels and contacts since his time working for the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust Company.

Literally no one at the FBI, CIA, or NARA can explain why a “Cubela in Mexico City” document should be placed in the CIA file of Oswald’s close friend. It of course begs the questions:
  • Did Cubela have contact with DeMohrenschildt? and if so;
  • Did DeMohrenschildt act as intermediary to his friend, Lee Oswald?
In early 2009, I obtained the relevant pages from NARA, with this explanation:

Dear Mr. Russo,

This is in response to your December 12, 2008, e-mail regarding a document from Rolando Cubela's 201 file that was also filed in George DeMohrenschildt's 201 file. I reviewed the two folders that you cited as well as two additional folders that were continuations of those folders. I did locate one document from Cubela's file that was also in DeMohrenschildt's file. It is a Department of Justice memo dated December 30, 1960 Re: Foreign Political Matters - Cuba. The document is located in RG 233, Segregated CIA Files Box 101, folder "64-50 Folder 22 [1 of 2] Cubela Secades, Rolando." The second copy is located in RG 233, Segregated CIA Files Box 13, folder "64-5 16B [2 of 2] DeMohrenschildt, George."

Sincerely,

HEATHER MACRAE
Archivist
Special Access/FOIA Staff

Lastly, lest you forget, from my 2001 article with David Corn in The Nation:

“Fifteen hundred linear feet and fifty boxes of Robert F. Kennedy's classified and confidential papers are stored at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, and most of the material is closed to the public. No other Attorney General walked off the job with such a trove of government paperwork. A partial guide to these records lists scores of intriguing files, including documents pertaining to Operation Mongoose, the CIA and Cuba, Edward Lansdale and Edward Murrow. (The guide also refers to Frank Sinatra files that contain "references to various gangsters, including [Sam] Giancana and others...including Judith Campbell," a JFK mistress.) But the Kennedy family considers these papers--many of which Robert Kennedy obtained from the CIA, the FBI or the State Department--the private property of his heirs. It strictly limits access to the records, which are being stored at government expense. Several eminent historians who have requested permission to examine this historical treasure--including Richard Reeves, Robert Dallek, Nigel Hamilton, Laurence Leamer and Seymour Hersh--have been turned away by the Kennedys. Evan Thomas was allowed to see only portions of the material. And Max Kennedy, a son of Robert and the person who oversees these records, did not respond to our request to look at the files for this story. Official papers RFK generated in the course of public business should be open to public inspection, and the release of classified government records that he took when he left office ought to be controlled not by the Kennedy family but by government declassifiers subject to the Freedom of Information Act.”

* * *

In summary, we now know: 1) the CIA is withholding assassination related records, especially those that note an indirect link between a known Cuban “wet operations” specialist and Kennedy’s killer until 2017 (in apparent violation of the JFK Records Act); 2) even senior government officials -- some being Presidential appointees -- have not been able to persuade the Agency to comply with the Act regarding these documents; 3) no one can explain why an AMLASH memo was placed in the CIA’s file on Oswald’s confidante; and (4) The Kennedy Library continues to deny access the largest Cold War government document reserves in private hands.

15 comments:

J. Raymond Carroll said...

"In summary, we now know: 1) the CIA is withholding assassination related records"

This is BIG news. Wait till I tell Jefferson Morley.

Gus Russo said...

Mr. Carroll couldn't be being sarcastic, could he? Not on the internet? What's next, Matt Drudge slamming Obama?
I realize that nuance is largely a stranger to the web crowd, so let me try to state this VERY clearly:
Jeff Morley BELIEVES the CIA is withholding assassination related documents, and he readily admits the Joannides material MAY have nothing to do with JFK. And he has every right to find out.

In the Escalante case, THE CIA IS ADMITTING FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT IT IS WITHHOLDING ASSASSINATION RELATED RECORDS, and they did it without a prolonged legal struggle. So, for some of us at least, this is BIG news. No sarcasm.

J. Raymond Carroll said...

If Castro's government was behind the assassination, as Mr. Russo seems to think, and if the CIA is covering up Castro's involvement, as his article here suggests, then the CIA must be a nest of TREASON.

That would be BIG news indeed, if it were true. It would mean that our system of government has already ceased to function, and is now a mere charade.

Dale K. Myers said...

Obviously, you haven't read Gus Russo and Stephen Molton's book. Your overreaction is typical of the conspiracy crowd.

The book didn't conclude that the Castro government hired Oswald. The book concluded that
Oswald's own idea to shoot Kennedy was encouraged by Cubans he met in Mexico City. One of them may have been Fabian Escalante, but that has yet to be proved.

The CIA coverup of Escalante's possible involvement with Oswald doesn't necessarily imply treason, it simply means that they did what
government bureaucracies do every day - blot out their mistakes.

I doubt that the CIA has the answer to the JFK assassination. They simply have information from Mexico City that they never followed up on, to their great embarrassment.

Read the book.

J. Raymond Carroll said...

Ouch! Mr. Myers it really hurts when you compare me to the conspiracy crowd, especially since your friend Mr. Russo is the one proposing a conspiracy here.

The book concluded that Oswald’s own idea to shoot Kennedy was encouraged by Cubans he met in Mexico, so it sounds as though a conspiracy came into existence in September, 1963. Then Oswald wasted no time in getting a job in the TSBD, which gave him a perfect vantage point to carry the plot to fruition. Escalante’s involvement remains to be proven.

You are right, Mr. Myers. I should read the book. It sounds like a rattling good yarn.

John M. said...

I haven’t read Gus’s book either, but his theory – as Dale describes it – sounds plausible.

My own belief is that the CIA knew far more about Oswald than it would like to admit. It is possible that both the Cubans and the CIA were fishing in troubled waters. They were both aware that Oswald was unstable and violent and were wondering how he could be manipulated for their own ends.

All of these crackpot theories about the grassy knoll, badgeman, umbrella man etc etc are a distraction. Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. I don’t believe the CIA knew about it in advance or the Cubans were directly involved (although the latter might have known something about Oswald’s intentions and didn’t think it was their responsibility to do anything about it or even encouraged Oswald without giving him help as Gus believes).

My interest in this was stimulated by an internet recording of an interview with Oswald in New Orleans a month or so before the assassination. He was the strangest Marxist that I’ve ever heard. His claim that he was Marxist rather than a communist is interesting. When asked about this he talked about the various types of socialist societies. He said that America supported Tito’s Yugoslavia with over 100 million in subsidies, which was probably true. But this is a point that would not come naturally to a Marxist. It’s a geo political point rather than a philosophical point that a Marxist idealist might come up with. It sounds as if he learned it from someone working for the US state.

A friend of mine is doing some research on communist politics in western Europe after the second world war. His research indicates that the CIA actively encouraged and sponsored independent Marxists and social democrats as a means of undermining the strong pro Moscow communist parties in France and Italy. Of course, a strong pro Moscow party did not exist in the USA. All I’m saying here is that the CIA had plenty of experience of manipulating idealistic left wing radicals.

One final thought. My understanding is that the Cubans are quite open about Oswald’s visit to Mexico city? On the other hand, the CIA was at pains to deny that he was ever there. Does that not indicate that the CIA had more to hide than the Cubans about Oswald?

Dale K. Myers said...

Good question. The CIA initially claimed that they only learned of Oswald's visit to the Cuban embassy after the assassination. In fact, they knew he had been there at the time it happened. Why did they withhold this information? The answer may never be fully known.

It could be because they were embarrassed that the surveillance on Oswald fell through the cracks; or it could be because they didn't want to expose a deep penetration agent they had at the embassy (something they revealed in the 1970's); or it could be they were tailing Oswald for purposes that had nothing to do with the assassination but would prove embarrassing if it was ever revealed (such as using Oswald's public left-wing posture to embarrass the Soviet and/or Cuban governments as you suggested); or it could be that the reason for all the subterfuge has nothing to do with the assassination at all.

Unless and until the files of the Mexico City Police, Cuban Intelligence, KGB, and CIA on Oswald's Mexico City trip are released in full, we can only guess at the possible reasons.

Even if they are released, they may not contain the answers to all the questions that have been raised over the years.

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. Thanks for your interest.

David Von Pein said...

>>>"Unless and until the files of the Mexico City Police, Cuban Intelligence, KGB, and CIA on Oswald's Mexico City trip are released in full..."<<<

So, Dale, you must think that Vincent Bugliosi (who studied the case for over 20 years before publishing his book "Reclaiming History") is dead wrong when he insists that virtually all of the "files" pertaining to the JFK assassination have already been released and are available to the American public.

Vince has said that "a small fraction of 1 percent" of the files have not been released (and I would have to think he's talking about all of the CIA's files too).

And Vince insists that even that "small fraction of 1 percent" HAVE been seen (in unredacted form) by either the HSCA or ARRB.

Now, I'm not sure if Vince is including the files in the possession of FOREIGN governments and entities (like the ones Dale Myers mentioned above, e.g., "Mexico City police, Cuban Intelligence, [and] KGB") when VB says that almost every document relating to the Kennedy case has been seen and examined by the HSCA and ARRB.

Perhaps Bugliosi was only referring to U.S. files and documents.

What about that, Dale? In your view, how many USA files are still "under wraps" and unreleased?

Thank you.
DVP

Dale K. Myers said...

DVP, you apparently missed the point of the article above - Mr. Russo's FOIA request shows that the CIA has been withholding assassination related documents.

Mr. Bugliosi's comment that virtually all of the assassination records have already been released refers to known records. Which is not to say that millions of pages remain classified or hidden. I agree with Mr. Bugliosi that only a very small percentage of the known record is still being withheld. But clearly, based on the results of Mr. Russo's FOIA request, there are some assassination related records (some that have previously been unknown) that are being withheld, yes?

As to the extent of those records, we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't expect it to be a large amount, but who can really say how extensive they are or what impact they may have on the case until they are released?

More important, my comment about Mexico City was largely aimed at the records of foreign governments which could shed additional light on Oswald's Mexico City escapades.

It's pretty clear that we will never know all that occurred during Oswald's visit due to the passage of time, the deaths of those involved, and the lack of a written record. (Not everything was committed to paper, you know?) But whatever paper trail does exist can only help us better understand what did and did not happen.

In any event, I doubt that Mr. Bugliosi would argue that.

David Von Pein said...

>>>"But clearly, based on the results of Mr. Russo's FOIA request, there are some assassination related records (some that have previously been unknown) that are being withheld, yes?"<<<

Beats me.

Paul May said...

To believe the CIA is not holding files on the events of 11/22/63 and prior is naive. They have disregarded court orders regarding the DRE and George Joannides as an example. I for one have always believed the Harker interview to have been the genesis for Oswalds events. Jim DiEugenio has said per UPI, Castro never made the comment attributed to him. Gus? I tried to email you to ask your thoughts on this but your email wasn't working. We haven't chatted in a while.

Gus Russo said...

In response to Paul May: To restate what I wrote in an earlier response, the fact that CIA is withholding DRE and Joannides files DOES NOT PER SE equate to withholding assassination records. There are a myriad of other possible reasons for the denials. In the Escalante case, CIA ADMITS the files are related in some way to the case. That is vastly different.
Re Harker: I spent much time with Daniel and write in my book why I believe in his reporting.
As for DiEugenio: Puhleeease. Give me a break and consider the source.

John M. said...

In the last week I happened to browse through the Warren Commission on the internet. Some of the witness statements are very interesting. In particular I was fascinated by the statements of George de Mohrenschildt, his wife Jeanne and Igor Voshinin. These clear up some of the puzzlement I had about Oswald.

In my post above (August 14th, 2009) I expressed my surprise at the level of political sophistication Oswald showed in a radio interview in New Orleans. This was not consistent with a crude leftist; someone who could have a picture taken of himself with a Trotskyist and a pro Soviet publication (the two political tendencies hated each other).

I had thought that Oswald might have been influenced by someone working for the US State (e.g. the CIA). His sympathy for Communist Yugoslavia would not have been completely incompatible with US foreign policy at the time since Yugoslavia had left the Pro Moscow Communist International in 1948. The US was trying to isolate the Soviet Union by encouraging division within the communist camp.

But it turns out that George de Mohrenchildt, who was involved in the oil business, had spent time in Yugoslavia and was debriefed on his return by the CIA. Voshinin (a member of the Russian community living in Dallas at the time) in his statement says that both de Mohrenschildt and his wife were pro-Yugoslavia.

I am not suggesting that the de Mohrenschildts were Marxists. But what I am saying is that Oswald might have grafted on some of their unconventional and quite sophisticated political views onto his crude Marxism.

De Mohrenschildt had an extremely colourful background. He worked for French intelligence and was suspected of working for the Germans during the Second World War. Incidentally, some of his statements about this period in his life just do not make sense.

According to Edward Jay Epstein, de Mohrenschildt claimed in 1977 that he had been working on an informal basis for the CIA. He was hoping to ingratiate himself to the US State in order to obtain foreign contracts. De Mohrenschildt’s statement to Epstein should be treated with caution because he received $4000 for the interview. Nevertheless I find de Mohrenschildt’s claims plausible.

De Morenschildt’s testimony to the Warren commission has the air of someone wrestling with his conscience. On the one hand he thinks Oswald may not have killed Kennedy, but on the other hand he thinks the law enforcement agencies should have protected the President from the likes of Oswald. Even more surprisingly, for someone of liberal views, he thinks that people like himself and his wife “should have been protected against even knowing people like Oswald”. He clearly accepted that Oswald was a dangerous person.

Surprisingly, the Warren Commission attorney did not ask de Mohrenschildt if he communicated with any State agency about his suspicions about Oswald particularly in the light of de Mohrenschildt’s encounter with Oswald shortly after the Walker assassination attempt.

In conclusion, I don’t think de Mohrenschildt can be blamed for Oswald’s actions. He left for Haiti around the end of May 1963. The last time he saw Oswald was April 1963 just after the Walker assassination attempt. But there remains a question over the extent of the FBI and CIA’s knowledge and surveillance of Oswald before the assassination. Perhaps unjustifiably, de Mohrenschildt felt they should have done more.

Michael Paris said...

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive.

Mucho said...

When the Britannia landed in Cuba on November 27, 1963 I knew, Fabian Escalante was involved in anyway in JFK's case, but at this time he also had 23 years old and he is son of old communist Cesar Escalante, with 23 years old he is not significative character at this time.
I don't understand the researcher never paid attention to another very important first KGB's Masterspy playing a low profile role in Cuba's Consulate, undercovered Victor Pina Cardoso under false name Eusebio Ascue Lopez.
The picture of Gilberto Lopez, the mistery passanger is Fabian Escalante Font, the US Passport is fake but the tall, weigth, eyes color, birthday correlation 100% with Fabian Escalante, also the picture had the profile, black glasses and the eart is plastic with different skin color.
If we see the visit the Oswald to Mexico, the phone call to Soviet Embassy, Kostikov present in Mexico, Oswald looking for Cuban Visa and they denied it, as the Cuban DGI desinformation effect, them you'll in the way to understand.
Mr.Escalante role play was insignificant if you compare with the other personality assigned to kill JFK, like Emilio Aragones, Aldo Margolles, Quintin Pino Machado y Jose Moleon Cabrera, all of them First Officers and high ranking members of Cuba's nomeklatura.
But the most important thing is understand, that the JFK assassination is not one alone event is a part of KGB's Head of Bridge Intelligence Operation what started in 1959, when the took Cuba with succesfull plan named by own Nikita "Jovenzuelo Operation" who began in 1953 with Raul Castro and Victor Pina meet with Nikita and also assigned Nikolai Leonov, also present in Mexico Soviet Embassy in Nov, 1963.
Also Jack Ruby had a very close relationship with the Cuban communist leadership for long time ago, it's very important person, to delette the track.
I have documents, pictures and testimonies to prove Soviet and Cuba direct execution in JFK's case.