The Silent Conspiracy

[John Iacoletti]

Your opinions don’t interest me.

That's fine, Charles, but it cuts both ways.  Why should we be interested in Latell's opinion of when Oswald "became aware" of something, or somebody's opinion about a "communist salute"?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Charles: Here's a key section of Latell's book that I think warrants highlighting. Notice the lengthy number of qualifiers. "If" and "possibly" and "probably." Oswald may have met with Cuban agents at the so-called "twist party" (which is an odd place to do so but never mind) or elsewhere; but Latell doesn't offer us any evidence other than rumors and allegations.

[Charles Collins]

Charles: Here's a key section of Latell's book that I think warrants highlighting. Notice the lengthy number of qualifiers. "If" and "possibly" and "probably." Oswald may have met with Cuban agents at the so-called "twist party" (which is an odd place to do so but never mind) or elsewhere; but Latell doesn't offer us any evidence other than rumors and allegations.

Yes, thanks Steve. The book is quite interesting. And the covert activities of the DIG and CIA in Mexico City should be a point of our focus. Sadly, we will most likely not ever know precisely what happened because the covert activities have been kept umm secret. And we are therefore sometimes forced into trying to use our best guesses based on what we do have.

The perspective of Latell is unique. He does a pretty good job of providing source notes for the items he can. And using qualifiers, etc, when needed.

I believe that Aspillaga’s account of the morning of 11/22/63 is credible evidence that there was some prior knowledge (or at least some curious guessing going on) in DIG headquarters about a potential assassination. I hope that some corroboration will surface one day.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I do find it more than plausible, indeed I think it's likely, that IF Oswald mentioned that he had knowledge on or about anti-Castro groups (the DRE or others, e.g. the Silvio Odio alleged encounter?) that that would have drawn the interest of DGI agents in Mexico City. As Latell pointed out, Castro's people had infiltrated almost all of those groups; it was a key aim of the Cuban intelligence. And Mexico City was reportedly a critical location for Cuban intelligence operations. Oswald was desperate to get to Cuba; it's certainly conceivable to me that he would dangle such information (real or fake) to the Cubans in hopes of getting allowed into the country.

But that's the key point: he wasn't given the transit visa. He was told to leave. So these possibilities hit the wall. They don't add up.

[Richard Smith]

Two things (at least) are puzzling to me about the Mexico City/Cuban consulate matter:

(1) Eusebio Azcue, the Cuban consul at the time of Oswald's visit, said (as did two others: Duran, Mirabal) that he threw Oswald out of the consulate with the admonition that "the Revolution doesn't need people like you." This was because Oswald had been demanding and rude with his request for a transit visa.

But the Cubans later granted Oswald a transit visa. Yes, it was contingent (still) on his showing a Soviet visa. So, if they believed Oswald was either some sort of provocateur or a nut or someone they didn't want, why grant him a visa? He's a nut, a danger, throw his request away. Don't process it.

I've seen references to Oswald's visa being granted but can't recall where that confirmation comes from.  Do you recall?  If it was granted, then it was likely that the Cubans were entirely deferential to the Russians in that process since the transit visa technically only allowed Oswald to stop in Cuba on his way to the USSR.  So if the USSR approved and wanted a nut on their hands it was of no concern to the Cubans. 

It would not surprise me if the CIA and Russians/Cubans did a whole lot of CYA after the fact to minimize the criticism that they should have known Oswald was a danger.  The CIA also had no incentive after Oswald's death to disclose their methods and sources of surveillance of the Cuban and Russian embassies.  They very well could have had more information than they ever disclosed but saw no reason once Oswald was dead and they were satisfied of his guilt to reveal it and allow the Russians and Cubans to reverse engineer the intelligence that they had obtained.  A cover up allows for a lot of sinister implications for those inclined to a mass conspiracy.  But there is no credible evidence of the involvement of Russia or Cuba in the assassination.  The explanation for bizarre actions is sometimes just that you are just dealing with a nut. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I've seen references to Oswald's visa being granted but can't recall where that confirmation comes from.  Do you recall?  If it was granted, then it was likely that the Cubans were entirely deferential to the Russians in that process since the transit visa technically only allowed Oswald to stop in Cuba on his way to the USSR.  So if the USSR approved and wanted a nut on their hands it was of no concern to the Cubans. 

It would not surprise me if the CIA and Russians/Cubans did a whole lot of CYA after the fact to minimize the criticism that they should have known Oswald was a danger.  The CIA also had no incentive after Oswald's death to disclose their methods and sources of surveillance of the Cuban and Russian embassies.  They very well could have had more information than they ever disclosed but saw no reason once Oswald was dead and they were satisfied of his guilt to reveal it and allow the Russians and Cubans to reverse engineer the intelligence that they had obtained.  A cover up allows for a lot of sinister implications for those inclined to a mass conspiracy.  But there is no credible evidence of the involvement of Russia or Cuba in the assassination.  The explanation for bizarre actions is sometimes just that you are just dealing with a nut.

Epstein cites it here: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/question_oswald.htm

He writes: "On October 18, 1963, according to its own records, the Cuban Foreign Ministry in Havana authorized the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City to issue a transit visa for Lee Harvey Oswald to enter Cuba. It required that Oswald also obtain a visa to enter the Soviet Union."

I believe there's a photo of the letter in the HSCA list of exhibits. It was sent from Havana to the consulate in MC but not to Oswald (he put his New Orleans address on the application).

Added: The letter is here (the date is October 15 so perhaps Epstein is referring to a different letter?): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=847&tab=page

Note: It doesn't explicitly authorize the visa or deny it either but says that: "I respectfully inform you that in order for us to comply with his request, he must inform us by cable, with prepaid reply, when he has the authorized visa of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R." In any case, this indicates that the application was sent to Havana and not tossed away. Very strange.

If I recall, Oswald never returned any visa application to the Soviets in Mexico City. I think he wanted them to expedite his earlier requests that he had sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Nosenko said that he personally turned down those requests to return. So if the Soviets didn't want him back I can't see them telling the Cubans to give him a transit visa. Without a Soviet visa he wouldn't be given the transit visa.

My guess is yours: bureaucracies shuffling paper. Conspiracists don't like innocent explanations (unless they clear Oswald: curtain rods anyone?) but most things happen without any larger purpose.

[Charles Collins]

I do find it more than plausible, indeed I think it's likely, that IF Oswald mentioned that he had knowledge on or about anti-Castro groups (the DRE or others, e.g. the Silvio Odio alleged encounter?) that that would have drawn the interest of DGI agents in Mexico City. As Latell pointed out, Castro's people had infiltrated almost all of those groups; it was a key aim of the Cuban intelligence. And Mexico City was reportedly a critical location for Cuban intelligence operations. Oswald was desperate to get to Cuba; it's certainly conceivable to me that he would dangle such information (real or fake) to the Cubans in hopes of getting allowed into the country.

But that's the key point: he wasn't given the transit visa. He was told to leave. So these possibilities hit the wall. They don't add up.

The Cuban and Soviet officials in Mexico City were probably giving LHO the proverbial “runaround.” No one was likely to be willing to stick their neck out for LHO due to the reputation that he reportedly earned with his past behavior in Russia, etc. However, Latell wrote that Cuban intelligence would have had a file on LHO that went back to his days in the Marine Corps. (LHO reportedly contacted the Cubans in Los Angeles back then.) And LHO’s activities in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 most likely drew Cuban intelligence’s attention also. If LHO, while in Mexico City, did in fact threaten to kill JFK, I believe that Cuban intelligence would have been negligent if they didn’t track LHO back to Dallas. If Latell is correct (that Castro was informed of LHO’s threat), I believe that Castro would have at least ordered them to keep track of LHO.

[Charles Collins]

I've seen references to Oswald's visa being granted but can't recall where that confirmation comes from.  Do you recall?  If it was granted, then it was likely that the Cubans were entirely deferential to the Russians in that process since the transit visa technically only allowed Oswald to stop in Cuba on his way to the USSR.  So if the USSR approved and wanted a nut on their hands it was of no concern to the Cubans. 

It would not surprise me if the CIA and Russians/Cubans did a whole lot of CYA after the fact to minimize the criticism that they should have known Oswald was a danger.  The CIA also had no incentive after Oswald's death to disclose their methods and sources of surveillance of the Cuban and Russian embassies.  They very well could have had more information than they ever disclosed but saw no reason once Oswald was dead and they were satisfied of his guilt to reveal it and allow the Russians and Cubans to reverse engineer the intelligence that they had obtained.  A cover up allows for a lot of sinister implications for those inclined to a mass conspiracy.  But there is no credible evidence of the involvement of Russia or Cuba in the assassination.  The explanation for bizarre actions is sometimes just that you are just dealing with a nut.

But there is no credible evidence of the involvement of Russia or Cuba in the assassination.

I agree that the evidence suggests LHO acted alone. However,  I believe that the Aspillaga account of the morning of 11/22/63 is credible evidence that the Cubans were at least suspicious and curious about the possibility of an assassination attempt in Dallas.