Why would the Soviets/KGB withhold info on Oswald's Mexico City impersonator?

[Jon Banks]

Most people agree that a man calling himself Oswald visited Mexico City for a few days between the 27th of September and the 2nd of October. Most people agree that he went back and forth on the 27th between the Cuban consulate and the Soviet consulate - trying to get a visa to visit both countries and failing at both - with one last stab at the Soviet consulate on the 28th.

At the Cuban consulate, consul Eusebio Azcue insisted that the man he met was not Oswald. The other consul, Alfredo Mirabel, was equally insistent that the man was Oswald. This kind of sharp division makes it hard to determine if Oswald ever came to Mexico City. Jack Whitten, who was the CIA’s original investigator of the assassination, wrote in the days after 11/22 that “no source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee Oswald while he was in Mexico". That is remarkable, as the CIA’s sources inside the Cuban compound later told House Select Committee on Assassinations staffer Ed Lopez that the man who visited them was not Oswald.[ 111 ] For ease in writing this narrative, I will refer to the man at the center of this Mexico City narrative as Oswald, but I remain an agnostic as to whether he visited the Cuban consulate on the 27th, or even came to Mexico City. I’m convinced that he didn’t come to the Cuban consulate on the 28th. - Bill Simpich

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter3.html


 A fair analysis today, however, suggests that the real Oswald may indeed have visited the consulate at one stage on Friday, September 27, but that an impostor may have been involved at a later stage of the contacts with the consulate. A phone call from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, September 28, in which Oswald was supposedly a participant, almost certainly involved an impostor. If that suspicion is correct, what was going on? - Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Anthony Summers from his book "Not in Your Lifetime" on the three KGB agents who say they met Oswald in Mexico City. He said he interviewed them separately in Moscow (they never defected). It's the same account that Nechiporenko gave in his book.

[Jon Banks]

So who lied?

The CIA? The Cubans? The Soviets? The Mexican intel operatives?

What really happened in Mexico City remains unresolved and requires further investigation before we can make any firm conclusions…

One person whom I suspect can answer some of these questions is Silvia Duran. I think she's still alive.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Most people agree that a man calling himself Oswald visited Mexico City for a few days between the 27th of September and the 2nd of October. Most people agree that he went back and forth on the 27th between the Cuban consulate and the Soviet consulate - trying to get a visa to visit both countries and failing at both - with one last stab at the Soviet consulate on the 28th.

At the Cuban consulate, consul Eusebio Azcue insisted that the man he met was not Oswald. The other consul, Alfredo Mirabel, was equally insistent that the man was Oswald. This kind of sharp division makes it hard to determine if Oswald ever came to Mexico City. Jack Whitten, who was the CIA’s original investigator of the assassination, wrote in the days after 11/22 that “no source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee Oswald while he was in Mexico". That is remarkable, as the CIA’s sources inside the Cuban compound later told House Select Committee on Assassinations staffer Ed Lopez that the man who visited them was not Oswald.[ 111 ] For ease in writing this narrative, I will refer to the man at the center of this Mexico City narrative as Oswald, but I remain an agnostic as to whether he visited the Cuban consulate on the 27th, or even came to Mexico City. I’m convinced that he didn’t come to the Cuban consulate on the 28th. - Bill Simpich

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter3.html


 A fair analysis today, however, suggests that the real Oswald may indeed have visited the consulate at one stage on Friday, September 27, but that an impostor may have been involved at a later stage of the contacts with the consulate. A phone call from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, September 28, in which Oswald was supposedly a participant, almost certainly involved an impostor. If that suspicion is correct, what was going on? - Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)

Jon, my original question/point was to address the claim that Oswald was impersonated at the Soviet Embassy, in fact that he never went to Mexico City at all. I think the evidence is persuasive that he did go there. Why would the Soviets cover up or withhold this impersonation? What would be the reason?

One of the claims refuting the three KGB agents who said it was Oswald is that they "defected" to the West and made their claims for financial or other reasons. In other words, they lied. The fact that they informed Moscow shortly after the assassination that the man they saw was Oswald - an erratic and unstable Oswald - disproves that claim.

As to the tapes/phone calls: As Rudd said in his cable, the tapes had been erased. There were none. Why would they be kept? We have the transcripts and there's nothing of importance to keep. Why keep these when the usual procedure was to erase them? This was 1963, the tapes were huge devices. I think Coleman and Slawson's accounts - which have been contradictory, e.g. Coleman said on one occasion he heard no tapes and on another he did, same with Slawson - that they heard tapes is wrong. 

As to Simpich and the Cuban consulate: Nowhere does Lopez mention in his report this CIA source's account. How would a CIA source know this? According to the Cubans there were only four people who were aware of the visit: Azcue, Duran, Mirabal and reportedly Teresa Proenza, the Cuban Cultural Attache who supposedly directed Oswald to Duran when he entered the consulate). Who else would know that some person identified himself as Oswald? Duran, who spent the most time with him, said it was Oswald (yes, she got his height wrong). The physical evidence - photos and signatures - are of Oswald's. He told the Soviets he went there. So we have Azcue saying it wasn't Oswald (he also said the photos were not of the man he met?) and all of this other evidence?

As to an impersonation: If one did occur on a phone call how does that show a conspiracy in the assassination? I don't see a connection.

In any case, I think Oswald did indeed go to the Soviet Embassy and meet the KGB agents. And according to Nechiporenko's account he mentioned visiting the Cuban consulate. Unless he was lying, that shows to me more evidence he did go there as well.

[Richard Smith]

Jon, my original question/point was to address the claim that Oswald was impersonated at the Soviet Embassy, in fact that he never went to Mexico City at all. I think the evidence is persuasive that he did go there. Why would the Soviets cover up or withhold this impersonation? What would be the reason?

One of the claims refuting the three KGB agents who said it was Oswald is that they "defected" to the West and made their claims for financial or other reasons. In other words, they lied. The fact that they informed Moscow shortly after the assassination that the man they saw was Oswald - an erratic and unstable Oswald - disproves that claim.

As to the tapes/phone calls: As Rudd said in his cable, the tapes had been erased. There were none. Why would they be kept? We have the transcripts and there's nothing of importance to keep. Why keep these when the usual procedure was to erase them? This was 1963, the tapes were huge devices. I think Coleman and Slawson's accounts - which have been contradictory, e.g. Coleman said on one occasion he heard no tapes and on another he did, same with Slawson - that they heard tapes is wrong. 

As to Simpich and the Cuban consulate: Nowhere does Lopez mention in his report this CIA source's account. How would a CIA source know this? According to the Cubans there were only four people who were aware of the visit: Azcue, Duran, Mirabal and reportedly Teresa Proenza, the Cuban Cultural Attache who supposedly directed Oswald to Duran when he entered the consulate). Who else would know that some person identified himself as Oswald?

As to an impersonation: If one did occur on a phone call how does that show a conspiracy in the assassination? I don't see a connection.

In any case, I think Oswald did indeed go to the Soviet Embassy and meet the KGB agents. And according to Nechiporenko's account he mentioned visiting the Cuban consulate. Unless he was lying, that shows to me more evidence he did go there as well.

Faking Oswald's presence in Mexico City would not have been necessary to frame him for the JFK assassination.  And risky if the Russians or Cubans had evidence to the contrary.  There were ample grounds for the fantasy conspirators to label him a political kook (if that was their intent) based on his defection to the USSR and ongoing nutty political involvement with Marxism following his return to the US.  There would have been no need to send Oswald or an Oswald double to Mexico City unless there was some intent to implicate Russia or Cuba into the plot as a pretext for war.  But what do the conspirators do according to our resident CTers?  The exact opposite to this undermining this explanation.  They immediately place all the blame on Oswald and cover up the involvement of anyone else including Russia or Cuba. 

The Cubans and/or Russians may have had grounds to be suspicious that Oswald was working for the CIA.  It's possible that they were understandably concerned following the assassination that his presence was part of a plot to start a war in Cuba.  For that reason, they might not have been entirely forthcoming about what Oswald told them.  Did he admit or imply his involvement in the Walker attempt to validate his credentials as a loyal Commie?  Or make some vow to do so?  It wouldn't surprise me.  Oswald's actions leading up to the Mexico City visit were directed at creating a resume of his credentials to impress the Cubans.  What better way to do that than admit or imply involvement in some risky act like assassinating a right winger like Walker?  The Cubans would have good reason not to admit that Oswald had told them he was willing to commit some violent act on behalf of the cause.  I think Oswald would have played every card with them and that was a strong one.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Faking Oswald's presence in Mexico City would not have been necessary to frame him for the JFK assassination.  And risky if the Russians or Cubans had evidence to the contrary.  There were ample grounds for the fantasy conspirators to label him a political kook (if that was their intent) based on his defection to the USSR and ongoing nutty political involvement with Marxism following his return to the US.  There would have been no need to send Oswald or an Oswald double to Mexico City unless there was some intent to implicate Russia or Cuba into the plot as a pretext for war.  But what do the conspirators do according to our resident CTers?  The exact opposite to this undermining this explanation.  They immediately place all the blame on Oswald and cover up the involvement of anyone else including Russia or Cuba. 

The Cubans and/or Russians may have had grounds to be suspicious that Oswald was working for the CIA.  It's possible that they were understandably concerned following the assassination that his presence was part of a plot to start a war in Cuba.  For that reason, they might not have been entirely forthcoming about what Oswald told them.  Did he admit or imply his involvement in the Walker attempt to validate his credentials as a loyal Commie?  Or make some vow to do so?  It wouldn't surprise me.  Oswald's actions leading up to the Mexico City visit were directed at creating a resume of his credentials to impress the Cubans.  What better way to do that than admit or imply involvement in some risky act like assassinating a right winger like Walker?  The Cubans would have good reason not to admit that Oswald had told them he was willing to commit some violent act on behalf of the cause.  I think Oswald would have played every card with them and that was a strong one.

The exoneration of Castro and the Soviets in the investigations has always puzzled me. Wouldn't these supposed neo-fascists who killed JFK because he was too soft on communists, specifically Castro and the Bay of Pigs et cetera, want to blame Cuba for the assassination? As a sort of Reichstag fire event to justify removing Castro?

But they conducted a fake investigation - it's claimed - that cleared Castro? And the Soviets. And everyone else. Oswald alone. So why frame a pro-Castro person and kill a "soft on Castro president" and then clear Castro? You've undermined your own plan. It makes no sense.

Even more remarkable is that LBJ essentially ended the covert war on Cuba. That war was driven by the Kennedys anyway and with RFK no longer interested in the matter it died out. So why the heck frame a pro-Castro person for the assassination? For what purpose?

[Richard Smith]

The exoneration of Castro and the Soviets in the investigations has always puzzled me. Wouldn't these supposed neo-fascists who killed JFK because he was too soft on communists, specifically Castro and the Bay of Pigs et cetera, want to blame Cuba for the assassination? As a sort of Reichstag fire event to justify removing Castro?

But they conducted a fake investigation - it's claimed - that cleared Castro? And the Soviets. And everyone else. Oswald alone. So why frame a pro-Castro person and kill a "soft on Castro president" and then clear Castro? You've undermined your own plan. It makes no sense.

Even more remarkable is that LBJ essentially ended the covert war on Cuba. That war was driven by the Kennedys anyway and with RFK no longer interested in the matter it died out. So why the heck frame a pro-Castro person for the assassination? For what purpose?

Yes, a conflicting narrative.  On the one hand, some CTers suggest or imply that the conspirators were using Oswald as a pretext for war with Cuba (i.e. his visit to Mexico City and political background were being used to link him to Cuba or Russia to hold them responsible), but then they criticize the authorities investigating the crime for placing the blame entirely on Oswald and not pursuing the involvement of others like Cuba.  Thus, undermining the entire premise that the intent of the conspirators was to lead the trail back via Oswald to Cuba.  Narrative consistency is not a strong point, however, of conspiracy or contrarian thinking.  Masterminding a fake Oswald appearance in Mexico City needs no context for them.  It is sufficient just to suggest that it was faked and declare victory on that basis. 

[Jon Banks]

Jon, my original question/point was to address the claim that Oswald was impersonated at the Soviet Embassy, in fact that he never went to Mexico City at all. I think the evidence is persuasive that he did go there. Why would the Soviets cover up or withhold this impersonation? What would be the reason?

No one can answer your question because it's a Strawman argument given that no one is arguing that the real Oswald didn't visit the Soviet embassy.

The popular claim is that Oswald was impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet embassy, not in person.

I referenced the Simpich and Summers quotes because I thought maybe you're confusing the Cuban and Soviet embassy stories. There are claims that the person who visited the Cuban consulate in MC wasn't the real Oswald but I haven't seen similar claims made about his visit to the Soviet embassy.

Do we know as an established fact that someone impersonated Oswald on one or more occasions during his Mexico City trip? No. But there are valid reasons to speculate that someone might've impersonated him.

As to the tapes/phone calls: As Rudd said in his cable, the tapes had been erased. There were none. Why would they be kept? We have the transcripts and there's nothing of importance to keep. Why keep these when the usual procedure was to erase them? This was 1963, the tapes were huge devices. I think Coleman and Slawson's accounts - which have been contradictory, e.g. Coleman said on one occasion he heard no tapes and on another he did, same with Slawson - that they heard tapes is wrong. 

Whether the people who claimed the tapes existed after 11/22/63 were mistaken or not (and there were others who claimed that the tapes were listened to after the assassination besides the two you mentioned), there's other evidence that suggests that the person on the phone calls wasn't the real Oswald and that Silvia Duran may have been impersonated as well:

In two telephone calls to the Soviet Embassy, a man claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald spoke “terrible, hardly recognizable Russian”, according to the CIA’s translator. Oswald himself spoke Russian very well.

The man who made the incriminating phone call to Kostikov had also phoned from the Cuban Consulate three days earlier, on Saturday 28 September. In this instance, not only was Oswald impersonated but the phone call or the transcript appear to have been fabricated. The Cuban Consulate and the switchboard at the Soviet Embassy were closed on Saturdays. Silvia Durán, an employee at the Cuban Consulate, who was mentioned by name on the transcript, denied that she had taken part in the call on the 28th.

http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-city


The CIA translator also claimed that the person claiming to be Oswald spoke broken English:

The phone caller spoke broken Russian and broken English, and knew that Oswald was in transition but not that he was moving away from his family

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter5.html

Primary source - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50273#relPageId=5

As to Simpich and the Cuban consulate: Nowhere does Lopez mention in his report this CIA source's account. How would a CIA source know this? According to the Cubans there were only four people who were aware of the visit: Azcue, Duran, Mirabal and reportedly Teresa Proenza, the Cuban Cultural Attache who supposedly directed Oswald to Duran when he entered the consulate). Who else would know that some person identified himself as Oswald? Duran, who spent the most time with him, said it was Oswald (yes, she got his height wrong). The physical evidence - photos and signatures - are of Oswald's. He told the Soviets he went there. So we have Azcue saying it wasn't Oswald (he also said the photos were not of the man he met?) and all of this other evidence?

Duran's claim was that she never saw Oswald again after September 27, 1963. Therefore, if Oswald returned to the Cuban embassy on the 28th and she helped him call the Soviet embassy from the Cuban embassy (as the 9/28/63 wiretap transcript describes), then either she lied or someone was impersonating her.

The last call in question was made on October 1.

As to an impersonation: If one did occur on a phone call how does that show a conspiracy in the assassination? I don't see a connection.

If someone was attempting to frame Oswald as potentially conspiring with the Soviets or Cubans weeks prior to 11/22/63, that would be hard evidence of a conspiracy plot. Hence why LBJ tried to bury the Mexico City stuff about the Cubans (I'm aware that the story about his visit to the Soviet embassy wasn't buried).

The possibility that Oswald might've been impersonated at the Cuban embassy could be why the Cuba stuff was covered up.

I don't think the Sylvia Odio thing can be dismissed either (did the real Oswald visit her? Or an impersonator?).

Put another way, if Oswald was simply a "lone-nut", why would anyone go through the trouble of trying to impersonate him (in person or on phone calls)? What would be the non-conspiratorial explanation if it's true that he was impersonated?

We really don't know enough about that week of Oswald's life to draw any concrete conclusions...