Title Quote: David Phillips
Photo: Journalist and Author Ron Kessler
Photo: Journalist and Author Ron Kessler
One of the most controversial parts of Lee Harvey Oswald’s brief life was his trip to Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963 just weeks before the Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission concluded that the purpose of Oswald’s visit to the Mexican capital was to secure a visa that would allow him to travel to Cuba. But theorists have long been suspicious of Oswald’s true motive in traveling to Mexico and some are even doubtful that he was there at all.1
Writes Jim DiEugenio,“Seven weeks before the assassination, certain individuals in the CIA were manipulating either Oswald or an imposter in Mexico City.”2 “I remain an agnostic as to whether [Oswald] visited the Cuban consulate on the 27th, or even came to Mexico City,” writes author and researcher Bill Simpich. Author James Douglass asserts that “The Mexico City scenario had laid the foundation for blaming the president’s upcoming murder on Cuba and the U.S.S.R., thereby providing the rationale in its aftermath for an invasion of Cuba and a possible nuclear attack on Russia.”3
At the time of Oswald’s visit, David Phillips was assigned to Mexico City working under CIA Chief of Station Winston Scott. When Oswald first arrived, Phillips was technically still an Operations Officer running the covert action desk but shortly thereafter became the head of Cuban Operations.4 An important part of Phillips’ job was supervising the reconnaissance of foreign embassies. Specifically, the CIA had surveillance operations in place designed to take photographs of visitors to the Cuban and Soviet embassies and to record phone conversations in those facilities.
Because of his position in Mexico and the dubious accusations of Veciana, Phillips has fallen under suspicion by theorists. For example, in The Road to Dallas, David Kaiser speculates that “someone in the [Mexico City] station, probably David Phillips, knew exactly what Oswald was trying to do, namely, get a visa to travel to Cuba, where he would be provided a weapon with which to assassinate Fidel Castro.” Even author Phillip Shenon, who believes Oswald was guilty but may have had confederates, wrote “it is possible that no one—in the CIA or anywhere else in the government—did more to confuse the record about Lee Harvey Oswald and what the government had known about him before Kennedy’s assassination [than Phillips]."5 Indeed, critics have accused Phillips of everything from suppression of the facts to participation in the assassination. What has the Phillips critics in such an uproar and are their suspicions justified? Before answering these questions, it is worthwhile to review the facts surrounding Oswald’s Mexican sojourn.
Oswald had spoken of a desire to go to Cuba as early as 1959 and by the summer of 1963 was working to make that dream a reality.6 He arrived in Mexico City mid-morning on Friday, September 27, 1963, after boarding a bus in New Orleans and traveling through Houston and Laredo, Texas.7 At about 11 am, Oswald visited the Cuban consulate and spoke to Silvia Duran, an attractive young Mexican who worked as a secretary for Cuban consul Eusebio Azcue. Oswald explained to Duran that he needed an in-transit visa to go to Cuba in a journey that would ultimately take him to the Soviet Union. As a “friend of the Cuban revolution” Oswald expected that his request would be expedited as he wanted to leave for the island nation just three days later.8
Duran, an admitted Marxist, was sympathetic to Oswald’s cause but informed him that it would be impossible for him to get an immediate Cuban visa. When Oswald realized there would be a delay in obtaining the visa, he became angry and Duran summoned the consul Azcue to rectify the matter. Azcue advised Oswald that a Cuban visa would take fifteen to twenty days. The only exception would be if he could obtain a visa from the Soviet embassy permitting travel to their country, in which case, a Cuban visa could be issued without delay. Duran then told Oswald that he would also need to fill out an application and obtain photographs of himself to complete the request.9
At about 12:30, Oswald rang the bell at the Soviet embassy gate less than two blocks from the Cuban embassy complex. There he met with consular officer Valeriy Kostikov and explained that he needed a Soviet visa. Kostikov summoned Oleg Nechiporenko whom he felt was better equipped to handle Oswald’s request since he worked with counterintelligence. As Oswald spoke with Nechiporenko, he again became agitated and claimed that he was being followed by the FBI. Nechiporenko questioned Oswald both about the FBI and the reasons why he left the Soviet Union. When Oswald could offer no convincing explanations, Nechiporeko informed him that a Soviet visa could take up to four months. According to Nechiporenko, an exasperated Oswald shouted, “This won’t do for me! This is not my case! For me it’s all going to end in tragedy!” Unfazed, Nechiporenko led Oswald out of the embassy and saw him off at the gate.10
Later in the afternoon, Oswald returned to the Cuban consulate with the necessary photographs. Duran once again summoned Azcue who repeated that he could do nothing without a Soviet visa. Oswald then told Azcue that he had a visa, but when Duran asked to see it, he had nothing to show. However, Oswald remained insistent that he had obtained a Russian visa so Duran phoned the Soviets and inquired about it. A Soviet officer told her that Oswald had not been given a visa and had in fact been informed it could take four months. When Azcue gave him the news that he could not get a visa, the frustrated Oswald became abusive. As was the case at the Soviet embassy, Oswald was ushered out of the compound.11
Not ready to give up on his dream of Fidel’s paradise, Oswald returned to the Soviet embassy on Saturday morning the 28th. The embassy was usually closed on weekends but the three consular officers happened to be there to attend a volleyball game. Pavel Yatskov was the only one of the three Soviet officers that Oswald had not yet encountered but that changed when the sentry on duty informed him that someone was at the gate requesting to speak to the counsul. The sentry brought Oswald, who was dressed in a gray suit, into the offices to speak to Yatskov. Oswald reiterated the story that he had told Yatskov’s comrades the previous day.12
Eventually, Kostikov joined the pair and Oswald began his story all over for his benefit. Now, Oswald added a new wrinkle that betrayed his true purpose. He told the officers that he wanted to help the Cuban people “build a new life.” When telling the men about his persecution at the hands of the FBI, Oswald became very emotional and pulled a handgun from his jacket pocket. “See, this is what I must now carry to protect my life,” he told the Soviets. Despite his emotional outburst, Oswald’s request was again rejected by the Soviets who firmly reminded him of the procedures that he must follow to obtain a visa. Oswald’s quest to go to Cuba had ended in failure, but he lingered in Mexico for a few days although his precise actions during that time are still debated.13
The CIA identified five transcripts of phone conversations that were possibly related to Oswald’s quest for a Cuban visa:14
- On September 27th at 4:05 pm, Sylvia Duran called an unidentified person in the Soviet embassy.
- On September 27th at 4:26 pm, an unidentified person in the Soviet embassy phoned Duran.
- On September 28th at 11:51 am, Duran called the Soviet embassy and spoke to an unidentified person. During the call, an unidentified “North American” came on the line and spoke in English and “broken Russian.” This person may or may not have been Oswald.
- On October 1st at 10:31 am, a man identifying himself as “Lee Oswald” phoned an unidentified person in the Soviet embassy.
- On October 1st at 10:45 am, the same man phoned a Soviet embassy guard named Obyedkov.
A discussion of the countless problems that theorists have with the extant transcripts is impractical.15 But an alleged “missing” transcript relates directly to Phillips since theorists believe his testimony before the HSCA verifies the existence of such a record. Is that true or is the “missing” transcript a creation of the conspiracy community and an ambitious journalist?
Phillips was called to testify in what Dan Hardway called a “spur of the moment affair” after an article by Ron Kessler appeared in the Washington Post on November 26, 1976. In that piece, Phillips was quoted as saying that he had seen a transcript of a taped conversation in which Oswald told the Soviet embassy, “I have information you would be interested in, and I know you can pay my way [to the Soviet Union].”16 Anna Tarasoff, who along with her husband Boris prepared transcripts of embassy phone conversations for the CIA, told a story that appeared to corroborate what Phillips told Kessler. Just a few days after Phillips talked to Kessler, Mrs. Tarasoff had the following exchange with HSCA investigators:17
Mr. Brooten: But to the best of your recollection, is it fair to say that [Oswald] wanted financial assistance?
Mrs. Tarasoff: Yes definitely.
Both Phillips and Mrs. Tarasoff seemed to remember a transcript of Oswald requesting financial help.18 Although no such transcript was ever found, theorists are suspicious and believe that the “missing” transcript became so for a nefarious reason. For example, author Jim DiEugenio says that Mrs. Tarasoff’s memory of the transcript was “indelible” since it was in English. This alleged transcript was marked “urgent” DiEugenio insists and Mrs. Tarasoff “was not mistaken” about it since Phillips also heard it before it “disappeared.”19
While theorists are content to accept that a transcript mysteriously disappeared, there is a much simpler explanation. The common denominator between Phillips and the Tarasoffs is the Washington Post reporter they both spoke to—Ron Kessler. Was there anything about Kessler’s investigatory methods that could have helped to create the notion of the “missing” transcript?
Kessler’s 1976 interest in the JFK case began with an article he co-authored in August on mobster Johnny Rosselli who had turned up that year in an oil drum off the Miami coast. Kessler speculated that Rosselli, who had worked with the CIA on their Castro assassination plots, had been offed by the Cuban dictator in retaliation.20 But Kessler smelled a larger story and continued working the JFK angle.
On September 29th, the ambitious newsman contacted James Hosty of the FBI. Hosty had become infamous as one of the agents who handled the bureau’s Oswald case. Kessler informed Hosty that he was now working on the “Mexico City aspect” of the assassination. Kessler asked the agent about Warren Commission Exhibit No. 15 which is a letter written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy in Washington that disclosed details of his Mexico City excursion. Kessler wanted to know if the FBI “intercepted” the letter prior to the assassination. Kessler then went on a “fishing expedition.” He told Hosty that he already possessed “a large number of CIA documents” and implied that the agency was cooperating with the Washington Post on its investigation. Hosty refused to comment on any of this and Kessler said that he would recontact the agent after his trip to Mexico “next week.”
Kessler made good on his word and reconnected with Hosty on October 13th. Kessler told Hosty that the CIA “possessed considerable information” on Oswald’s Mexico City visit that it did not furnish to the FBI. Kessler asked Hosty if it was possible that this information was withheld due to bad blood between Hoover and the CIA. Hosty again refused to comment and referred Kessler to his attorney. During the months of October and November, the busy Kessler phoned a slew of FBI and CIA people. In late October, he contacted CIA Director George Bush requesting a comment on the agency’s knowledge of Oswald’s pre-assassination dealings in Mexico. Kessler’s actions were concerning enough to elicit a mention at the October 29th DCI morning meeting, although Bush himself was out of town.
According to an FBI memo by Homer Boynton, Kessler phoned him and retired section chief William Branigan on successive days in early November. Kessler told Boynton that Branigan had said that if the FBI had known of Oswald’s contacts with the Cuban and Soviet embassies that the bureau would have launched a full-scale investigation. After Boynton informed Kessler that Branigan had denied making any such comment, Kessler asked Boynton’s opinion on the same matter and he likewise declined to answer. Kessler insisted that his premise was correct but Boynton told him that it was “strictly speculative” although he was sure “it would read better if he drew such a conclusion.” Boynton concluded the memo by noting that his prior contacts with Kessler had “always been unsatisfactory.” On the same day that he called Branigan, Kessler contacted another retired agent, Sam Papich, and asked similar questions without success.
Probably in the first part of October as he had told Hosty, Kessler made his most significant connection when he managed to locate the Tarasoffs in Mexico. This was crucial since the duo had never before spoken to anyone, including government investigators, about their memories of transcribing the Oswald tapes. Boris Tarasoff described his experience with Kessler in a letter to a friend who also worked for the CIA:
The reason I’m writing is to let you know that Wash. Post is hot about Kennedy ’63. Someone in D.C. let them know what kind of work I was doing (not under my pseudo) and they sent a young reporter (who is dreaming about Watergate) to the Mexico Station which turned over to him materials and documents (according to him a stack over 1 foot high). He made a special trip here to interview me, not because he was interested in my person, but because he wanted to know (he was asking me over and over again and also Ann) whether there was any indication that Lee [Oswald] had let slip his intentions about JFK. I said that there had been none of that (emphasis in original).
In the four-hour session, Kessler discussed several of his theories with the Tarasoffs. Kessler asked about Soviet individuals “running back and forth” to the Cuban embassy which Mr. Tarasoff disavowed any knowledge of. One of those who Kessler suspected of shuttling between the embassies was Bobby Joe Keesee, who claimed he worked for the CIA. However, Keesee, who had been a POW in Vietnam, was a fraud who attempted to use his story of agency employment to beat a kidnapping charge. Indeed, Tarasoff told Kessler that he had never heard of Keesee. Tarasoff informed his correspondent that he had put off Kessler by saying, “after 13 years it was just impossible to remember everything” (emphasis in original). Tarasoff noted that he had obtained a “written guarantee” that he and his wife would not be mentioned by name in the Washington Post. Tarasoff finished his letter by cautioning his CIA pen pal, “don’t be surprised if one of these days he’ll call on you. Forewarned is to be forearmed.”
In the conversations with the Tarasoffs, Kessler first managed to obtain the statement from Mrs. Tarasoff that Oswald had asked the Soviets for financial assistance. “He said he had some information to tell them” Mrs. Tarasoff was quoted as saying. “His main concern was getting to one of the two countries [Russia or Cuba] and he wanted them to pay for it” she said.21 Kessler then turned his attention to Phillips. Although the precise date that Kessler contacted Phillips is unknown, it is clear from Phillips’ HSCA testimony that it must have been soon after he spoke to the Tarasoffs. In that 1978 HSCA testimony, Phillips explained the circumstances through which he came to talk with Kessler and how the newspaper man had obtained the statements that ended up in the Washington Post:
As a former newspaper man, I felt I knew how to talk to newspaper people … Only on two occasions did I think that I was taken, and one of them was an article in the Washington Post by Mr. Ron Kessler which came out the day before my testimony and was the reason that I was called down to testify. Mr. Kessler contacted me. We had a long lunch. We had a second lunch. He talked to me on the phone a number of times. A number of weeks went by and he was talking about Mexico City at the time of the Kennedy assassination and trying to get me to tell him everything he could.
Phillips continued:
… apparently Mr. Kessler had talked to two other people who were in Mexico, a translator and a secretary, and he told me that they said that Lee Harvey Oswald told the Soviets that he wanted his ticket paid for and he had lots of fabulous information to give them and this, that and the other. When a newspaper man talks long enough, sometimes you find yourself agreeing with him on the basis of facts that don’t really exist. For instance, during those conversations he said, well, I already know the whole story. Here I have all the documents I received under the Freedom of Information Act, the cables and that sort of thing. So I half came away from my conversations with Mr. Kessler having absorbed some of the things he was saying.
Thus, Kessler used the same technique on Phillips that he tried on Hosty, Branigan and Boynton (and undoubtedly others). That is, he showed Phillips the statement from Mrs. Tarasoff that “confirmed” the fact that Oswald had asked for help from the Soviets and asked if he could corroborate it. Much of the time, Kessler struck out using this gambit, but in the case of Phillips, Kessler was able to achieve his desired outcome over several persistent connections.
Indeed, Phillips provided a motive for his ability to “remember” the nonexistent transcript. “I had a book that was about to be published,” he told the HSCA during his 1978 testimony. “I was on television shows and that sort of thing, and I don’t think there is any question in my mind that at that time I tended to overdramatize a little bit my role. After all, if you write a book and spend a year doing it, you hope it will be sold and all that sort of thing,” Phillips admitted.
Other than Mr. Tarasoff’s letter to his CIA colleague, there is no public record of the conversations that Kessler had with the Tarasoffs. But it is possible that the discussion with Kessler, when mixed with other information that she obtained after the assassination, played a role in Anna Tarasoff’s “remembrances” of the Oswald tapes. Indeed, it is obvious from her 1976 HSCA interview that Mrs. Tarasoff gained post-assassination knowledge from conspiracy-oriented literature. For example, she repeated the conspiracy meme that Lee and Marina would not have been given permission to leave the Soviet Union in the way they were.
Mr. Blackmer: [Oswald] wanted to leave Mexico, where did he want to go?
Mrs. Tarasoff: If anyplace, he would go back to Russia. Because his wife is of Russian extraction. And this is the one reason it puzzled both Boris and I that although he married a Russian, why was she given permission to leave the country when it is so difficult for others to leave? There must be some sort, there must have been some sort of an angle there. While he married a Russian girl, and he lived there, I believe it was three or four years.
Mr. Blackmer: While we’re on this record, let’s not get into opinions … (emphasis added).
It should be noted that Boris Tarasoff was present when his wife told HSCA investigators about the alleged Oswald request for Soviet financial assistance and offered no objection to her characterization. However, he refused to confirm her statements during his HSCA testimony two years later:
Mr. Sawyer: You answered as to whether you had any recollection of any other subjects that were discussed. You said, “Personally no.” Is there any significance to the word “personally”? Do you have information on it some other way?
Mr. Tarasoff: Well, my wife thinks there was another conversation [regarding Soviet financial assistance], but I do not recollect it.
The Lopez Report agreed stating, “Mr. Tarasoff did not confirm his wife's recollection of another conversation including Oswald. He said that he did not remember any other calls involving Lee Oswald or any details of Oswald's conversations that were not reflected in the transcripts.” Indeed, Mr. Tarasoff must not have confirmed the financial assistance allegation during the original interview with Kessler since the latter quoted only “the typist” (Mrs. Tarasoff) in his article.22
Thus, we have Anna Tarasoff who spoke with Kessler who was pushing conspiracy theories such as the Bobby Joe Keesee incident and perhaps others. We know from her HSCA interview that Mrs. Tarasoff was familiar with the Oswald’s biography including their time in the Soviet Union. While there is no specific evidence of it, it is not unreasonable to assume that she could also have learned about the Oswald’s poor financial situation through her own research. And she could have mixed this information with her own experience and “remembered” a “missing” transcript that had Oswald asking for financial aid—a transcript that her husband refused to substantiate under oath.
When presented with this “evidence” by Kessler, Phillips, who admitted he had been “taken,” was persuaded to remember his own experience with such a record. In conclusion, it is almost certain that the “missing” transcript that theorists believe is substantiated by Phillips never existed.
According to his chief critic Jefferson Morley, the “missing transcript” matter is only the first example of four contradictory stories that Phillips told about Oswald and Mexico. Morley provides a litany of complaints regarding Phillips’ 1976 HSCA testimony including his “slithery” recantation of his statement made to journalist Daniel Gillmore regarding Oswald offering to trade information for free transportation to Russia by the way of Cuba.23
Also troubling to Morley are Phillips’ statements that he was informed immediately that Oswald was in Mexico City and that he drafted a cable about him for Win Scott. Morley also believes that Phillips knew of Oswald’s Cuban contacts since Phillips testified that he did. Finally, Morley bemoans the fact that Phillips “changed his story again” in 1978 admitting that he had “exaggerated” his contribution in the response to Oswald’s sojourn. “This shifting testimony leaves the strong impression Phillips tried to obscure what he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald’s travel and intentions before President Kennedy was killed,” Morley insists.24
But the truth about Phillips, his role in the Mexico City affair and the inconsistent testimony he gave before the HSCA is easy to see for those not predisposed to conspiracy. Phillips’ belief that he was in Mexico City for the duration of Oswald’s visit, based on his imperfect recollection of the event more than a decade later, was incorrect. During his 1978 testimony, he was shown documents that proved he was on temporary duty in Washington on September 30th preparing for his new job as Chief of Cuban Operations and went from there to Miami for two days consultation. His ETA for return to Mexico City was October 9th. Therefore, Phillips could not have done some of the things he said he did such as draft the cable that Win Scott sent on the 8th of October. And since Oswald left Mexico on October 2nd, that means that Phillips only had three days at the most that he could have been involved in analyzing data or other activities regarding Oswald, at least during his visit.
When confronted with the documentation proving this, Phillips immediately acknowledged his error:
I was suddenly involved in this Cuban business at a time when a lot was happening and that when I was asked to testify in 1976, so many years later, my recollection of the events was that I was involved in Cuban matters, as indeed I would have been during that temporary duty in headquarters. I did not know—I did not recall that I was at headquarters during that time … I was obviously mistaken [about the cable].
Even critics like Morley seem to accept that it is possible Phillips had an “honest failure of memory.” Morley thinks a more important issue is the “convergence” of Phillips’ and Win Scott’s accounts regarding the Mexico station’s contemporaneous knowledge of Oswald’s Cuban contacts. Morley’s source regarding Win’s “knowledge” of the situation comes from a manuscript titled “It Came to Little” written under a pen name. But Win’s cable to CIA headquarters relayed his total knowledge of the situation at that point:
According to LIENVOY 1 Oct 1963 American male who spoke broken Russian said his name was Lee OSWALD at the SOVEMB 28 Sept when he spoke with Consul who he believed be Valeriy Vladimorovich KOSTIKOV. Subj[ect] asked Sov guard Ivan OBYEDKOV upon checking said nothing received yet but request had been sent. Have photos male appear 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 sports shirt Source: LIEMPTY.
Thus, regardless of what Win Scott might have said in a manuscript, his knowledge of Oswald pre-assassination was likely very little and partly incorrect. Win thought that the photos of a man entering the Soviet compound represented Oswald, or at least implied that was the case. But those photos of a man who has never been positively identified were not of Oswald. And David Phillips had zero input into the situation since he wasn’t even in Mexico at the time. Out of the “four” differing accounts that Morley believes Phillips gave the one that most accurately represented the situation was from his book. “None of the CIA personnel in Mexico City knew anything about Lee Harvey Oswald: that he had previously lived in the Soviet Union and married a Russian wife. He was just another blip.”25
Phillips’ critics have been just as concerned about the role he played in the photographic coverage of the Cuban consulate. “Assassinations Committee investigators,” writes author Anthony Summers, “did not believe” Phillips’ account of the photographic surveillance.26 The “investigators” referred to by Summers likely included Gaeton Fonzi, Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez. All these men entertained pro-conspiracy ideas throughout their lives. But was their belief that Phillips lied about the photo surveillance based on hard evidence or was it just a belief? Phillips always maintained that the CIA found no photos of Oswald among their photographic inventory. “[We] spent several days studying literally hundreds of photographs available to the CIA before and during Oswald’s trip to Mexico City. He did not appear in any of them” Phillips wrote in his memoir.27
The ARRB determined the facts about the CIA’s photo surveillance (based on the HSCA investigation) and wrote an excellent summary on the matter which backed up Phillips’ assertion that photos of Oswald did not exist. LIERODE was the CIA cryptonym for the overall surveillance operation of the Cuban diplomatic compound before 1964 which Phillips supervised. LIONION was the name for the photo surveillance of the compound after July 1964 and the name of the CIA base house. However, the files of LIONION contained records pertaining to the 1963 period of interest. The CIA maintained that it had “no coverage of the consulate entrance at the time of Oswald’s visit.” That statement is at odds with a CIA report that indicated that a “Robot Star” camera with a trigger device as well as a K-100 camera were installed on the very day that Oswald arrived in Mexico—September 27th. The Robot Star was to be tested for four days and the K-100 for an additional four days.
According to CIA reports, the Robot Star broke down after four days. If this is accurate, the camera should have picked up coverage starting on the 27th and continuing for four days. But the ARRB noted that “Despite the evidence provided … there is no record of actual photographic take or test results from this camera.” The ARRB also provided a possible reason for the lack of Oswald photographs. The review board noted that the CIA report said that the camera was “focused on the shaded area of the [consulate] entrance instead of the door. It was found that since Mexicans generally wear dark colored clothing and have black hair, they can pass into the office without triggering the [camera]. When a person leaves by this entrance, the man’s shirt or face will trigger the device photographing a front or side view depending on how the subject leaves the entrance.” So, the newly installed device simply did not have the bugs worked out at the time of Oswald’s visit and therefore failed to capture a photo of him as Phillips consistently maintained.
However, Jefferson Morley and other theorists remain unconvinced. “Two [CIA employees],” Morley writes, “later told congressional investigators they had seen such photos of Oswald.” The first was Stanley Watson who was Deputy Chief of Station at Mexico City from 1967 to 1969. Watson told the HSCA that he reviewed the station’s Oswald file and it contained a “three quarters from behind photo—basically an ear and back shot.”28
Similarly, Joseph Piccolo, a counterintelligence officer at Mexico City in the sixties, told congressional inquisitors that he saw two surveillance photos of Oswald in the station’s files. Piccolo stated that “these two pictures had been taken of Lee Harvey Oswald either entering or leaving the Cuban Embassy/Consulate in Mexico City. The first picture was a three-quarters full shot of Oswald exposing his left profile as [he] looked downward. The second photograph which Mr. Piccolo recollected seeing was a back of the head view of Oswald.”
But there are problems with the assertions of Watson and Piccolo. Watson thought that the photos he allegedly saw were part of Oswald’s “complete Mexico City personality file” which he described as “very thin.” But Oswald’s file consisted of seven volumes—a fact that “surprised” Watson when he was told of it. Similarly, Piccolo claimed that he had heard “several times” that Elsie Scaletti (pseudonym for Charlotte Bustos) had found the Oswald photograph. Piccolo stated that he had most recently heard the allegation regarding Bustos from an office mate (whose name was redacted in the 2003 Lopez Report). But Piccolo’s coworker, identified as Dan Niescuir in a 2018 document release, refused to support his claims and instead stated that he had never seen such a photo, heard that a photo was discovered or told Piccolo or anyone else that such a photo was found.
The HSCA, despite the conspiracy bias of several investigators, was forced to admit that “the consistent testimony [by CIA employees] that a photo [of Oswald] was not obtained in Mexico; the absence of any record of transmittal of the photo to headquarters … and the testimony of [Bustos and John Whitten who was CIA Chief of Covert Operations in Mexico City in 1963] that a photo was not discovered would tend to indicate that, in fact, the allegations that [Bustos] found a photo of LHO are false.”
Any study of Phillips and Mexico City is incomplete without looking at an incident that happened in the Mexican capital after the assassination—one that has long been a favorite of theorists. Shortly after the JFK killing, Gilberto Alvarado Ugarte, a Nicaraguan secret agent seeking to infiltrate Castro’s forces by traveling to the island nation, told officials at the American embassy that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald receive $6,500 at the Cuban embassy on September 18th. This money was allegedly a payoff for killing JFK that Oswald supposedly received from a black man with dyed red hair who was accompanied by a blonde Canadian.
Predictably, Jefferson Morley is critical of Phillips’ limited role in this affair. “Phillips’s central, if invisible, role in promoting Alvarado’s story,” Morley writes, “continued his uncanny record of covertly promoting a more aggressive U.S. Cuba policy in 1962–1963. Like the DRE’s raid on the Havana hotel and the ‘missiles in caves’ story, Alvarado’s story was promoted by Phillips’s hidden hand.”29
But as noted in Chapter 25, there is no evidence that Phillips ordered, advised or otherwise influenced the DRE to attack Cuba. The headstrong students initiated the action of their own accord (as they told Morley in interviews) leaving their case officer, Ross Crozier, to twist in the wind. The same may be said for the DRE report of missiles in caves. Morley’s “proof” of Phillips’ “hidden hand” was the fact that the DRE told their story of the missiles to Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Star who happened to be a friend of Phillips. While Phillips could have pointed the students in the direction of someone such as O’Leary who would listen to their story, the DRE did not need Phillips or anyone to tell them what to do or say and asserted their independence from the CIA to the point that they were eventually defunded by the agency.
Morley continues, “Of the many untruths that David Phillips told about his own role in the Kennedy assassination story, few were more curious or revealing than his version of the Gilberto Alvarado story.”30 What has Morley so steamed up this time? In Phillips’ book he gives a brief synopsis of Alvarado’s story and then notes that he and a colleague were assigned to interview Alvarado. “It soon was apparent that [Alvarado] was lying, and not very well,” Phillips maintained.31 Morley insists that Phillips “distorted” his role in the story. “In a less ethically flexible world than the one Phillips inhabited,” Morley insists hyperbolically, “one would say that the CIA man told a series of bald-faced lies.”32
But Morley leaves out the very next passage from Phillips’ book. “A lie detector test … soon proved that [Alvarado] was a fabricator,” Phillips wrote.33 Indeed, Morley admits that the Alvarado story was eventually “discredited” by the polygraph exam. So, what’s the problem? Morley evidently thinks that Phillips should have informed his readers that he initially believed Alvarado (or at least thought the story should be given some credence). Of course, the point of an autobiography is to paint yourself in such a way that the reader will want to read your story. Is Morley so vindictive where Phillips is concerned that he can’t allow the slightest literary license? In the grand scheme of things, it would seem reasonable for Phillips to write that Alvarado was “soon” proven to be a liar.
Finally, Morley returns to his old tricks by alleging without proof that Phillips “knew all along” that Alvarado intended to “make claims that would create a political atmosphere more conducive to a U.S. attack on Castro. The results certainly served Phillips’ agenda.” What was that “agenda” according to Morley? It included the DRE “publicity blitz” after their encounter with Oswald in New Orleans, the results of the surveillance of the Cuban diplomatic compound and the Alvarado incident.34
First, there is no evidence that Phillips had anything to do with the DRE-Oswald incident in New Orleans either when it happened or after the assassination when the DRE admittedly released information of their own accord. Secondly, Morley is evidently implying that the surveillance of Oswald was in some way falsified by Phillips. Again, there is no evidence of this. Finally, we have already discussed Alvarado. But, in the end, Morley is just blowing smoke. “There is, to be sure, no proof that Phillips masterminded these developments …” he admits.35
Before leaving our study of Phillips and Mexico City, this is as good a place as any to discuss one of the more popular but dubious conspiracy theories regarding Phillips. The usual outline of the theory goes as follows—some conspirator (many individuals have been postulated), who was central to the plot to kill JFK, had to be in Dallas on the day of the assassination to direct some aspect of the plot. In some versions of the conspiracy the individual had to not only be in Dallas but specifically in Dealey Plaza. Of course, common sense dictates that someone higher up in the chain of any conspiracy would likely be anywhere but Dallas or Dealey Plaza to achieve “plausible deniability.” But that has not stopped theorists from accusing “conspirators” from George Bush (both Sr. and Jr.) to David Phillips of being in Dallas on the fateful day often using dubious photographic or anecdotal “evidence.”
One such story has been repeated ad nauseam by theorists to support the idea that Phillips was in Dallas. In 2003, researcher Gary Buell contacted Shawn Phillips, the son of David’s brother James Atlee Phillips. Exactly what Buell asked Shawn Phillips is unclear but it was evidently regarding a “confession” that Buell believed David Phillips had made. The pertinent part of the exchange is reproduced below:
The "Confession", you refer to was not in so many words as such. I cannot remember the time frames involved, but this was what was told to me by my father, James Atlee Phillips, who is deceased. He said that David had called him with reference to his (David's), invitation to a dinner, by a man who was purportedly writing a book on the CIA. At this dinner, was also present a man who was identified only as the "Driver". David told Jim that he knew the man was there to identify him as Raul Salcedo, whose name you should be familiar with, if your research is accurate in this matter. David then told Jim that he had written a letter to the various media, as a "Preemptive Strike", against any and all allegations about his involvement in the JFK assassination.
Jim knew that David was the head of the "Retired Intelligence Officers of the CIA", or some such organization, and that he was extremely critical of JFK, and his policies. Jim knew at that point, that David was in some way, seriously involved in this matter and he and David argued rather vehemently, resulting in a silent hiatus between them that lasted almost six years according to Jim. Finally, as David was dying of irreversible lung cancer, he called Jim and there was apparently no reconciliation between them, as Jim asked David pointedly, "Were you in Dallas on that day"? David said, "Yes", and Jim hung the phone up.
The estrangement between David and James Phillips and the reasons behind it undoubtedly had an impact on the story James allegedly related to his son Shawn.36 The passage of time could also have impacted Shawn’s memory regarding the anecdote. James Phillips’ “knowledge” that David was “seriously involved” in the assassination was only an assumption on his part and likely originated from his own prejudices regarding the CIA. For instance, James told author Francis Nevins that the CIA was a “hidden and secret government” which “determines foreign policy.”37 Similarly, in 1975, the same year that saw heightened media disclosures regarding alleged CIA misdeeds, James told columnist Jack Curtin, “I am indeed the brother of David Atlee Phillips, lately CIA spymaster and apologist for that organization. I do not join him in that effort.”38
But despite the story allegedly told by James Phillips and other similar allegations, David Phillips’ whereabouts on the day of the assassination are known. First, in his book, Phillips stated he was, not surprisingly, on the job in Mexico City where he was stationed. “My wife just telephoned to say she heard on the radio,” a man from the defense attaché’s office told Phillips, “that President Kennedy has been shot in Dallas.” News of the catastrophe soon swept through the Mexican capital. “We gathered in Win’s office to listen to the radio and monitor television reports on the tragedy,” Phillips remembered.39
Furthermore, a document from the National Archives confirms Phillips’ presence in Mexico City. According to the document, CIA operative Tony Sforza was due to arrive at the MEXI station on November 22nd. Sforza was to contact Phillips the following day and arrange for pickup of a “priority message” expected at JMWAVE station. Even Phillips’ chief critic Jefferson Morley, citing the same document, concedes his presence in Mexico at the time of the assassination. “In the next office, [adjacent to Win Scott] David Phillips was waiting to hear from a man named Tony Sforza, who was scheduled to arrive that day on a Pan Am flight from Miami,” Morley admits.40
The Bishop Hoax Table of Contents
Notes
1. Author Vincent Bugliosi identified fourteen points of information that indicate the real Oswald went to Mexico including the fact that Oswald himself said so (Bugliosi, 1045-1048).⏎2. DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, 346.⏎
3. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, Chapter 2⏎
4. Still Ops Officer: 104-10128-10297; Phillips, The Night Watch, 114; Head of Cuba Operations: Declaration of Dan L. Hardway, 6, Morley v. CIA.⏎
5. Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act, 386.⏎
6. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 709.⏎
7. Posner, Case Closed, 171-172⏎
8. Posner, Case Closed,181.⏎
9. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 753-754.⏎
10. Nechiporenko, Passport to Assassination, 66-71.⏎
11. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 756-757.⏎
12. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 757.⏎
13. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 757-759.⏎
14. CIA Replies to Question and Comments of Richard Sprague, December 1, 1976, 4. RIF 104-10427-10045; Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 1049. Two other transcripts were identified that originally seemed to be relevant but were ruled out as being Oswald. On September 27th, a man speaking Spanish phoned the Soviet embassy about a visa for the Soviet port of Odessa. But Oswald wanted to go to Cuba not Odessa and there would be no reason for him to speak to the Soviets in Spanish, a language that he had only a rudimentary command of. On October 3rd, a man called the Soviet embassy speaking in broken Spanish and then English asking about a visa to go to Russia. But Oswald left Mexico City the previous day so the caller could not be him.⏎
15. The first two calls on the 27th undoubtedly were between Duran and the Soviets talking about Oswald’s quest for a visa. According to the CIA transcriber Boris Tarasoff, the remaining three calls were made by the same man who spoke in broken Russian. These calls could have been made by Oswald or they could be someone impersonating him. Who would do this and why? It is known that the Mexico City CIA Station used the technique of impersonation as a routine intelligence-gathering operation. The agency had used such a method in the case of Eldon Hensen, an American who tried to sell secrets to Castro in Mexico City.⏎
16. Ronald Kessler, “CIA Withheld Details on Oswald Call.” Washington Post, November 26, 1976. Similarly, Phillips told United Press International reporter Daniel F. Gillmore, "I have the recollection, hazy after fourteen years, (emphasis added) that Oswald intimated that he had information that might be useful to the Soviets and Cuba, and that he hoped to be provided with free transportation to Russia via Cuba" (HSCA Testimony of David Atlee Phillips, November 27, 1976, 39. RIF 180-10131-10328).⏎
17. HSCA Interview of Boris and Anna Tarasoff, November 30, 1976, 30. RIF 180-10110-10030.⏎
18. Theorists often imply that both Tarasoffs claimed to remember the “missing” transcript. In the original 1976 HSCA interview, Boris made no objection when his wife discussed this transcript. But under oath in 1978, he reviewed the existent transcripts and was satisfied that there were no others. “If there were any conversations outside of this, I do not recollect,” he said. (HSCA Testimony of Boris Tarasoff, April 12, 1978, 39. RIF 180-10110-10001).⏎
19. DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, Chapter 10.⏎
20. Ronald Kessler and Lawrence Stern. “Rosselli Victim of Castro Vengeance?” The Atlanta Constitution, August 22, 1976, 2.⏎
21. Ronald Kessler. “CIA Made Tape of Oswald’s Offer of Deal to Russians.” The Los Angeles Times, November 26, 1976, 1.⏎
22. An HSCA summary of the Tarasoff interview states that “the Tarasoffs remember Oswald discussing his financial situation in [the second call].” But a careful reading of the interview transcript discloses that only Mrs. Tarasoff remembered a call regarding financial assistance.⏎
23. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 184.⏎
24. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 184.⏎
25. Phillips, The Night Watch, 139.⏎
26. Summers, Not in Your Lifetime, 341.⏎
27. Phillips, The Night Watch, 142.⏎
28. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 179-180.⏎
29. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 219.⏎
30. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 219-220.⏎
31. Phillips, The Night Watch, 142.⏎
32. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 220.⏎
33. Phillips, The Night Watch, 142. Larry Hancock writes, “In his book, Phillips does not comment on how thoroughly the Alvarado story was disproved” (Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, 220). But since Phillips notes that Alvarado was a “fabricator” what more needs to be said?⏎
34. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 230.⏎
35. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 230.⏎
36. James Phillips told Jack Curtin that the estrangement was, at least initially, because he was writing a series of books about an intelligence officer and his younger brother was “engaged in intelligence work” (Jack Curtin. “Paperbacks in Review.” Philadelphia Daily News, October 24, 1975, 40).⏎
37. Nevins, Cornucopia of Crime.⏎
38. Jack Curtin. “Paperbacks in Review.” Philadelphia Daily News, October 24, 1975, 40.⏎
39. Phillips, The Night Watch, 140.⏎
40. Morley, Our Man in Mexico, 203. Author Joan Mellen implies that the document confirming Phillips’ presence in Mexico City could be a forgery designed to provide him an alibi (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 181).⏎
0 comments:
Post a Comment