TRANSCRIPT of
PROCEEDINGS
between
CUBAN OFFICIALS
and JFK HISTORIANS
TAPE 7 of 8
NASSAU BEACH HOTEL
7/9 DECEMBER 1995
NASSAU JFK CONFERENCE--Tape #7
E1 = English speaking participant #1, etc.
H1 = Hispanic participant #1, etc.
UE = Unknown English speaking participant
UH = Unknown Hispanic participant
Rodriguez: ...North American embassy (unintelligible)...they
don't give you
a visa right away. The
documents were definitely were hardly real, etcetera. This
record of this
call, it seems that this is the
call that Silvia is talking about that she called when she
called the Consulate.
This refers, says Silvia
recalls 15 years later, (unintelligible) thought it was
between 5 and 6 fifteen
years later and according
to the CIA records between 4 and 5. (Unintelligible) Who
knows whose mistake
that this, this
discrepancy.
?____________: Good enough for government work.
(Unintelligible)
?____________: It would seem, I know most of you have been
into this a lot
more than I have, but it
would seem that Azcue's recollection that there may have
been three, maybe
the other one was on the
28th, see, because he only saw Oswald twice on the 27th so
he really doesn't
know when the 3rd, the
1st the 3rd, when the other (unintelligible) takes place.
Summers: For what it's worth--for what it's worth I have
this point (unintelligible),
because we could all
talk about his a long time. But I did talk to Azcue's widow
a couple of years
ago and she said that she
remembered him going to work on Saturday, which he often did
to catch up
with work that he couldn't
do (unintelligible). And that--I'm so sorry, I was talking
(unintelligible)--this
widow Azcue tells me a
year or two ago that Azcue used to go readily in on a
Saturday morning to
catch up with work that he
couldn't do in the regular weekday situation. And she
remembers him coming
home stamping and
angry about this young man who visited the Consulate. And
she isn't sure,
but she thinks that it was
that he was angry, maybe angry more than once and suggested
it have been
Saturday. Her memory's
not clear. On the other hand Duran says she never worked on
Saturdays, as
I recall.
Newman: The point is that this meeting with Azcue, when they
had the argument
is in the
afternoon-evening and therefore the CIA transcript confirms
what Silvia Duran
has told us. It cannot
happen 24 hours later. Furthermore, the Russians also
confirm this call on
Friday and discussed it
Friday evening. So, much like different isotopes measure
geologic strata,
we have 3 different angles,
all giving us the same conclusion--which is that the 3rd
visit must have
happened as Silvia says, on
Friday.
Rodriguez: (Unintelligible)...you remark that regarding this
event, regarding
the testimony of the
witnesses we should stick to their declarations. Anyone else
was not present,
they weren't there to
see these things happen. We have different (unintelligible)
we have the truth,
just go by what the
witnesses actually said. We knew that Oswald was there 3
times. And it's
true the first time he didn't
enter. Maybe the secretary told him to, but he did not
enter. But it's clear
that in the 3rd visit until
they had that really argument-discussion between Azcue and
Oswald. In this
3rd visit, Mirabal is the
witness to talk about it. Mirabal says it happened on the
27th. In addition,
we're going to support with
the testimony of another witness. While they can' support
that it was that
date, but at the
moment...they see Oswald there. This person, nah, this
person didn't work
on Saturday either,
because they're from the upstairs (unintelligible) the Trade
Office, Commercial
Office. We're gonna
get to that. I don't know if there are any more questions?
This refers to
the phone calls between the
Cuban and Soviet Consulates. The 3 witnesses, they
acknowledge having talked
with the Soviet
Consulate about Oswald's visa application. Silvia, she
already told us about
this, these phone calls.
Azcue, Mirabal, they don't say exactly which dates these
happened on. However
Azcue admits that
maybe his phone call was requested that it happen by Silvia,
Silvia requested
that he make it and later
it was transferred up to him. Which according to our
judgment is perfectly
possible. However the CIA
records (unintelligible) at 4:26 in the afternoon
(unintelligible) 4:25 (unintelligible)
they show no
evidence it was transferred to Azcue. Another detail that he
also talked
with the Consulate according
to Silvia's own witness, testimony, that Mirabal also
(unintelligible) since
Azcue was handing over his
charge to Mirabal they were together a lot in the office, in
Azcue's office.
And if this call really was
transferred up to (unintelligible) it's possible that in
addition to talking
with (unintelligible) maybe
Mirabal intervened as well. This is just speculation. But
according to--this
is just some of our, a piece
of our judgment that should be taken into account.
Scott: Can I ask a question? I ask this question as a man
who was for 6 months
the Canadian Counsel
in Warsaw. If you're going--it seems to me--that, my
question is to (unintelligible,
the Ambassador?)
that if the call is addressed to a Counsel then the person
who should speak
to the Counsel is the
Counsel. Is it normal for a secretary to request and obtain
a call from a
Counsel?
Nunez: Yes, it's normal.
Lechuga: The secretary received the call, no?
Scott: No--the issue that we must settle here, because it's
an important
issue. Whether the Counsel's,
either or both, spoke seems to me an important one because
it is at odds
with the CIA transcript which
has no evidence of the Counsels. It only has Silvia, every
word that Silvia
spoke, including "thank you
very much" and hanging up. So, we want to look very closely
at whether the
Counsels spoke to the
Russian Counsel.
?____________: (not Rodriguez, speaking Spanish): I think
it's probable.
First of all, this is something
that they didn't (unintelligible) Soviet Counsel there might
have been relations
with the secretary of
the Counsel. It doesn't have to be necessarily among our
relations, Counsel
with Counsel, a secretary
could talk to the Counsel.
Scott: See one reason why Counsel Azcue and Counsel Mirabal
might have thought
in 1978 that they
had spoken to the Soviet Counsel is because they--the House
Committee--had
shown them a copy of
the actual visa application which has on it a declaration
made by the Consulate,
where it says "we
spoke to the Soviet Counsel." And this might have put in
their head the idea
they spoke. I only say
this because it is such an important point. And I would ask
also if Azcue
or Mirabal were ever asked
by the Cubans after this deposition or before or if they
only (unintelligible).
UH _________________ (unintelligible)
Summers: Just a brief point there in terms of going back and
talking about
what people remember in
1978, which is better, but not much better, than in 1993.
What did Silvia
say on this particular point in
her statement to the cops, to the Mexican Police?
Scott: They were changed, you see.
Summers: Yes, but what--on this particular point, what did
Silvia's original
statement say in 1963. I
know there are differences, but on this matter. My question
is since we're
talking about this issue of
who spoke to who, it seems to me that the earliest statement
or deposition
that we have is the
statement--paper--that we have which supposedly reports what
Silvia Duran
told the Mexican
Security Police. What did she say on this point, I can't
remember. Maybe
if you don't know, perhaps
John or Peter know what was said on this point.
Newman: I would have to look at it--my sense is that she
just told them that
about call and I didn't see
any discussion of it in the uh (unintelligible) we didn't
have, I don't think
we had an English translation
we worked on, we just had the Spanish.
Scott: I have looked at this quite closely in this thing
I've just given
out and the problem is we have 4
versions of what--but it's extremely relevant here. As this
is the point
on which the statements change,
on this particular matter. And not only that, they change in
Washington.
A cable is sent...
Summers: This is really important I think.
Scott: But talk for a minute and I will be able to read you
in a moment exactly
what happened,
because it is interesting
_________________ (not Rodriguez, speaking Spanish): There
are not four versions
of Silvia--four
versions from the people who took declarations from Silvia.
Summers: Agreed
?_______________ (not Rodriguez, speaking Spanish): This is
important to
point this out, not that
Silvia said 4 different things, but the person said that
Silvia said 4 different
things, which is not the
same.
Summers: No, I did not mean that, I know what you're...
?____________: We're all in agreement on that.
Rodriguez: I would suggest (unintelligible) the first one
officially taken
(unintelligible) before the
Select Committee.
Summers: I would just say that I interviewed her myself that
year and like
an ordinary human being,
she was very rocky. She couldn't really remember terribly
well, she remembered
as best she could,
like any human would.
Lechuga: Time passes even for...
Summers: That's why I say even though the Mexicans or the
CIA may have messed
with her
statement, nevertheless what we have of what she first said
in November of
1963 is interesting to
study, which is what (unintelligible).
?____________: I believe Peter has it, right now.
Scott: First of all, before I read what the DFS says she
says, I'd like to
point out that after she was
released she went to the Cuban Ambassador (unintelligible)
and she made a
statement to him. And he
sent both a cable and a statement to Havana. And I would
appeal to those
of you here from Havana to
make available to Jim Lesar and to the Review Board all of
the records of
what Silvia Duran said
back then to the Cuban officials.
?____________: He says that how can you know that report
does exist and the
cable does exist?
Scott: Because we have the--the CIA intercepted a telephone
call from Ambassador
Armas to
Dorticos, to the President (unintelligible) Presidente
Dorticos. And in the
telephone call, he talks of
the cable and report. I will refer you, and this is all on
page 126 of the
back part of the book that I
gave you. Let me read to you the cable which the CIA
sent--no sorry, it was
not a cable, it's a
memorandum of the interrogation that was given by the DFS to
the CIA. The
CIA thought it was so
important that somebody flew with it to Washington. That is
what I call the
second version. It's on
page 126 for those of you who have it. And in the Spanish
memorandum it says,
this is my translation,
"Oswald was told that the aid which she, Silvia, could give
him was to advise
him to go to the Russian
consulate. Now in the original (unintelligible) "she spoke
to him, by telephone,
to the person in charge
of that office and was informed (unintelligible) that the
case would have
to be referred to Moscow and
that there would be a 4 month delay." Now, the CIA in
Washington, in Langley,
translated the cable
into English and sent it to the FBI. And listen to the
difference: "Oswald
was told that the aid which
could be given to him was to advise him to go to the Russian
Counsel. The
Counsel then spoke by
telephone to the person in charge of that office and was
informed that the
case would have to be
referred to Moscow and there would be a 4 month delay." And
I suggest that
the reason, the only
reason I can think of that the CIA would alter the text and
make it "the
Counsel" instead of "she" is
because they already had the visa application, the Cuban
internal document
in which it was already
typed "nosotros" spoke to the Russian Counsel.
?____________: One of the problems is that those cables and
code were destroyed
years ago. Every
now and then at the Foreign Relations Minister, the cables
are destroyed,
all the code cables. Except
some that have a very high historical interest. Which is not
this cable.
(General laughter) At that
moment, we did not know who was Oswald, who was going to
kill Kennedy, or
anything.
Scott: Excuse me, the report and the cable were made after
she was released
from the DFS.
Summers: After the assassination.
Scott: After the assassination, yes. So you cannot tell me
that this was
devoid of historical...
Lechuga: No, I don' know, no, I thought it was before the
assassination.
After?
Scott: She had been arrested, she was detained, she was
tortured, she was
bruised all over by the
DFS. So she came out and went to the Ambassador. And we know
this because
the CIA intercepted
the phone call. Let me again, on page--am I boring you with
this? I can give
you the numbers, it's CIA,
Cuban Embassy conf--, page 124 in my book, Cuban Embassy
Confidential Report
#125.
?____________: Which note is it?
Scott: It's page 124 of my book and it's Confidential Report
#125, the top
of that page. Armas sent
this to Havana after he'd interviewed Duran on November 25.
And then, there
is the telephone
conversation of which I spoke, in which he talked about that
report. And
then she prepared a longer
statement for the Ambassador after the initial confidential
report had been
sent. Now, in the spirit of
what Summers said, I believe that these are the best
available evidence that
we have on an issue
where there is much conflicting testimony and in which a DFS
statement signed
and attested to as
being November 23 is the 4th version that was actually
prepared in mid-May
of 1964 and contains
many changes from the 2nd and 3rd versions of the
(unintelligible).
___________ (not Rodriguez, speaking Spanish): We're going
to try and check
and find out whether
this information...
Scott: Give this to Mr. Lesar and Mr. Gunn.
Rodriguez: And then there are (unintelligible) questions to
take into account
(unintelligible) witnesses
agreed in their testimony with respect to the incident
during the 3rd visit,
the incident between Oswald
and Azcue. Oswald never returned to the Consulate, nor did
he call. He never
showed any more
interest in his application. Do you feel this is logical if
you take into
account the discussion between he
and Azcue. They practically threw him out of the Consulate.
And that was
known by the same US
investigations. In this case, the investigations were
(unintelligible). Go
to the fact that Oswald never
filled out a form in the Soviet Consulate, the necessary
forms. He never
came, never (unintelligible)
the Cuban Consulate. There, that was the (unintelligible) of
his little request
before the Cubans.
These circumstances allow us to doubt, to doubt the
truthfulness of the CIA
registry about the call
that's attributed from the Cuban Consulate on the 28th.
Summers: Excuse me, perhaps I misheard. Did you say that
Oswald never filled
out the forms.
Rodriguez: The Soviet forms. The Cubans yes, the Soviets no.
This makes them
doubt the veracity of
the CIA registry of calls because there was a call on the
28th (unintelligible).
The documents
presented by Oswald to ask for his visa in the Cuban
Consulate; all of the
witnesses agree
(unintelligible) the same documents seem to have been
(unintelligible) in
the section of observations
on the form you know where you write "office use only",
observations. There
Silvia made sure to say
apparently by according to Mirabal's indications, every
(unintelligible)
Mirabal with his signature
confirmed the (unintelligible) of the documents. Among these
documents, among
these documents of
Oswald's, because of the (unintelligible) they have, Oswald
showed either
a card or some other
identification as being a member of the US Communist Party.
Even Mirabal,
when questioned by the
Select Committee about this little piece of (unintelligible)
said that this
credential or this card or
whatever it was, it seemed new, brand new. Three witnesses
say that he identified
himself as a
member of the Communist Party. That's clear (unintelligible)
Summers: Who are the three witnesses.
Rodriguez: Azcue, Mirabal, (unintelligible).
Summers: Duran says now that--well, a year ago that--she
said "this is a
mistake." That she's sure
that Oswald didn't have a card, whatever he may have said.
(much untranslated Spanish discussion)
Summers: She'd written me a year or so ago that this was
wrong and was misunderstood...
Rodriguez: Previous testimony...
Summers: ...by those who'd questioned her in 1978.
Rodriguez: Anyway, there's still two other witnesses that
say those are the
documents he presented
(unintelligible) never retracted her testimony. It was
another two people
who testified that...
Summers: The other two witnesses, one is Mirabal. There
other is--what does
it say on the document
itself about that? It doesn't mention the communist party
card on the document...
Scott: Do you want me to read what it says?
(much Spanish discussion)
Scott: Can I read the English translation (unintelligible)?
Rodriguez: It's here, we have it here.
Summers: Peter, have you got it already?
Scott: Yes, it's page 80. "The applicant states that he is a
member of the
American Communist Party
and Secretary in New Orleans of the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee. He displayed
documents in proof
of his membership in the two afore mentioned organizations
and a marriage
certificate. That's what
she wrote up for Mirabal on the day.
Summers: I would have to take that, I just for what it's,
for the record,
she now denies only that
particular card.
Scott: Also, for the record, on page 124 of my book, I list
where she herself
appears to pull away from
what she originally said, because the first official report
from the CIA
of what the DFS heard from
her, the first version we have of what she told the DFS is a
cable from the
CIA Station in which it
says, what a minute now, this is one of the things that
disappears (unintelligible)
very important.
Originally she types in that he showed a card. Actually I
believe in 1978
with the text of the House
Committee Report as published, you will not find a reference
to a Communist
Party card, it is missing.
But if you read the Lopez Report, summarizing what she said
in that interview
and citing the exact
same page, the exact same page, and this is a quote Oswald
showed her "his
American Communist
Party membership card."
Summers: I don't know why she's denied it now, but I would
just throw in
because--I'm sure Arturo
needs to push on--she told me in 1978 and then again 18
months ago. While
insisting for reasons best
known to herself that Oswald did not have this Communist
Party card, she
said but he did have a
photograph of himself with a policeman on each arm, to show
himself being
arrested during his Fair
Play for Cuba activities in the United States. And yet, to
all of our knowledge,
I think, there is no such
photograph. Yet she's absolutely clear that there was such a
picture and
that he was--man on each
side.
Scott: (unintelligible) there's a photo of his arrest in
November.
Summers: Oh yes. She says that Oswald at the Embassy wanted
to prove what
a good revolutionary
he was and he had his Fair Play for Cuba stuff and his card
for the Fair
Play for Cuba, and she now
says and said to me in 1978 no Communist Party card but a
photograph of himself
being escorted by
two policemen after he'd been arrested.
Scott: I'm sorry to talk so much, but I will make this my
last (unintelligible).
It's a Mexican joke.
Remember that Silvia lives in Mexico and was interviewed by
the House Committee
in Mexico. Now
this is the joke: There was a murder and the story went out
that a rabbit
had committed the murder.
And British Intelligence went in search of a rabbit and they
came back in
10 minutes with a rabbit, but
he denied committing the murder. And the French Intelligence
was given the
same challenge. They
came back in 5 minutes and the rabbit said, "I committed the
murder." And
they also asked the DFS
to find the rabbit. And they came back in 2 minutes, with an
elephant. And
so they said, "no, not an
elephant, we want a rabbit." And the elephant said, "I'm a
rabbit, I'm a
rabbit, I'm a rabbit!"
(much laughter)
Rodriguez: Okay, a crucial aspect of these (unintelligible)
is that regarding
identification of the
subject who actually visited the Counsel. In this case, as
is known, Mirabal
and Silvia Duran agreed
categorically that the person identified there was Lee
Harvey Oswald, he
who has been accused of
killing JFK. Mirabal said that he observed him on two
occasions at four meters
distance (12 feet)
while Silvia was always with him during his 3 visits. In the
case of Silvia,
she identified Oswald on the
23rd of November after he was arrested--before--before she
was arrested,
sorry. She had said to her
husband...
(Female voice, can't tell if English or Spanish):
(unintelligible)
Rodriguez: Of the 3 witnesses who were initially
interrogated 15 years afterward,
Azcue was the only
one who didn't possibly identify Oswald as he had identified
the person who
visited as the person who
was blamed for assassinating Kennedy. He said the impression
that he had,
him now being in Cuba, he
left for Cuba (unintelligible) he said, the images of that
moment, the moment
of when Oswald was
killed by Jack Ruby, images of that moment this affected
this image (unintelligible)
their judgment.
(untranslated Spanish discussion)
Rodriguez: Azcue identifies him (unintelligible) he says
he's not the same
person. And he says why?
We kept on doing the research, which we haven't finished it,
about the different
persons who could
have seen him during his visits to the Consulate. And up to
this moment we
have two other persons.
One (unintelligible) already talked to you about him and
(unintelligible)
that is Guillermo Ruiz Perez
and the other one is Mr. Antonio Garcia Lara.
(unintelligible) Garcia Lara
was a member of the Trade
Office. He came to this moment--the discussion that was
between Oswald and
Azcue. (unintelligible)
He didn't know whether it was (unintelligible) or not
(unintelligible) something
accidental being there.
He was coming down from the office and could see
(unintelligible) closely
when he was almost
finishing the discussion with (unintelligible) and leaving
the Counsel. And
so he could be quite certain
of how he (unintelligible) when Oswald's photograph was
published in the
press after the
assassination. He said that he didn't have any doubt that it
was the same
person that he had seen in
the Consulate. Somebody asked him why didn't you report this
before? And
he said that the Cuban
government had already delivered to the US government in
1964 all the evidence
we had, the
evidence that was requested. Nobody asked him before.
(unintelligible) worked
not in the Consulate,
but in the Trade Office (unintelligible) the same person
that was Oswald.
Summers: When did Lara, Garcia Lara say this?
Rodriguez: In 1993 (unintelligible)
Summers: Arturo (unintelligible) talked to him about this in
1993?
Rodriguez: Si, approximate.
Summers: And what about Luis Perez, when did he say this,
the same time?
Rodriguez: No, no, no. It was before, I think it was before.
(untranslated Spanish discussion)
Rodriguez: We never did research in 1964. The only time
we've done research
was in 1994. This is
the result of that research.
Summers: Just for the record... but Silvia Duran when I
talked to her and
her husband, and in 1978
when she talked to the Committee [HSCA], I asked her if she
was certain it
was the real Oswald and
she said, and certainly what actually happened, her husband
thinks what was
in the paper... that after
the assassination, she remembers the name Oswald. And when
she read the paper
she assumed it was
the same person because he was named the same. I asked her,
did anyone show
her some
photographs or film after the assassination and she said
"no, all I see was
a picture -- mug shot in the
Excelsior newspaper". And I said, fine, you've never seen a
film of this
person because there's a film
of the real Oswald walking and talking from the summer in
New Orleans. So
I did send them to her, a
shot of him in front of the camera and she said when I sent
it to her, she
said, "oh, that was not the
same man I saw. The man I saw at the consulate was weak and
feeble character
and this man was
more of a powerful person". For what it's worth she also
said she thought
the physical description that
she saw which are not consistent with the real Oswald. Ask
Peter [Scott]
or John [Newman]... maybe
others are familiar with her statements to the DFS at
various stages that
Peter could tell us about,
refers to an Oswald with blue eyes and blonde hair. This is
in November '63.
That was with meetings
at various stages with the CIA, but also she describes
herself. She could
not say to me that he was so
and so height because she said that would be silly to say he
was so and so
height.
But she is a very little woman and she said to me he was the
same height
as her and she is a little
woman. Oswald was much taller, 5-10 or 5-11. I say this only
because we cannot
be quite so certain
that she remembers that the Oswald was definitely the real
Oswald.
Rodriguez: I do not doubt that Silvia might have said that,
but Silvia herself
made a description of
Oswald on the application form and the height was different,
which was a
lot taller than her. It is very
difficult to think that a woman like her, that was very
outgoing, that it
has also been said that she liked
North American men. Because we all know that descriptions,
as years go by,
change do to human
reasons.
I suggest we end, then come to a compromise because we'll
never get to the
end.
Anyway, there are two things, his photograph and his
signature. The signatures
were authenticated as
well as the photographs. In our point of view, besides four
witnesses recognized
Oswald. These two
last ones I just mentioned, there are some logical reasons
that allow us
to doubt that a double was the
one that showed up at the Cuban consulate. Oswald was a well
known person
to the Soviet Secret
Services and the CIA knew about this...the KGB, Soviet
Intelligence and counter
intelligence. The
CIA knew that these agencies knew that these organizations
had cooperation
with the Cuban
Intelligence Services. We are of the opinion that if a
double had existed
and asked for a visa from the
Cuban and Soviet Union offices it would have been a risky
situation. It would
have meant additional
risks for him to be able to travel to Cuba, and furthermore,
it would have
shown evidence of a plot. It
would have been easy to prove, by Cuba and the USSR using
photos, that he
was a double. I doubt
that Cuba had the means in its consulate to identify the
real Oswald, and
also doubt that the Soviet
Embassy had the means to identify a double Oswald.
On the other hand, it was true that Oswald was creating his
own pro-Castro
legend. And those that
guided him did so under reasonable pretext for them. The
element we have
mentioned before to
investigate certain supposed plans of Cuban Intelligence and
tied to it,
an assignment in Cuba. It had
been done before in the USSR. Why then utilize a double? All
the information
we have read before the
trip to Mexico suggests the participation of a double. They
are tied to actions
that will later
incriminate him to the assassination or with the deliberate
intention to
implicate Cuba. There are more
operative reasons with all this here mentioned. We are
convinced of the identity
of the subject.
There's more evidence in what we talked about in regards to
the signature
and photograph. As it was
proved by the Warren Commission and the Senate, Cuban
specialists have also
determined that the
visa request was filled out by Oswald at the consulate. It
was typed with
the same typewriter as other
visas had been typed, the typewriter used by Silvia Duran.
According to statements
by witnesses, the
visa form was also signed at the consulate and it was never
taken from there.
It was witnessed by
three. These are the additional elements to the American
investigation that
reenforce our findings. If
we assume that the person was not the real Oswald that
visited the Cuban
consulate, then we should
ask, why does the local CIA station in Mexico City hide the
fact which they
should obviously have had
because of their technical capabilities of the
unquestionable presence of
Oswald at the Cuban
consulate.
Why did they hide or do away with the conversations made by
Oswald and others
accredited to
Oswald, and why didn't they furnish photos of him when he
visited both consulates?
We don't have an
explanation. We think there were different factors for this
inexplicable
conduct. First, something that
has already been mentioned, Oswald's detention and second,
President Johnson's
action to name a
presidential commission headed by Warren to conclude with a
predetermined
conclusion of a lone
assassin. Maybe we should take into consideration that the
proof could have
been destroyed because
it did not favor the evidence that had been fabricated, the
evidence to involve
Cuba. In our opinion,
taking these factors together, it was a decision to hide the
evidence. We
are under the impression it
could have been Phillips, the head of the Cuban case, that
was working against
Cuba in Mexico, and
he made the decision. It is clear because this indicated we
had mentioned
before, that that had
happened after the assassination and it is suggested to
Veciana to try to
get statements from Ruiz in
the sense that he would make him say Oswald was a Cuban
intelligence agent.
It shows clearly his
intentions to blame Cuba and that if he did that, why
wouldn't he do that?
That is our opinion.
Smith: I'd like to suggest another question, a puzzlement,
this is as we
all agree that this is part of the
maneuver to blame Cuba. But the real reason is to get Oswald
to Cuba where
he would be for a few
days or a couple of weeks, he would have been described
convincingly as a
Cuban agent. But all you'd
have are picturers of Oswald, obviously taken by the CIA.
Kolis: Excuse me Wayne, but the hotel next door will lend us
a slide projector
for the slide show.
Smith: Not tonight. We're going to get one tomorrow.
Kolis: We could have it in a minute or two.
Smith: People are too tired.
Twyman: Do we have a room for tomorrow?
Smith: I talked to the hotel and suggested if we couldn't
get a slide projector
today most of us would
be here tomorrow and they said "sure".
[Note: The discussion for getting a slide projector
continued. The problem
was that the hotel could not
find a bulb for their projector. It took them three days.
Finally they decided
to borrow one from the
hotel next door.]
Smith: If you get him to Cuba this is convincing evidence.
If all you have
are pictures of Oswald going
to the Cuban embassy applying for a visa and he doesn't get
it, it's not
convincing evidence. It's not
convincing evidence he's a Cuban agent. Now of course you
can always say
he is consulting, he's just
not applying for a visa. You can always say these are
pictures of Oswald
going into the Cuban
embassy in Mexico and that in itself is proof.
Lesar: But you have a string of other things.
Smith: I know. You've got to get other stuff you just can't
give up on this.
It's not that they give up on
this. This evidence, pictures of Oswald going into the Cuban
embassy is not
as convincing, is not as
good evidence as they had hoped for. Perhaps what they
really hoped for was
to get him to Cuba. But
if that's the case, how do we.... the CIA as we all know
makes mistakes and
forgets things and leaves
their classified documents at snack bars. But they must have
known he had
to have a Soviet visa. He
had to ask for a transit visa. He had all sorts...
Lesar: First of all I don't think they ever had a plan to
release photos
of him entering the Cuban or
Soviet embassies. They wouldn't do that because that is
"sources and methods".
That would have
been planned.
Smith: Yeah. Okay John.
Newman: It's really easy to theorize in ten thousand
directions but there
are some real hard facts that
have emerged that bear directly on the questions raised by
Arturo [Rodriguez].
What happened to the
evidence? We know they had to have evidence, photographic
evidence. They
had acoustic evidence.
Now we know... one of the things I was able to bring forth
in the book were
at least three documents.
When Winscott [phonetic], the head of counter intelligence
and Dick Helms
all saying they knew
this---he was in that consulate. What puts the lie to it is
the CIA cover
story that they did not know
Oswald was inside the Cuban consulate until after the
assassination. Now
with that cover story in
place, it's very desirable to get rid of the evidence
because the evidence
will undermine such a cover
story. Now with respect to photographs. I don't know why. We
can theorize.
Maybe somebody,
someone else was in that picture. Could be many reasons, but
I think we are
in the position today to
make a very good guess why the acoustic evidence had to be
destroyed. Oswald's
voice was not on
any of those tapes. Now when I wrote my book, I overlooked
one key piece
of evidence and I would
like to just point at one very quickly. I did mention the
Hoover-Johnson
transcript of 23 November of
which Hoover tells Johnson, "we have up here in the United
States the tape
and Oswald's voice was
not on it", but what I missed, and it was available at the
time, is a lengthy
addendum to a footnote to
the Eddie Lopez report, the HSCA Report written by Lopez.
It's footnote 614.
I have a copy. I will
give you this very briefly. There are two passages in this
footnote that
pertain to FBI agents familiar
with Oswald's voice, presumably, both from previous contacts
in Dallas. But
also from the
interrogation after the assassination. And it is clear from
these FBI memorandum
cited in here, that
not one, but two conversations with the alleged Oswald were
listened to by
the FBI after the
assassination, the one October transcript and the 28
September Saturday transcript
from the Cuban
consulate to the Soviet consulate. In both instances the FBI
agents were
very clear. It was not
Oswald's voice. So now we have a large number of FBI people
after the assassination
listening to
tapes from Mexico and it's not Oswald.
In the last few months, the Review Board has declassified
new documents,
CIA documents. The
documents make it clear that all of the tapes in Mexico were
destroyed. We
were told by the CIA that
they destroyed all the tapes before the assassination. Now
we have CIA documents
which state the
tapes were reviewed after the assassination. Furthermore,
the person who
has a cover name of
Fineglass [phonetic], which we presume to be, I suppose, to
be Tarasoff [phonetic]
made a voice
comparison which only can be done from tape not transcripts.
And finally,
yet another CIA document.
It is presumably to have reason to compare tapes of Oswald's
voice until
after the assassination. The
document itself is 1964, but it is not clear.
The last document I want to make reference to is a CIA
document which makes
reference to the one
October intercept and the possible existence of another copy
found after
the assassination. These
documents are released to us by the Review Board only in the
last two months.
So the point is this,
the evidence is building, overwhelming evidence, that
Oswald's voice was
not in this acoustic
evidence; so a very good reason to destroy the acoustic
evidence is because
it proves that that wasn't
Oswald on those phone conversations.
Scott: On those two...
Newman: Yes, on those two. And furthermore 28 September and
one October and
that it wasn't Silvia
Duran. Now, I don't know where we go ultimately with this,
but I think this
takes us a lot further than
we have been so far in establishing cover stories, a large
number of cover
stories, "we didn't know he
was in the consulate", "we didn't destroy the tapes", "we
didn't even have
any idea Oswald was in
America since 1962", which they told their CIA station. A
large number of
these cover stories, all
relating to one subject, Oswald's Cuban activities, in
particular, his presence
in the Cuban consulate
and what happened there.
Rogers: Continue with films and tapes. I have frequent
conversations with
Eddie Lopez. The last
conversation just a week ago. He met him when he was in
Washington. He was
introduced to a man
called Escarlin, E-S-C-A-R-L-I-N. He was an attache at the
Cuban Mission.
Later when the HSCA
went down to Cuba, Escarlin was there. He pulled him to the
side. He didn't
say outright, but he
intimated, he suggested, to Ed Lopez that here was indeed
photographic surveillance
at the Cuban
embassy by the Cubans and that there is perhaps a record of
the visitors
on those days. I had heard
you specifically state that there was no photographic
surveillance. How do
you know that? What do
you base that on?
Smith: No, he didn't say that Alan. He said in the Cuban
consulate they did
not have a camera.
Rogers: That's what Eddy's talking about. In the Cuban
consulate they had
photographic of the
visitors.
Lechuga: I am speaking since 1962. I am positively sure we
did not have that.
Rodriguez: But of all the persons we have talked to that
worked in the consulate,
none of them says
there was photographs or anything. The same way we have
given everyone visa
applications that went
there. We would have given the photographs.
Rogers: I'm not saying you are hiding anything. I just
wondered what you
based your statement on. It
could have been someone said they didn't have it and they
may have had it.
My suggestion is that to
identify this Escarlin and ask him. If he made such a
statement.
Rodriguez: We know he was an official. We have talked to him
because he was
one of the persons
who was with the Commission in March '78. We have talked to
him several times.
Rogers: But he said something to Ed Lopez. Ed Lopez
mis-heard?
Summers: Excuse me, but I have a related, but different,
question. When your
people allowed me to
come to Havana in '77 or '78 and you supplied me with the
pictures Arturo
is describing of your people
taking pictures of Gallego taking pictures, I was also
allowed to talk to
your electronic man Silvio
Lombrada, I think, who talked to me about the evidence that
that embassy
was riddled with bugs. I'm
not talking about telephone taps. I'm talking about bugs
under the table,
bugs in ______? And Senor
Lombrada showed me the arm of the library chair which had a
CIA bug. Here
is my suggestion.
Lombrada did not have knowledge that the consulate was
bugged. This is very
relevant to what we
might have got out of the CIA, might get out of the CIA, and
I noticed Arturo,
early in your address
you said that the telephone taps, waiting room, hallways and
so on... Do
you have hard evidence that
the consulate was bugged?
Rodriguez: Yes, I was aware of the research Lombrada did in
the embassy and
the consulate. I don't
know why he told you only the embassy because it's the
consulate and the
embassy.
Summers: These bugs were found and located by your people?
Rodriguez: Yes.
Summers: When?
Rodriguez: 1964.
Gunn: I have two questions. You know about the unidentified
man in the photo
that the CIA identified
as Oswald after the assassination? I was told these were
photographs of two
different people, but that
one of these people, at least one of these people coming out
of the Cuban
embassy was in fact a
Cuban. I wonder if you have ever done any research into
these photographs
to try to determine who
these people might have been who were falsely identified as
Oswald?
Rodriguez: Some efforts were made, but after we went through
the different
persons who worked
there... We showed that photograph... it could have been
some friends. It
could not be identified.
People say it was two different persons. It was just one
photograph.
[At this point the interpreter could not translate what he
was saying. Possibly
something about
"angle" and "goodpaster"]
A person was added, a proback? photograph from another. That
is the only
photograph that I know.
But nobody... I could not find him.
Russell: One other one final brief question to verify if
this is true or
not. This is a letter from Nagel
written by Nagel in 1975 about this mystery man in the
picture. He says,
" I would guess he was
photographed..." This actually has to do with the Soviet
embassy. "As he
was exiting the main
entrance of the Soviet embassy compound, the surveillance
camera was situated
on the second floor
at a building located across the street".
Actually this is the Soviet embassy so I don't know if you
know where that
is.
Smith: It's almost 5:30. Let's begin to bring this to a
close.
Scott: This is very short. In addition to the points raised
by John Newman,
in a very recent release,
we have a penciled note from someone in 1976 who recalls
that the Mexican...
then there is a deletion.
I assume these are the people manning the listening post on
the Soviet embassy.
That the caller that
called himself Oswald, this is referring to September 28 and
October first
calls, not the September
27th... that the caller that called himself Oswald had
difficulty making
himself understood both, as I
recall, in English and Russian, which suggests that the
September 28/October
first person may not
have been an anglophone? at all. I just wanted to add this
to the list of
points.
Lesar: Immediately after the assassination when the news had
been disseminated
that Oswald had
visited the Cuban consulate, I would assume there must have
been a demand
from Fidel Castro or
your Ministry for reports as to what happened and that
Mirabal and Azcue
must have submitted
reports. Do such reports exist and have you reviewed them?
Rodriguez: We already went through that and we have taken
note and we don't
know if they were
there.
Lesar: Sorry.
Newman: I just wanted, in closing, to summerize in the last
two days relative
to Oswald in Mexico
City, that we agree on the following points. Three visits
Friday, right?
Rodriguez: Apparently.
Newman: The Solo story about Oswald threatening to kill
Kennedy is false.
Rodriguez: Okay.
Newman: That much I would like to put on the table that both
sides agree
on.
Scott: I would like to record that I myself think the Solo
story is false
and probably had to do with
David Phillips. This is slightly different than I sent to
the Cubans some
months ago. In this document I
change my position.
Lesar: I want to pursue the Solo visit a little further.
Smith: Not much further.
All: Laughter
Smith: Just solve it. That's all.
Lesar: First, have you determined whether or not that Solo
did visit Cuba
at the time that the recently
released document says he visited Cuba, and if he did visit,
did he speak
to Castro?
Rodriguez: No.
Lesar: No, to both questions?
Rodriguez: No. No to both questions. He did not visit Cuba
and he did not
visit Fidel Castro. I went
through all the files in the consul's papers and there's no
references. He
claims it was in 1964, but in
that whole year no one had anything to do with Fidel Castro
or from the Communist
Party.
Lesar: No visit by anyone representing the U.S. Communist
Party?
Rodriguez: Well, I cannot that. I can say this Solo person
was not in the
immigration files or in the
files for the consulate. So he was not there.
Summers: I know you are trying to end quickly, but this
Mexican thing is
so important to the story. I
was always up on what the CIA was possibly covering was not
some dark involvement
in the
assassination, but it's operations in general and to
embarrass the Cubans,
and to smear people
associated with the Cubans. In this case I'm thinking of the
Fair Play For
Cuba Committee. We know
that in the very month that Oswald went to Mexico, the CIA
and FBI were working
together to
penetrate and damage the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. I
understand there
was a quite strong Fair
Play For Cuba Committee group in Mexico. Do you people have
any evidence
that the CIA was at
that very time doing operations to damage the Cuban support
that was in Mexico
City?
Rodriguez: Yes of course.
Escalante: We cannot speak of those plans against Fidel
Castro or operations,
but you might look at
all the CIA stations in each country which Cuba had
relations. We are not
telling specific operations in
that direction. I think [unintelligible] in his book
explains it very widely
on this. In those days Mexico
was the only way out from Cuba.
Summers: But no special search in operations in
September-October '63?
Rodriguez: We haven't done that.
Smith: What it comes down to is that they can't say because
they haven't
searched the files at the
time. You might bear that question in mind for a later time.
Let me then call this....
Newman: One last thing please for those that did not go to
Rio de Janeiro.
Arturo gave essentially the
same chronology in Rio that he did today without having read
my book. [see
Rodriguez's Rio
presentation at the beginning of this transcript] So those
of you that weren't
there, I just wanted to
point that out. I in my basement in Maryland and Arturo in
Havana analyze
the material the same
way.
Rodriguez: I agree on that.
Smith: Let me express an appreciation to our Cuban
colleagues. They really
came very well prepared
for this. I'm really impressed and rather touched in the
response to some
of the things we sent them.
They did file checks and so forth and they took this very
seriously. It is
much, much appreciated. And
appreciate your taking the time to come up to Nassau. And in
closing again...
I'd like to again, express
appreciation... I think I've forgot to mention, and I
shouldn't. Some of
you do know them, Lee Halpern
and Evie Rockefeller who did make some funds available for
this. Again, Gulf
Stream Airways and
________? Company, and some others who will be checking in.
This is a good
beginning. It's really
worthwhile to other meetings. Hopefully the Review Board can
revive the contacts
done by the Select
Committee.
Thanks to all of you for coming. I've said a number of
times, its a more
pleasant place to meet than
Dallas. We can say that.
Scott: We talked of perhaps seeing the slides tomorrow
[Saturday] morning.
I just want to get a time
to meet, nine or nine-thirty. If not, I would vote for nine.
Kolis: Okay, I set up... They said we could not use this
room because it's
being used. We can use a
little satellite room next to it. Starting at 9:00 am. I'll
have the slide
projector.
Smith: I'll tell you I'm not going to be here, so I'll leave
that to you.
Nine in the morning is rather an
uncivilized time as far as I am concerned.
Escalante: If one hour is enough, we can do it.
Summers: I have a word of thanks here. Certainly a word of
thanks obviously
to the interpreters, but I
could just say there is a lady in Dallas; she has worked on
this for years
now, called Mary Ferrell.
And Mary Ferrell is a woman of just great excellence. I know
of hardly anyone
who criticizes her, and
not only does Mirta look somewhat like Mary Ferrell, but she
equaled Mary
Ferrell in excellence.
Thank you.
[clapping]
[More discussion on the time of the slide show]
Lesar: One point. Tony has forgotten to thank the person who
put this all
together, Wayne Smith.
[clapping]
Smith: I really do appreciate Adam and Daria coming along
helping with the
logistics and interpreting.
They will both say they are not professional interpreters.
Poor Mirta would
have expired without
some help. Okay, we don't have a dinner tonight....so we
will all be in touch.
[At this point everyone got up and either mingled or left
the room. A number
of private conversations
were caught on tape, but most were not intelligible.]
END OF FORMAL CONFERENCE
END OF TAPE 7
Copyright
1998-2014 Cuban Information Archives. All Rights
Reserved.
