COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Mexico City

Seven weeks before Dallas, Oswald went to the Cuban and Soviet embassies. The CIA was listening

← Interactive guide and chronology · The JFK hub: biography, timeline and every file · What people say ↓

What Oswald did there

Two embassies, an argument and a refusal.

Oswald crossed into Mexico on 26 September and arrived in Mexico City about 10 a.m. the next day. At the Cuban consulate he asked for an in-transit visa to Cuba on the way to the Soviet Union. The Soviets told him a visa would take months. He argued with the Cuban consul, Eusebio Azcue, and left without either visa. [1][2]

The Cuban consulate employee who handled him, Silvia Duran, later gave a statement; her name and phone number were in his address book. [1][3]

The committee concluded that Oswald was in Mexico City and made these visits. Duran was certain it was him. Another consul, Alfredo Mirabal, saw him from about four metres away. The committee’s handwriting panel matched the signature on the visa application to Oswald. [2]

What we can’t tell you. Some of the testimony was gathered 15 years later.

The sources

  1. Warren Commission report, chapter 6: investigation of possible conspiracy ↗

    The Commission’s review of the Soviet years, Mexico City, Cuba, New Orleans, Ruby’s associations and rumors; it found no evidence of a conspiracy.

  2. HSCA final report, part I-D: performance of the agencies ↗

    The Secret Service was “deficient” in protecting the President; the Warren Commission’s conspiracy investigation was flawed.

  3. HSCA final report, part I-C: conspiracy findings ↗

    Soviet, Cuban, anti-Castro, organized-crime and agency allegations, one by one.

The wrong man in the photograph

The CIA sent the FBI a picture of somebody else.

The CIA’s cable to headquarters on 9 October described the American who contacted the Soviet embassy as about 35, six feet tall, athletic and balding. Oswald was 23, slight and had hair. After the assassination the CIA gave the FBI a surveillance photo of this man, and the FBI showed it to Marguerite Oswald, who later said it was Jack Ruby. [1]

The committee found the man “clearly neither Oswald nor Ruby”. It concluded the CIA’s first identification was “a careless mistake”, not evidence of an impostor, and established that the photo was not even taken on a day Oswald visited the Soviet embassy. Nobody has ever identified him. [1]

What we can’t tell you. The man’s identity remains unknown.

The sources

  1. HSCA final report, part I-D: performance of the agencies ↗

    The Secret Service was “deficient” in protecting the President; the Warren Commission’s conspiracy investigation was flawed.

  2. Church Committee, Book V: the investigation of the Kennedy assassination by the intelligence agencies (1976) ↗

    The Senate finding that the CIA and FBI did not tell the Warren Commission about the Castro plots, and that the agencies’ investigations were deficient.

The tapes, and the voice

Did someone else call the Soviet embassy as Oswald?

On 23 November an FBI letterhead memorandum said FBI agents in Dallas who had listened to a CIA recording of the caller and looked at the photo concluded the man was not Oswald. This, the memo said, raised the possibility of an impostor. [1][2]

The committee checked. It found that no tape had been sent to Dallas. An FBI cable of 25 November said “no tapes were taken to Dallas”; only transcripts and the photo went. The committee concluded the agents had not heard any recording. [1]

Hoover told President Johnson on 23 November that the voice on the tape was not Oswald’s, according to the transcript of their call published by the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Whether any recording survived past late 1963 is still argued over. [3]

The committee did take the impostor claims seriously. Azcue testified that the man he dealt with was not the Oswald later shown in the news; he described a man of about 30, around 5 feet 6, with a long face. Duran, who was sure it was Oswald, also recalled a man of 5 feet 6 and 125 pounds with sparse blond hair, which did not match Oswald. But the committee found the weight of the evidence showed Oswald himself made the visits. [1]

What we can’t tell you. The Hoover–Johnson transcript comes from a private archive’s page that could not be fetched directly; see the audit.

The sources

  1. HSCA final report, part I-D: performance of the agencies ↗

    The Secret Service was “deficient” in protecting the President; the Warren Commission’s conspiracy investigation was flawed.

  2. Church Committee, Book V: the investigation of the Kennedy assassination by the intelligence agencies (1976) ↗

    The Senate finding that the CIA and FBI did not tell the Warren Commission about the Castro plots, and that the agencies’ investigations were deficient.

  3. Mary Ferrell Foundation: The Mexico City tapes ↗

    Primary-source essay on the intercepted calls, Hoover’s 23 November 1963 remarks to Johnson that the voice was not Oswald’s, and what happened to the recordings.

Kostikov and Department 13

Oswald met a KGB officer. Was he the assassinations man?

Valeriy Kostikov was a Soviet consular officer and a KGB officer. Oswald met him, and later wrote to the Soviet embassy in Washington mentioning a “comrade Kostin”. [1][2][4]

The Senate’s Church committee reported that FBI experts believed Kostikov belonged to the KGB department responsible for assassination and sabotage. The teletype telling FBI headquarters about Oswald’s Mexico City contacts was still sitting on a supervisor’s desk, awaiting action, on 22 November. [1]

A 1982 CIA letter says Kostikov’s membership in that department could not be confirmed. [3]

What we can’t tell you. The 1982 CIA letter is a scanned document read for this file; its wording is summarized, not quoted.

The sources

  1. Church Committee, Book V: the investigation of the Kennedy assassination by the intelligence agencies (1976) ↗

    The Senate finding that the CIA and FBI did not tell the Warren Commission about the Castro plots, and that the agencies’ investigations were deficient.

  2. HSCA final report, part I-D: performance of the agencies ↗

    The Secret Service was “deficient” in protecting the President; the Warren Commission’s conspiracy investigation was flawed.

  3. CIA letter on Valeriy Kostikov and Department 13, 21 May 1982 ↗

    Says Kostikov’s membership in the KGB’s sabotage and assassination department could not be confirmed.

  4. Warren Commission report, chapter 6: investigation of possible conspiracy ↗

    The Commission’s review of the Soviet years, Mexico City, Cuba, New Orleans, Ruby’s associations and rumors; it found no evidence of a conspiracy.

What the CIA told, and did not tell

Headquarters, the FBI and the Commission all got part of the story.

The committee found the Mexico station told headquarters about Oswald’s Soviet embassy contact but never reported his visa request or his visits to the Cuban consulate before the assassination. [1]

The Church committee found the CIA kept details of its phone taps and photo surveillance from the Warren Commission, partly to protect its sources. [2]

The House committee found no evidence of any relationship between Oswald and the CIA. Its own investigation of the CIA’s Mexico record was overseen on the agency’s side by an officer whose background was hidden from it; see the Joannides file. [3]

What we can’t tell you. The full Lopez Report took until 2003 to be released.

The sources

  1. HSCA final report, part I-D: performance of the agencies ↗

    The Secret Service was “deficient” in protecting the President; the Warren Commission’s conspiracy investigation was flawed.

  2. Church Committee, Book V: the investigation of the Kennedy assassination by the intelligence agencies (1976) ↗

    The Senate finding that the CIA and FBI did not tell the Warren Commission about the Castro plots, and that the agencies’ investigations were deficient.

  3. HSCA final report, part I-C: conspiracy findings ↗

    Soviet, Cuban, anti-Castro, organized-crime and agency allegations, one by one.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

5 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 155 rated claims ↗

← The JFK hub: biography, timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesJFK shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesJFK.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.