DOCUMENT  0027-7

[ Main Site Menu ] [ Back to Nassau Introduction | JFK Menu ] [ Index to Site Documents ]

TAPE 7 of 8

7/9 DECEMBER 1995


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

?____________: Good enough for government work.


?____________: 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

Rodriguez: (Unintelligible) 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

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: 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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


[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.


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 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.]



Copyright 1998-2014 Cuban Information Archives. All Rights Reserved.