A lot of people talk about Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA and, to be honest, a lot of them don’t know what they are talking about.
Bill Simpich, a San Francisco attorney and author, does. He cuts to the chase in a new piece for Reader Supported News.
“Oswald was monitored by three counterintelligence teams in the last four years of his life.”
As someone who has studied the CIA for a long time, I think this a factually accurate statement, not the least because it is mostly based on the CIA’s records, and not the suppositions and apologetics of outsiders.
Simpich, author of the ebook “State Secret,” is drawing from the rich paper trail left by the CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff and the Directorate of Plans as they followed Lee Oswald from October 1959 to November 1963.
Simpich has mined records made public since 2000 under the JFK Records Act. These records have been overlooked by news organizations and conspiracy theorists alike.
He’s not talking about a theory, merely what happened.
Check it via State Secret: The Framing of Lee Oswald.
And, after you read Simpich, you’ll want to read:
Why did Jim Angleton ‘prefer to wait out” the Warren Commission? (June 5, 2014)
Did the CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff track Oswald before the assassination? (Feb. 4, 2014)
7 JFK files the CIA still keeps secret (Feb. 23, 2014)
Bill Simpich’s new book State Secret establishes him as one of the preeminent researchers in the twenty-first century.
Mr. Simpich’s years of hard work and perseverance in following the evidentiary trail have resulted in a book that is a must read for anyone interested in Lee Oswald, Mexico City and/or the murder of President Kennedy.
The author’s use of hyperlinks to the documentation is extremely helpful, to say the least.
Bill Simpich has graciously made the results of his research available for no cost at the Mary Ferrell website. State Secret has definitely advanced our understanding of the events surrounding Mexico City and the intelligence agencies that monitored them.
Thanks to Mr. Simpich for a job very well done and for sharing the results with everyone.
The greatest fallacy is not that people have enquiring minds about LHO’s links with the FBI, the CIA, and other shady entities, it is that details of those links and his background are still (50 years later) classified and unavailable for those who seek to learn the truth. Lee Harvey Oswald must have been such an incriminating figure to all Intelligence Agencies and Government to still command such strict secrecy. When it smells, and feels, and seems like there is something very wrong about the behaviour of lawless agencies who are meant to represent a functioning democracy, there is bound to be something very wrong.
This is sort of a parenthetical comment, but it’s a point that interests me. In dealing with double agents, and someone who may have been a false defector like Oswald is something of a double agent, you always have to be concerned as to where their loyalty actually lies, or whether the side they’re supposed to be duping has in fact tuned them. It seems to me that by late October the Oswalds must have been a counter-intelligence agent’s worst nightmare — one a native born US citizen, the other a native born Soviet citizen, with anchor babies, one in each country.
Yes a a lot of people do talk about Oswald and the CIA. Too many people as a matter of fact.
Jack Ruby is the man who killed Oswald. Jack Ruby’s relationship to the Israeli Mossad is the connection which leads to the solution of this case.
It is ironic that the Italian Film State Secrets (2003) was about someone framed in an ambush of protesting Communists in post-war Italy (Sicily). A lawyer who doubts the official version questions the ballistic evidence and when he digs further, finds complicity with the local Mob, crooked government officials and the CIA, and even naming Jesus James Angleton! This is based on a true story.
As for the imprisoned patsy, he was poisoned to death before a trial.
Sound familiar?
http://cineuropa.org/nw.aspx?t=newsdetail&l=en&did=36855
Bill,
Great article. At the time of the taping in 1963 I doubt Voice activation was possible so the tapes ran on loops is what I gathered from reading Ms. Anne Goodpastures Assasination Review board testimony. So on any given day 50-60 pages of raw transcribable words were captured. These tapes would be listened to by linguistic specialists and Transcribed. In addition significant portions of tapes would be edited and condensed down for review by superiors likely would have been the Standard Procedure. So someone could claim the original tapes did not exist, and if not specifically directed a question about a condensed edited version, the impression could be that the content of the tapes were lost forever. While the Assasination Review board goes to great lengths not to ask about specific methods, and Ms Goodpasture goes to great lengths to provide the information desireed and provides great leads to gather more details, even volunteering but not confirming that a Condensed tape existed in Win Scott’s safe. That’s what I gathered from reading the transcript. As for the previous public denials in FBI memos in 1963 trying to clean up the Johnson & Hoover phone call, referencing the condensed edited version of the audio tapes they all contain plausable Denial segments like not listened to in such and such city etc. Clearly the further declassified Warren commission information confirming the tapes stil existed in April of 1964 and were listened to in Mexico City by Warren commission staffers confirms that indeed Audio tapes of Oswald or someone impersonating Oswald still existed in April 1964. That is the gist I’m getting about the tapes. So in 2014 it is clear that a condensed edited version of the tape existed on 11-22-63 and 11-23-63 that Hoover refers to in the call to Johnson, and that a version of that tape was listened to on 11-23-63 by someone in the FBI, somehow and somewhere and if anything is in error it is the FBI memos from the weekend of the Assasination going to tortured Plausable Deniable lengths to put if’ s and’s and but they were not listened to in Dallas memo’s. Clearly when Mr Hoover mentions the tapes to President Johnson they existed at the time, and were reviewed in some manner by the FBI prior to the 10:00 am EST call between Hoover and Johnson.
Thanks for the great work Bill and Jeff, I hope I added some clarity to the methods in Mexico City
Willy
The CIA is now on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/CIA
Might be a good medium to draw some attention for releasing the files. Just Tweet their handle with #FreetheJFKfiles
One more thing – you might want to inckude this link in your Tweet https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
Just add a must-read one to the want-to-read list: the Morley´s 1995 piece in WaPo “The Oswald Files: Tales of the Routing Slips.”
https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WaPo0402951.pdf
It was interesting reading the routing slip. It seem to have been stuck in the Soviet Russia desk until after the assasination.
The article has been #2 in popularity at the Reader Supported News site for the last three days. Comments at the site would be appreciated!
I’m hoping they will run future articles on JFK, the NSA, and the importance of freeing the files in the next three years.
Mr. Simpich, I don’t know what you have in your mind against Spain or spanish people but Enrico Malatesta was not a “wellknown spanish agitator”, Enrico Malatesta was an italian guy. Since the infamous and false accusation against Spain for the sinking of the battleship “USS Maine”, and the infamous accusation against Spain for being the focus the spanish flu, I haven’t heared any other more infamous accusation against Spain. Please, amend your book.
Sealord, I am talking about Errico Malatesta, a famous agitator and public speaker. Not the Enrico Malatesta that you have in mind.
Mr. Simpisch, I apologize for misspelling the name of Errico Malatesta, but with no doubt you are referring to the “well-known Italian agitator” who indeed pronounced sometime the phrase “everything depends on what the people are capable of wanting”. I’ve been researching about that name and I couldn’t find any “well-known Spanish agitator” called Errico Malatesta. This “well-known Italian agitator” was born in Italy and died as Italian, he stayed only one time in Spain when he was travelling throughout several countries of Europe, and never became Spanish citizen. That name doesn’t sound like Spanish at all. Maybe I’m wrong Mr. Simpisch, but if it so, please, show any reference about your statement. Mr. Morley sorry for talking about this matter but I wanted to clarify this point.