TitovetsIn one of a continuing series of obstructions affecting the 50th anniversary of the John F. Kennedy assassination, the US government is preventing a visit to a research conference by a man who apparently got very close to Lee Harvey Oswald during Oswald’s USSR days.

This development comes on top of the Obama Administration’s failure to release 50,000 documents relating to the assassination, as previously reported by WhoWhatWhy.

Ernst Titovets, author of the 2010 book Oswald: Russian Episode, had been invited to be the keynote speaker at the yearly Dallas conference held by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA), a loose-knit organization of researchers who study political assassinations.

But Titovets got a cold reception from the American Consulate in Minsk (capital of White Russia, a part of the USSR now called Belarus) when he applied for a visa to travel to America—and has been waiting to hear from them for over a month.  He has asked that polite letters of support be sent to the Consulate and Embassy in his behalf by those who want to hear him speak. Contact information appears at the end of the article.

Titovets’s highly detailed book humanizes the alleged assassin–and many Americans would like to hear more about it from the author himself.  But Titovets’s role itself is seen as problematical by some observers in a saga that has remained mired in controversy, bizarre twists and turns, and allegations of government cover-ups and endless distractions and disinformation.

In his book, Titovets appears to be defending Oswald—but is he really defending the C.I.A.?


According to a diary Oswald allegedly wrote, Titovets was his “oldest existing acquaintance.”  Readers familiar with the facts in the case of the Kennedy assassination will understand the liberal use of the word “allegedly”—almost everything about Oswald and his doings remains in doubt—including whether he went to the USSR on his own, or was one of a number of servicemen with access to information of interest to the Soviets who many believe were part of a “false defector” program run by US intelligence.  (Evidence of one such case—another American run by an agent who like Oswald married a Russian woman, can be found here.)  For those who find this alternative scenario credible, everything from the true authorship and purpose of his diary to the agendas of those who befriended him require close scrutiny.

Titovets may have been Oswald’s good friend.  On the other hand, he may have been a KGB agent assigned to keep an eye on


Oswald, as some say. Titovets could even have been both.  Many non-spooky Russians, especially intellectuals, were pressed—against their will—into service by the KGB.

Oswald, who publicly attempted to defect to the Soviet Union in October 1959 but was viewed with skepticism by the authorities there before he returned to the United States, was of intense interest to the Russians. We know from released KGB files that Soviet spies watched Oswald and his wife in their bedroom through a peephole in the thin wall, and listened to them through a microphone in the ceiling, and who knows what else they did?

Titovets, an MD, PhD, is an interesting man himself, as you can see from his website.  There, he describes his research on brain chemistry, as well as his memoir on Oswald, whom he met when Oswald moved to Minsk.  According to the author, the two became fairly close after first meeting at a party.  As Titovets puts it,

“. . . The book is based mainly on the author’s first-hand experience of knowing Oswald. It also includes the author’s interviews with many Russians who met Oswald, there are documents with Oswald’s longhand never published before, unique transcripts of the audio recordings of Oswald and Titovets reading stories, enacting plays, giving mock interviews to one another.”

The never-before-published documents written in Oswald’s handwriting, and the audio recordings, should be especially interesting to researchers of the Kennedy assassination.

Only Two Possibilities? 

Who was Lee Harvey Oswald, Titovets asks?  In his preface, he presents two possibilities:

(1) a “lone gunman, a maniac presidential killer, and a scheming villain of a conspirator”; or

(2) the “patsy he proclaimed himself to be, the greatest goof of our time, an all-round good guy and a completely innocent man. The unbiased researcher unencumbered with proving or disproving theories might point out that there is enough evidence to seriously consider Oswald as a student of sociology and self-educated philosopher looking forward to building a perfect society.”

Titovets promotes the second possibility: completely innocent, and with no connections to any intelligence organization.

A Third Possibility

Many believe in a third possibility: that Oswald was neither a lone assassin nor an unconnected innocent—but was an American intelligence agent who thought he was serving his country as part of an elaborate subterfuge.

Consider this possibly telling incident: when officials at the US Embassy tried to talk Oswald out of renouncing his citizenship, he threatened to reveal to the Russians information obtained in his role as an aviation radio electronics operator. This included what he knew about U-2 reconnaissance planes. The U-2, Titovets notes, was the “highest priority target of Soviet intelligence.”

“A defector about to supply the Soviets with classified information, and, in particular, information about U-2 flights would be very unwise to have revealed his intentions before the staff of the American Embassy.  It would be suicidal to do so; accidents did happen, Moscow or no Moscow.”

Assuming this well-known and long publicized account of Oswald’s actions is true, why didn’t security at the Embassy seize Oswald then and there? Surely, if Oswald were a bona fide defector and threat to American interests, he would not have been treated so gently—nor would he have been given the assistance he was given by American authorities when he decided to come back to the States.

Lee and his bride Marina in Minsk’s main square

Lee and his bride Marina in Minsk’s main square

Titovets does not seem to even find the passivity of the American authorities in Moscow strange. This, and other aspects of his analysis should make one curious about Titovets himself.

All of which is to recommend caution in wondering why the US, fifty years later, is turning Titovets from a relatively obscure character into someone of public interest by denying him a visa. Not to suggest anything wrong with the consulate staff in Minsk. But, assuming that this matter, on such a sensitive topic, would naturally be kicked upstairs to high levels in the US intelligence firmament, one has to wonder whether they were the ones to hold back the visa, and if so, why?

Given how the American people have been treated to one distraction after another from the vast body of evidence pointing at intelligence connections in Kennedy’s death, is it so crazy to wonder if the purpose of denying Titovets a visit is actually not to prevent him from being heard, but instead to make his bland “revelations” seem somehow more noteworthy? Any public relations professional would understand such a subterfuge.

Whether or not that is what is going on here, it is indisputable that Titovets is very helpful in casting Oswald as nothing more than the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Notably, Titovets often focuses on Oswald’s “naiveté.”  For example: regarding Oswald’s “surprise”—as recorded in his diary–at being questioned by Soviet officials wary of this would-be defector and his motives, Titovets says:

“Had Oswald obtained special training he would not have failed to see through that unsophisticated game.  He wouldn’t have been surprised that they made him go over his story again and again…”

What Titovets does not seem to recognize, or will not acknowledge, is that an intelligence officer playing a role would almost certainly act naïve, and claim to be surprised by things an agent would know to be commonplace.

Cutting the Wires

Some see Oswald as a broken marionette.  Though discarded, the wires are still attached, however translucent, and could lead right back to those who were pulling them.

Oswald in Minsk with friends

Oswald in Minsk with friends

Was Oswald one of the recruits in the CIA false defector program?  Is this why so many documents about him remain classified? Is this why the US government, even under Obama, continues to hold back those 50,000 documents?

If he were indeed proven to have been working for US intelligence at the time of the Kennedy assassination, then his alleged role in a presidential murder could further shake the confidence of Americans in the trustworthiness of our vast secret intelligence apparatus—and even lead to a reappraisal of the reliability of our governance system itself.

It would hardly be surprising that someone like Titovets and his “revelations” of an Oswald who was an innocent naïf, completely unconnected with the US government, are welcomed by the establishment. The New York Times, which for the last half-century has notoriously dismissed or ignored thousands of revelations pointing to Oswald’s involvement in covert operations, has written approvingly of Titovets.

A Closer Look at Titovets Himself

Titovets considers the idea that Oswald was connected to either American or Russian intelligence the “wildest speculation.”  “A James Bond fantasy.”  He ignores the evidence of Oswald’s connections to American intelligence as revealed in many books, and seems to hope his readers will ignore it as well, thereby effectively cutting the marionette’s wires.

This, of course, raises questions of why the US government would not welcome his visit. Skeptics might note that the government’s refusal in itself creates media interest in Titovets–and makes his contribution to the discussion more credible: if the US government is against him, he must be doing something right. Whether or not the US ends up allowing his visit or not, he gains new visibility. 

Titovets seems anxious to prove that he was not only a friend of Oswald’s but a close one—a person qualified to say he had no connection to any intelligence agency. From the preface of his book:

“There is at least one fact that has never been in dispute. The author of this book has consistently been viewed in the literature as a close friend of Lee Harvey Oswald, indeed one of his closest companions in Minsk….  [Refers to books by Patricia McMillan, Edward Jay Epstein, and Norman Mailer.]  And to have it straight from Oswald himself: ‘Erich [Ernst Titovets] is my oldest acquaintance…a friend of mine who speaks English very well.’ I have but to bow my head in this collective opinion. To be Oswald’s close friend became my unsolicited role in the JFK drama.”

Oswald wrote detailed descriptions of many people in his diary–even those with whom he met only briefly–yet, he had little to say about Titovets.  His diary contains only four brief entries, reproduced below, complete with spelling errors. (Note: Titovets also called himself “Erich.”) 

[1960]   “Nov 15 in Nov   I make the acquaintance of 4 girls rooming at the for. Lan. domatory . . . I usually go to the institute domatory with a friend of mine who speaks English very well. Eraich Titov is in the forth year at the medical institute. Very bright fellow. At the domatory we 6 sit and talk for hours in Russian.”

[1961]   “Mar 17 . . . I and Erich went to trade union dance.”   [There, he met Marina.]

[1961]   “Sept-Oct 18.  During this time I am lonely but I and Erich go to the dances and public places for enitanment.”

[1962]   “March.  The last communiques are exchanged between myself and Embassy. . . . I have still not told Erich who is my oldest existing acquaitance,that we are going to the State, he’s o.k., but I’m afraid he is too good a young communist leage member so I’ll wait till last min.

There is no question that the two men spent a great deal of time together but if Oswald had a secret life it’s not at all clear that Titovets would have been aware of it.  In fact, Oswald’s March 1962 diary entry shows that, even though he had known Titovets for two years already, Oswald felt he could not confide in his oldest “acquaintance.”

In the meantime, Ernst Titovets is still waiting for his travel visa.

Dr. Titovets has asked that polite letters of support be sent to

United States Embassy in Belarus

46 Starovilenskaya St.
Minsk 220002, Belarus
Telephones: +375 17 210-12-83
+375 17 217-7347
+375 17 217-7348
Fax: +375 17 234-78-53
After hours or in emergency call +375 17 226-16-01
E-mail: webmaster@usembassy.minsk.by

Consular Section
Chargé d’Affaires ad interim (Chief of Mission) – Ethan A. Goldrich

Address: 46 Starovilenskaya St.
Minsk 220002, Belarus
Telephone:  +375 17 210-12-83 or   +375 17 334-77-61
Fax:   +375 17 217-71-60
E-mail:  ConsularMinsk@state.gov
Working hours: Monday-Friday from 8.30 to 17.30 except Belarusian and American holidays.

Perhaps if Titovets gets his permit, and does visit the United States, he’ll have an opportunity to explain why he never considered the possibility, so widely accepted now—that Oswald was indeed a deep covert operative all along.

[box]WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Correction: This article has been revised to reflect a correction.  Contrary to what was written earlier, Ernst Titovets did not work in a radio factory, and he met Oswald at a party.

GRAPHIC:  http://etitovets.com/Titovets_dream_book_1.jpg



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think the intelligence people just want to stonewall anything that might improve our understanding of the Kennedy assassination, even if it is “bland.” Don’t give them anything to go on.

I have come to many firm conclusions about the JFK assassination, and Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, but was Oswald working for one side or the other, both sides, or neither? I don’t know. The credible personal accounts of him add up to “neither,” and, apparently, that’s what Titovets’ account says, too.

News Nag

The crew that Oswald ran with in New Orleans says he was working with U.S. intelligence, or at least part of its underbelly. Period.


If you mean Judyth Baker, I don’t believe in her. Her story sounds too much like General Hospital from the 1970’s.


Respectfully disagree as it’s too heartfelt, detailed and footnoted not to be true.


Is there an explanation from Judyth Baker on the weirdness of the Mexico visit? I understand that her story is that Oswald was there to get to Cuba to deliver poison, but that a hurricane killed the plan. But, does she say anything about the apparent fact that somebody other than Oswald called the Soviet embassy and somebody other than Oswald was photographed by the CIA as Oswald? I’m curious as to how that fits into her story, but enough to buy her book.


SO let me get this straight you’re interested enough to learn more about her story but not interested enough to buy her book. Well there’s no need to buy her book as it’s in the library. A must read IMO.


Maybe I’m interested enough to go to the library. But, I try not to read junk, and her story sounds like junk. Maybe that;s the story the CIA sold her and “Lee,” I suppose.


For any serious investigator, it’s required reading along with Dr. Mary’s Monkey.


Once you realize that Oswald did not shoot JFK, and you don’t need Judyth Baker to prove it, then her story, and Oswald’s story itself, whatever the truth of it, become something of a sideshow. Why fixate on somebody who did not kill JFK when the point is, who did kill JFK? Judyth Baker’s story, true or not, is a diversion from the truth about who shot JFK, and who shot JFK is what serious investigators need to study.


Study of the Altgens 6 doorway man reveals, to anybody willing to accept the truth, that Oswald is standing there with Billy Lovelady’s face pasted on top of his. Since the first shot had been fired a second or two before that photo was taken, this proves that Oswald did not shoot JFK. There. Now, you can concentrate on who DID shoot JFK. One need not resort to questionable stories which emerged years later to do much of this. All one need do is look at the photographic evidence, witness statements, and Warren Commission testimony to determine the names of some of his killers and to conclude that particular others must have been involved. New Orleans was a sideshow, even if there were cancer vaccines and cheap melodrama intrigue.


A well-stated point of view, I still believe Ms. Baker’s story bears witnessing.

Frank von Winkhorst

There’s also an eyewitness who places Oswald getting change for the soda machine when Kennedy was shot. As far as I can tell, this is all a diversion, in that the important photo is the one that shows Gen. Ed Lansdale at the scene of the crime only miuntes after it occurred. Lansdale was known for carrying out just such plots in foreign countries.


landsdale of the pentagon were doing psych warfare and david Phillips of the cia was doing the same. the goal was to get kennedy to invade cuba again. they needed a pretext. the hawks were ready to back anything would get rid of castro. a false flag assassination attempt co-opted by cia- mafia forces with LBJ on board.


I’ve heard her say that whatever he thought he was doing, he was being duped. I’ve listened to hours of her interviews…hard to follow at times, but i’ve determined she’s above board. We should thank her for coming out…she’s been through hell!

d b

SO – an number of CIA assets have said bluntly that Oswald was working with CIA. Oswald’s contact with Ferrie and Bannister are definitely confirmed. No question that he was some sort of US operative.

Frank von Winkhorst

More likely both, in that John Armstrong has presented massive documentary evidence that there were two Oswalds.

Matt Prather

Will Russ Baker or other Who staff be in Dallas for the 50th “anniversay” of the assassination?

If so, I would like to know as early as possible! It would be interesting to see any public speech in person. You could even have a private meet-and-greet for a fee.

(Make sure the grassy knoll is clear before you make any dangerous speeches, of course…)


Yes. See Upcoming Events on this site. I’ll be there. And if folks want to meet me for a conversation–and are interested in donating to our nonprofit or otherwise getting involved in a substantive way, that’s certainly possible.

Matt Prather

Ah, I do see now.

JFK Lancer Conference, Adolphus Hotel, Dallas
Friday, Nov. 22, 9:15am – 10:30am

Russ Baker on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the John F. Kennedy Assassination


Coalition on Political Assassinations, Aloft Hotel, Premiere Pad, Dallas
Saturday Nov. 23, time tbd

Russ Baker on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the John F. Kennedy Assassination

Frank von Winkhorst

In 1960 and again in 1961 J Edgar Hoover received a memo to the effect that while “Lee Harvey Oswald” was in the USSR, another “Lee Harvey Oswald” was in Florida with the anti-Castro Cubans. See the John Armstrong interviews available from Black Op Radio. The fact is that making statements about who “Lee Harvey Oswald” was or wasn’t involved with has no meaning unless one specifies which “Lee Harvey Oswald” with which set of school and marine records.

Gary Schoener

Excellent summary of still one more blockage by the government of getting more information. I agree that it does not matter what he is, the information would be useful.


I have two questions.

1. Why was the application rejected?

2. If Tivotets believes Oswald had no intel connection, maybe he can attempt to explain this?

d b

Apparently Tivotets was a friend of LHO but has no special knowledge of LHO other than external appearances. His appearance in US may be no more than a diversion from more significant investigation.

Comment Cal

Thank you for the original thought. Exactly what the article above says.

d b

Not exactly. The article asks if the blocking of Tivotets is a deception and apparently is advising us to assist Tivotets in getting his visa.
I am saying something slightly different – that Tivotets has no special knowledge and his presence in the US may be an unhelpful diversion.


Here’s the best sources on the JFK assassination that I am aware of at this time:

The Men Who Killed Kennedy ~ http://youtu.be/AQzLBYZP3mE

Evidence of Revision ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gBxMJFQd04

JFK II ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSakrYOpJ5s

Frank von Winkhorst

The “best sources on the JFK assassination” are not going to be found on YouTube.

They are going to be found in books written by serious researchers.

Even in the YouTube realm, you left out the yeoman work of Len Osanic at http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2013.html

Clearly, you know very little about the level of evidence that really exists.


LHO was hired by the FBI (assertion) to infiltrate illegal CIA training bases (under Bush sr, Florida desk officer for Bay of Pigs). (Fact) LHO was an FBI agent under J Edgar Hoover who would identity the CIA bases so the FBI could raid them and shut them down (fact). Fact George Bush worked for CIA and was Howard Hunt’s handler (Fact). LHO was the patsy when the CIA got him back. (Assertion). LHO claimed he was standing in the doorway of Houston depository, not upstairs at the time of the shooting.http://www.surftofind.com/truth2
George Bush is identified in J Edgar Hoover’s memo as CIA. The CIA is now named after him who claimed only to be employed as Director, ignoring his time at Zapata oil.

Matt Prather


“Fact George Bush worked for CIA and was Howard Hunt’s handler (Fact).”

I’d call than an assertion, made by someone who knows a lot more about conspiracy lore and fun cloak-and-dagger words like “handler” than about what really happened and what GHWB was doing.

Russ Baker went so far as to find the affidavit of a real, different George Bush who was doing CIA work at the time, which affidavit said that this sworn George Bush was not the George Bush of the Hoover memo. (Thus putting the onus back on “Poppy” GHWB to prove that he was not the George Bush referred to, and tightening up the case that it had to be him who was referred to.)

But Russ still does not go so far as to assert hardly anything about George Bush’s CIA work during this period. It’s all couched in probabilities and hypotheticals, which is all the facts really allowed him to do.

Russ puts the dots together and leaves it for readers to judge if they connect or not. I’d say that it can be reasonably asserted that GHWB was “Mr. George Bush of the CIA” that Hoover wrote of, and that it can be reasonably asserted that he knew about the black operation going on. But it cannot quite be determined what his role or actions were inside of the op — we cannot say he was a “handler” or “case agent” as many like to say.

On the other hand, the “JFK 2” video linked in this thread does make the best case it can, in a rather amusing video production, that GHWB was an agent on the case.


Correction, you are right, Dallas as confirmed by Richard Nixon in his Memoirs.

As for affidavits being credible: There was lots of sworn testimony in the Columbine shooting but some of the sworn testimony and affidavits were false/perjury. google http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1931273/pg1

FACT. Chip Tatum ,CIA, black ops assassin fingered VP George Bush, Gov Clinton, Ollie North, Jeb Bush, William Colby, and same Pres George Bush, for drugs manufacture and trafficking (Iran Contra) and complicit in murder/intent to commit murder. http://www.leoaffairs.com/media/in_the_news/040197/The-Chip-Tatum-Chronicles.htm google it.

Matt Prather

fact: if Chip Tatum had put down his “finger” story in a sworn statement (affidavit), then it would have enhanced his credibility — he would have been liable for prosecution for perjury if it could be proven false in any part

Johnny Shiloh

“If he were indeed proven to have been working for US intelligence at the time of the Kennedy assassination, then his alleged role in a presidential murder could further shake the confidence of Americans in the trustworthiness of our vast secret intelligence apparatus” – let’s get real, for many Americans that trust is long gone!


when Oswald was debriefed by u.s. intell both in soviet union and back in the states(texas) he would’ve been asked about his soviet contacts- friends. they in turn probably were approached to become an asset or spy for the cia. this is how the game is played ,both sides did it. no question this guy is known to cia and then he just pops up 50 years later to give a “speech” about Oswald. you can be sure of one thing-he will protect his handlers interests.

Ernst Titovets

Ernst Titovets.
I have finally got my US visa and would like to thank Russ Baker for his concern and cooperation. Sorry to disappoint Russ Baker on the point of Oswald and intelligence communities. At the time I wrote Oswald: Russian Episode (essentially completed by 1999) I did not have any access to this sort of information. My area of concentration was Oswald as a man and his socio-political ambitions. I would not read any premeditation in my sheer ignorance of Oswald’s clandestine activity. An author’s golden rule is to write what he knows about . I am sure other qualified and knowledgeable researchers will cover the issue. P.S. I never worked at the radio factory as Russ Baker would give it above and met Oswald elsewhere.


I hope the graph on your computer screen isn’t about something too important. It doesn’t look good.


Ernst, I found your book informative and well written. I thank you for sharing your information with the public.
Jim Koepke

Karen M. Roderick

What about Surhan Surhan. Oswald and Jack Ruby put a hit and it stuck for a man by the name of Charles B. Fitzgerald also known as Robert F. Kennedy and another name he used John F. Kennedy and another name he used was Roberio Onasis right Jackie Kennedy Onasis. Onasis is an oil tycoon in Greece or is he posing as an owner of a tycoon business so he can lend friends money so he feels like a big shot. Surhan Surhan did not kill Kennedy and it is double jeapordy. John and Jackie Kennedy are still kicking in Greek Isle Monetary Bay. Aquarius Embassy.


you speak in a good meter

Peter R. Whitmey

When Oswald filled out the all-important Soviet exit visa (according to Priscilla Johnson McMillan in MARINA AND LEE, he brought home extra copies in case he made an error), he listed his birthplace as “New Orleans, Texas, USA”. The document and the State Dep’t’s translation (with “sic” next to the error) are buried in the Warren volumes. Would an American who had lived in New Orleans state on such an important document that New Orleans was in Texas, when most, if not all, adult Americans know that New Orleans is in Louisiana? And would a “Southern boy”, as Oswald described himself to UPI reporter Aline Mosby, pronounce his birthplace “New Or-LEANS” (rhymes with “beans”) rather than New Orluns? (see recording included in “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” series). And would the real Oswald “guess” in a letter to his brother, Robert, that his birthday was sometime in July, when, in fact, it is on April 7. And would he write in his diary that he was going “to the State” rather than going “to the States”? And would he think that Texas is “hot” in February, as stated in letters to his mom and Robert, when the average temp. there in Feb. is 60F (not exactly “hot”)? And would he keep referring to his half-brother in letters as “Pic” (his last name) rather than “John”? For more on this subject, see my article “Did Oswald Come Back?” at http://www.jfk-info.com/whitmey8.htm. Also, see my series on Priscilla McMillan at http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-1.htm. -prwhitmey


Recently I was extremely low on money and debts were eating me from all sides! That was UNTIL I decided to make money on the internet! I went to surveymoneymaker dot net, and started filling in surveys for cash, and surely I’ve been far more able to pay my bills!! I’m so glad, I did this!!! – z7cn


It’s not “widely accepted” that Oswald was “a deep covert operative all along.” It’s possible that’s why he learned Russian and defected, but I don’t see any hard evidence he was spying in Russia, certainly not anything to make it “widely accepted.” Oswald to me is relatable because of his leftism and because he wanted to change the world for the better. I could see him wanting to visit the USSR to see what it’s like. I’m 100% sure he is innocent of the assassination though, and it’s because of his leftism that I am sure of his innocence. He liked Kennedy, and as a Marxist (in a general sense including democratic socialism — he said he was a Marxist, not a Communist), he would know that killing a leader doesn’t change the underlying structure of the government. I do think he amplified his naivete in order to get into USSR and to get out of it, but it’s really not that crazy to imagine it was personal reasons. He’s not the first person with wanderlust looking for the best place to be. He could have been a spy, but he doesn’t have to be to make sense of his life. To me he was “the first hippie” as some have called him, and a leftist hero who wanted to improve economic conditions for the poor and end racism. His writings, interviews, what people say who knew him, all point consistently to a deep leftist thinker whose ideology was formed by his own experiences with poverty, and reading socialist literature in the library.

I also find his protestations at the Dallas Police station that he didn’t know anything, hadn’t been told what this was about, and didn’t shoot anyone highly convincing. That’s why I started looking into this case, when I saw footage of him in the Dallas police station. And what he said would not be entirely accurate if he actually knew about a conspiracy (even a conspiracy by others) in some way — every fiber of my being was telling me everything about his tone of voice, his body language, said he was telling the truth.

There is hard evidence too of his innocence, like the paraffin test not finding anything on his cheek. Like none of the witnesses describing the right color of clothing for Oswald to have been who they saw on the Sixth Floor. Like the police officer who submitted an affidavit a Mauser was found, not a Mannlicher-Carcano. Like witness evidence from Carolyn Arnold and then after the shooting from Officer Baker, and Victoria Adams who didn’t see him come down the stairs, that strongly suggests he wasn’t even on the sixth floor and was in the lunchroom. And he didn’t bring a rifle to work that morning according to Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, plus the fatal shot wasn’t even from the sixth floor as the testimony of Parkland doctors suggests there was a right rear exit wound.

All of this together makes me deeply convinced of Oswald’s innocence, and I think it undermines rather than enhances the chance of Oswald’s innocence to insist that he was some kind of spy all along. He was known to the CIA and they may have framed him, and he was impersonated at times, but he doesn’t have to have been a “deep covert operative” all along for all that to be the case.


Don’t know what you mean by “hard evidence,” but Antionio Veciana, an active member of the anti-Castro group under the direction of David Atlee Phillips in the late 50s and early 60s, has confirmed that he saw Phillips (AKA Maurice Bishop) together with Oswald. Phillips (whom Oswald knew as “Mr. B”), would have had no reason to associate with a so-called loser like Oswald under normal circumstances. Why would a high-ranking CIA operative meet with a jobless no-account like Oswald, unless Oswald was working with him? That’s evidence enough for me.


I met Dr. Titovets at the COPA convention in Dallas, and acquired his book. When I asked him about Oswald’s assumed CIA connections, he smiled and said, “So what?” In other words, what would one expect an American “ex-pat” to be during the Cold War, except a spy? Yet strangely, while his book cites KGB surveillance methods in detail, it never once mentions the CIA or the likelihood that Oswald was a double-agent (or a false defector). He takes the cautious route, calling such suspicion highly speculative.

Subscribe to the Daily WhoWhatWhy

Relevant, in-depth journalism delivered to you.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.