When it comes to the assassination, to the crime itself and the official investigations of the crime, despite his having written a book critical of the way in which the Warren Commission worked Epstein is a phony expert. He is not an authentic expert on the crime or on its official investigations most of the results of which are strange to him as he reflects his knowledge in his book.
In plain English he is an assassination ignoramus.
As most of the so-called experts also are.
After saying this little we have seen about Oswald in the USSR, Epstein begins his Book Two. It also has a story-book title, “The Passage West” (pages 125ff). The first of its four chapters is "The Double Turncoat." It begins with the beginning of Oswald’s efforts to return to the United States. It is a fact that Oswald opened his negotiations with demands and it is also a fact that he got away with his demands. He was assured that no charges would be laid on him and that his wife could accompany him. Thus the second chapter of this part is Marina’s Story.” In it Epstein seeks to build a case against her, of her acting as a Soviet agent when in fact she had been expelled from the Soviet youth group because of disinterest and nonpayment of dues.
As, he rehashes what the Commission made public about Marina and her family he says that when she and Lee left for the United States her uncle “gave them. some final words of advice." But he gives no indication of what those words were. Nosenko told the FBI when it interviewed him that the uncle asked Lee not to be as anti-Soviet when he was back in the United States as he had been in Minsk. In omitting this Epstein omits what was known and was public but what would diminish his argument of his baseless and political preconception that he substitutes for fact, his invention that Oswald worked for the Soviets in some intelligence function (page 150).
At the same point in the text Epstein wrote that “Dr. Alex Davison ... gave him the phone number of his Russian-speaking mother in Atlanta, Georgia.” Here Epstein has a footnote that reads, "Some ten months later Dr. Davison was exiled by Soviet authorities from Moscow because he was alleged to have acted as the contact for the CIA with Colonel Oleg Penkovsky, who was arrested by the Soviets in March 1963 for spying and was subsequently executed” (page 308).
Again the same underwriting for the same purposes. If he omitted this when it was public he'd be subject to criticism so he under-writes it to serve his political ends.
The doctor's mother did not only speak Russian she was a Russian. She had been a nurse in the anti-Soviet armies to which the United States was one of the six countries that contributed armies tried to defeat the Soviets when they overthrew the Czar. Davison's father was a doctor in the American forces. He and his Russian wife were as anti-Soviet as anyone could be. That Davison gave them his mother’s address so they could look her up is not consistent with the official portrayal of Oswald as pro-Soviet.
Davison was not expelled only from Moscow. He was expelled from the Soviet Union. Its was not “because he was alleged to have acted as the contact for the CIA with Colonel Penkovsky, who was caught on his spying for the CIA. Davison was caught servicing one of Penkovsky’s dead drops, a place where he left what he wanted the CIA to get without being in direct contact with the CIA.
It is inconsistent with the actual record for the anti-Soviet Davison who, according to the FBI was named Alexi, not Alex, to have sent pro-Soviet Oswalds to see his anti-Soviet mother. But Epstein could not omit this entirely and not be criticized for that, so he rewrites it to diminish its inconsistency with his made-up and preconceived concept that Oswald worked for the Soviets Oswald had come to detest.
Epstein ends his Book Two with the chapter "The Homecoming." It does get the Oswalds back and in Texas but again adds nothing to what was disclosed officially.
Book Three has the fictional title, "The Mission” (page 175ff). Epstein uses words to convey what he did not and could not prove but wanted to believe because belief furthered his pre-conception that was not true to begin with. There was no “mission,” as there was no "gambit" in Epstein's earlier chapter, "The Russian Gambit Accepted." (pages 190ff). Despite what Epstein suggest in using the words "gambit" and "accepted," there was no “gambit.” A gambit is “the opening move in chess in which a player deliberately sacrifices a pawn in order to gain a favorable position" or “an action or statement intended to secure some advantage," according to the Oxford American Dictionary. There was no pawn sacrificed and there was no “favorable position” obtained by the United States for letting Oswald return from the Soviet Union.
Epstein's first chapter in Book Three is, typically, mistitled to give an impression that is contrary to fact. "The Handler" is supposed to convey the notion that George de Mohrenschildt "handled" Oswald for an intelligence agency, clearly the CIA! This silly notion did not originate with Epstein. He picked it up from other assassination nuts who made a big thing of this nothing, so big they finally drive the eccentric man to kill himself. But with no proof of it at all Epstein writes of him that "although involved in his own diverse business activities in Haiti and the U.S. De Mohrenschildt; devoted a large part of his next seven months to arranging and rearranging each of the Oswald's lives" (page 176).
This is dishonest writing. It is false. And it is also designed to blunt criticism.
The White Russian community of the area wanted to help Marina and the infant, who needed help. Often it was the de Mohrenschildts who delivered the used clothing and other contributions to Marina. De Mohrenschildt also found Oswald more interesting than the rather dull White Russians. He had done a very unusual thing. But in delivering these contributions to Marina and the other small acts of friendship and helpfulness there was no outside "arranging or rearranging" of the Oswalds’ lives.
Epstein writes this to give the impression that de Mohrenschildt carried on his "business activities in Haiti and the U.S." at the same time. This is to hide what completely eliminates the possibility that de Mohrenschildt was any Oswald “handler.” The truth is that de Mohrenschildt had moved to Haiti about seven months before the Dallas assassination. He could not easily have "handled" Oswald from as far away as the island of Haiti is from Dallas.
What makes this even more dishonest, and intendedly dishonest at that, is the manner in which Epstein makes it appear that the one time de Mohrenschildt was in Haiti was in 1961 (page 183), two years before the assassination.
Except that like the other assassination nuts who refer to de Mohrenschildt as an intelligence agent with absolutely no evidence at all refer to him as Oswald’s "handler," Epstein does not cite any of them as an authority or as a source, there is not a word to support the allegation that de Mohrenschildt "handled" Oswald, for an agency or in any other way.
Epstein adds not a thing that has any relationship with the assassination or on de Mohrenshildt as Oswald's "handler" in his next chapter that also is misleadingly titled "The Underground Man." That applied to neither de Mohrenschildt nor to Oswald. Neither was in any sense underground. Typical of the intended dishonesty of Epstein’s writing in his description of Oswald’s one-room apartment in Minsk as “luxurious” (page 196).
What is “underground” is any reason to believe what Epstein says in his book, albeit with but the briefest mention, that Oswald worked for the KGB. Yet that is what, supposedly, his book is about.
“Out of Control” is Epstein’s title for his next chapter (pages 200 ff). One has to get to thirteen lines from the chapter’s end before there is any reason apparent for the title or to whom it refers, Oswald or de Mohrenschildt. Then it is just added on to the rest of the chapter which has nothing to do with anyone getting "Out of Control." The rest of the chapter holds nothing new or in any way related to the assassination. That one mention, in one sentence, begins with the Epstein trademarked conjecture that he treats as solidly proven:
If he had taken the shot at Walker, as De Mohrehschildt suspected, he was dangerously out of control.
A shot had been taken at resigned right-wing general Edwin Walker when he was in his Dallas home. Marina quoted Oswald as assuming responsibility for it. Epstein writes that the Dallas police recovered that bullet but “it was too badly mangled to be ba1listically identified" (page 213). What Epstein does not say is that the Dallas police did identify the caliber. That bullet, which the police said was of .30 caliber, was much too large to fit in the Oswald rifle. And there is no evidence, not even a reason to suspect that at any other time Oswald had any other rifle, particularly not a .30-06 rifle. But that is the caliber of the rifle that, according to what Epstein suppresses of what the Dallas police determined, which fired that bullet at Walker.
However, “Out of Control” does refer to Epstein as a writer and as an "investigative reporter,” as we have seen and see again.
Chapter VIII, which follows, is again given a story-book title, “Oswald’s Game.” Oswald played no game but the Epsteins of sycophancy writings (for fame and profit) do play this insidious game of commercializing the assassination. A coup d’etat is not a fitting subject for games, for commercializing. It is the most subversive of crimes in a land like our's.
Epstein’s game, like that of the Commission, begins by stating that “On April 25, 1963, Oswald arrived in New Orleans with only two duffel bags, which contained some hastily packed clothes, his personal papers and the dismantled Mannlicher-Carcanno from which he had fired a bullet fifteen days earlier" (page 215). What Epstein refers to, as we have seen, was according to the Dallas, police an impossibility, the bullet that was fired at Walker being too large to fit into the Oswald rifle.
That there was no proof of any of this does not trouble Epstein in the slightest. It helps what he is making up so he makes more of it up. Nobody saw Oswald get to New Orleans with any rifle. (That is also true of his taking that or any other rifle from New Orleans into Mexico and, ultimately, to Dallas.) Ruth Paine, a Quaker, packed the Oswald possessions into her stationwagon in New Orleans when Oswald was in Mexico. (Marina was pregnant.) She not only saw no rifle but, being a Quaker, would not have allowed any rifle into her home. At her home her estranged husband, Michael, unloaded her car and he, also a Quaker, would have opposed any rifle going into the house if he saw one, as he also swore he did not. Moreover, obviously Oswald did not carry that rifle to Mexico on all the busses, with all those bus personnel and passengers so loquacious about him and what they saw without any one of them mentioning seeing any kind of rifle, as the people at his Mexico City hotel also did not.
But, the words with which Epstein begins this chapter being as essential to him as they were to the Commission and other government agencies, they all just made up that Oswald had that rifle – with which nobody in the world ever saw him with and identified it.
In what follows Epstein cannot even rehash straight. He says that "On May 9, Oswald finally found a job through a newspaper advertisement in the New Orleans Times-Herald” (page 217). New Orleans had no paper with that title. There then was the New Orleans Times-Picayune in the morning and the evening paper was the States-Item.) As Epstein continues his rehashing of the Warren Commission he picks up as the truth the untruths of that Commission’s Report, the untruths proven to be untrue by the Commission’s own records. Like his saying (on page 219) that "Oswald ordered 1,000 copies of a handbill from the Jones Printing Company ….” That is what the Commission's Report says but only two people who could have known at the Jones Printing Company, Douglas Jones and his assistant, Myra Silver, both told the FBI that it was not Oswald who picked that small job up. I interviewed Jones twice arid Silver once and both insisted that it was not Oswald who picked that job up. Both also picked pictures of a former Oswald Marine associate, Kerry Thornley, as the man who did pick that job up.
I did not ask either to make a firm, positive identification. I showed both about a hundred mixed up -pictures and asked each to select the man who most resembled the man who picked those handbills up, but both were firm and positive identifying Thornley as the man they say did.
Continuing with his inability to use what the Warren Commission published and to do that straight, Epstein writes that “In mid-June Oswald staged a one-man demonstration on the Dumaine Street wharf where the U.S. Wasp was anchored” (page 220). But Epstein's footnote on page 319 does not confirm this as it could not because it is not true and the FBI reports with which the scholar and allegedly diligent investigative reporter Epstein is not familiar, although made public by the Commission and the FBI, prove that it was not a "one-man demonstration," The proof is in the fingerprints identified on the handbill the demonstrator gave the harbor police. The FBI did not disclose his name but it did disclose that from the fingerprints it was not and could not have been Oswald.
As Epstein continues to use and misuse the Commission’s information he says, as does the Report, that “In August Oswald switched to a new tactic and decided to infiltrate and spy on anti-Castro exiles in the New Orleans area" (pages 222-3). But the Commission's own evidence, which it published, establishes the date of Oswald's visit to the store of Carlos Bringuier as in June, not in August. Carlos Bringuier said it was in August but he, unlike Epstein, knew that was not true. According to the Commission's testimony, which it published, a high school boy, Philip Geraci was then at Bringuier’s store for the first time. In his testimony Bringuier linked that one Oswald visit with the presence of Geraci and his friend Vance Blalock. That was a lie.
Bringuier and Geraci were long friends and when before all this, Geraci, who did not get along with his father, left home, he returned by checking in with Bringuier.
Who told neither Geraci’s parents nor the police and instead sent Geraci to a cheap flophouse where he was handled roughly.
I interviewed Geraci’s parents and then I interviewed him, in the home of the family lawyer for his protection, Garrison having subpoenaed him three times and he having ignored those subpoenas.
Geraci was able to fix that date by a receipt Bringuier had given him for selling Cuban Student Directorate bonds at fifty cents each. Geraci gave me that receipt, in Bringuier’s own handwriting.
When Epstein gets to this (on page 223) he writes that:
When Oswald entered the store, Bringuier was discussing the sale of $10 invasion bonds with two teenagers, Vance Blalock and Philip Geraci III.
As we have seen, those "bonds" had a supposed face value of only fifty cents, not the $10 into which Epstein raises their cost to make them seem to be a serious fund-raising effort. And they were not "invasion bonds.” They were general-funds bonds. I have one Geraci gave me and there is no mention on it of any "invasion.”
Now on that “infiltration” gobbledygook, how in the world could Oswald or anyone else “infiltrate” the DRE in New Orleans when it had only one member there – Bringuier?
Making it more ridiculous and giving point to Bringuier's change of the June date to August, as uncritical and under-informed Epstein writes, "Bringuier, suspicious because of recent events, that Oswald might be an agent for either the FBI or Cuban intelligence," says he turned Oswald's offer of help down.
Those alleged "recent events" were, the raid on the McLaney house where those explosives were stored. That was on July 31 and Bringuier made it up as his excuse for the Oswald visit, established as of June, in the belief that excuse covered him. As with the unquestioning government it did.
Even though the Secret Service investigation, which the Commission did publish, also placed that date as June.
Epstein discloses his lack of knowledge of what he was writing in saying that "a day or two later Oswald reverted to his pro-Castro activities" to hand out his handbills “in the heart of the French Quarter" (page 224). In fact Oswald had carried them on continuously and in the same area, the lower border of the French Quarter. His was clearly the intent of provoking Bringuier, as before long it did. When he finally was provoked into going after Oswald, in the Epstein version Bringuier’s was also a lone operation, Bringuier against Oswald, but in fact Bringuier had two other anti-Castro Cubans with him, and all four were arrested. One of those two anti-Castros is the one who told Bringuier of Oswald’s picketing of which Bringuier had been unaware for days although it was all close to his store.
Although this one is minor, throughout there are reflections of Epstein's ignorance of the actual and public record made by the Warren Commission. It is as though he were guided through that massive record by those who knew what parts might interest him and that he improvises the rest from what he remembers having heard. Or just made it up.
Quite separate is what he knew about and omits because it is not congenial to what he is making up, and undoubtedly believes because it is congenial with the political beliefs with which he began.
The next chapter in Epstein's Part three is like the rest, a tribute to his subject-matter ignorance and to his willingness to make up for that from his imagination. It is titled “The Cuban Connection” and it shows no connection of any kind at all for Oswald. It is the imagined Cuban connection that there never was. What is factual or close to factual is not new at all, not in any way. In his rehashing he put within quotation marks what is not directly quoted.
In Epstein’s brief account of Oswald going to Mexico City, when he gets Oswald there he lacks knowledge of what Oswald went there for. Because what he argues suggests what Epstein is arguing he says what can seem tohelp that argument but is not true, another reflection of his ignorance of the established fact of the official investigation. Or of his honesty.
Epstein says that after Oswald got his hotel room "First he went to the Soviet Embassy” (page 235). This was, in the words Epstein attributes to Oswald and cannot be true, "to see if it could facilitate the paperwork” (page 235).
The fact is that when Oswald went to Mexico City he did not even plan to go to the Soviets. He went to Mexico for a visa to get into Cuba. It was only when he was asked for his reason that Oswald made up the story that he was on his way back to the USSR. That required a Soviet visa and it was only when the Mexican clerk in the Cuban consulate told him that he would have to have a Soviet visa that Oswald went to the Soviet embassy at her suggestion.
And for Oswald’s first trip to the Soviet embassy Epstein writes that "After going again to the Soviet Embassy" Oswald later returned to the Cubans (pages 235-6).
In an Epstein change of the official evidence he says that on the phone Oswald asked the guard, whose name he gives as Ivan Obyedkov, if a telegram had arrived about his visa. (In the CIA’s spelling of that guard’s name the “e” precedes the “y”.)
The guard, apparently unacquainted with the case, asked to whom Oswald had spoken at the embassy.
Epstein lies. He made this up and it is fake.
Oswald explained that he had seen 'Comrade Kostikov’ on September 28. The guard suggested that he again speak in person to Kostikov. “I’ll be right over, "Oswald said, and hung up (pages 256-7).
Oswald had no idea of the name of the person in the embassy to whom he had spoken. When the guard suggested a few Oswald, in passing, as he hurried on to his purpose in the call, indicated that it might have been one of those whose names the guard gave him. Only Oswald had that name "Kostin" when he later wrote the Russian embassy in Washington. And rather than this politeness from that guard, not only did Oswald not see Kostikov, as the disclosures of the Mexico City CIA records make clear, rather that Oswald taking hope and saying "I'll be right over,” the guard hung up on Oswald. This is clear from the CIA's disclosed transcript of its interception of what it picked up from its tap on the Soviet phones.
A few short paragraphs later Epstein repeats this lie, that “Oswald identified himself by name and said his case was being handled by Kostikov” (page 237). But even when Epstein is not factually incorrect he attributes sinister meanings to what does not justify any sinister meaning. For example, he writes that after Oswald's second child was born, Oswald “resumed his covert political actions” (page 240). Those “covert” political actions are identified in Epstein’s footnote as attending a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union and “attending” what Oswald referred to as "an ultra-right meeting headed by General Edwin a. Walker" (page 326).
There is nothing "covert" in attending, either an ACLU meeting or in listening to a public speech.
Sad and unpleasant as it is to say, the truth is that Epstein lies and without his lie he has no book.
Epstein’s last chapter in Book Three also has a story-book title, “The Day of the Assassin” (pages 241ff). He begins it by saying that on the morning of that day, up before Marina, he left his wedding ring and $170 for Marina. But he does not say what the Warren Commission’s disclosed records establish, that he left her that money to buy a washing machine so she’d not have the diapers and other infant clothing to wash by hand.
Then Epstein says Oswald left the Paine home to walk to his ride to work with Buell Wesley Frazier “carrying with him an oblong package wrapped in coarse brown paper” (page 241).
All the descriptions of the only two people who saw what Oswald was carrying are that it was not a "package” and was not “wrapped” but was rather like a grocery bag that he held by the rolled-up opening. Epstein's departure from one hundred percent of the evidence is again to make his story overcome the impossibility of the Commission' s conclusions which were completely refuted by all of the Commission's evidence.
What Epstein also omits is that Jack Dougherty , the only person who saw Oswald enter the building, testified that when Oswald entered the building he was carrying nothing at all.
While these and many of the other Epstein departures from the official evidence may seem slight they are in fact not slight for anyone writing what he says is nonfiction. For example, one hundred percent of the official evidence that Oswald did not carry that rifle to that building that morning so he could assassinate the President. But because that rifle was found in the building the Commission ignored all its own and the FBI’s evidence and concluded in opposition to all of that evidence. But if Oswald did not carry that rifle that morning, and from all descriptions of the bag it could not have held that rifle, that the rifle was there had been no conspiracy. However, the Commission began with the determination to find there had been no conspiracy so, in the absence of an adversary, it merely concluded the opposite of its own evidence. In Epstein’s case his departure from the established facts is essential for him to get away with assuming from the first that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Consistent with this Epstein says Oswald refused to leave for lunch with the others but “remained on the sixth floor alone. Moving a few cartons of boxes forward, he erected a waist-high barrier in front of the easternmost window” (page 242).
Nobody saw Oswald construct that so-called sniper’s nest and the official evidence is that if he had intended to he did not have the time unless all the other evidence of where he was and when he was there is ignored. Besides that “waist-high barrier” made it impossible to shot over the cartons and not leave bullet holes in the half-elevated lower part of that window which, when closed extended downward to only a foot from the floor. But most important of all, those cartons were actually moved where they were earlier and having no connection with the assassination. They had been stacked on the western half of that floor but had to be moved for the laying of a new floor. They were merely moved to the eastern half and stacked any place where there was space. But those cartons were all fingerprinted. Most had no Oswald fingerprint or palm print and not one had the prints required if Oswald had lifted it, leave alone if he had stacked it.
Epstein's account of the shooting (on page 243), consistent with that of the FBI but not of the Commission, makes no mention of any missed shot. His book does not once mention the name of the innocent bystander who was slightly wounded by the spray of concrete from that missed shot, Jams T. Tague. The Commission concluded that the second shot had missed but Epstein, citing no evidence and being Epstein, requiring no evidence, says that the second of the officially-admitted shots that in the Commission's version missed the motorcade entirely is the shot that hit Connally only (page 243).
Epstein also made the obviously impossible seem a bit less impossible by other omissions. The official reconstructions of the rush into building by Dallas police officer Marrion Baker, who was joined by building manager Roy Truly, has them getting to where Baker saw Oswald before Oswald could have gotten there from the front of the sixth floor of that building.
Not only that but, not mentioned by Epstein, Baker saw Oswald inside a lunchroom that had an automatic door closure. Truly, rushing ahead of Baker, did not see Oswald or that door close but Baker did see Oswald through the small window in that door. Or, Oswald was there before Truly, ahead of Baker, passed that door. The door not mentioned by Epstein, who also made no mention of the official time reconstructions which alone disprove the official conclusions.
In the Epstein account of Qswald's flight, the last step in it being the cab he took, Epstein writes:
told the cabdriver to take him to Neely Street, only a block from his rooming house on North Beckley Street. It was a few minutes before 1 P.M. (page 243).
Epstein's incorrect notion of where Oswald left the cab appears to come from the Commission’s simplified map (R158). Epstein did more simplifying. That cabdriver testified to taking Oswald to two different places along Beckley Avenue, not Street. The Commission chose to ignore the one more distant from the rooming house. But there was much more than one city block between it and Neely Street, as I recall it was five blocks. The cartographer merely eliminated all streets not mentioned in the testimony.
Epstein also provides more time by abandoning the official estimate of Oswald's arrival time. The Commission says Oswald got there at one and left three minutes later. Epstein gives Oswald a "few minutes," more than the Commission did.
Epstein does not bother to mention when Oswald left his roominghouse, which helps him in his astoundingly brief account of the Tippit killing, which he says was "sixteen minutes later" when Tippit was found [sic] bleeding to death by his radio car” (page 244).
The Commission did place the time that Tippit was shot at sixteen minutes after one but its own evidence, which it ignored, the affidavit of the passer-by who stopped and radioed the Tippit shooting into the police radio dispatcher. T. F. Bowley swore he looked at his watch and that it was ten minutes after one when he stopped.
Before he stopped Tippit was shot to death. That is what caused him to stop.
Tippit did not have to be "found" with all the bystanders who saw the actual shooting.
Epstein's account of what those bystanders said is not what they testified to but this departure from his only possible sources also helped his case and the Commission’s.
Epstein, with his mistakes included, devotes four lines of type to the Tippit killing. Without connecting Oswald to it.
Here Epstein shifts back to downtown and says that one man was missing after the assassination at the TSBD. In fact there were quite a few, and not men only (page 244).
Epstein then says that at the movie house the police found Oswald was “seated alone in the second row” (page 244). In fact Oswald was at the opposite end of the theater, at its very back row of seats, not the front.
Next Epstein says that back at the Dallas FBI office, when agent
James Hosty … the prime suspect in the Kennedy assassination was Lee Harvey Oswald the name stunned him. For more than two months he had personally superintended the Oswald file (page 214).
That would have required, even for Hosty, a not inconsiderable amount of magic because for those two months the "Oswald file" was in New Orleans while Hosty did his "superintending” in Dallas. He did not get that file until the morning of the assassination as, if Epstein were familiar with Hosty’s Warren Commission testimony, he would have known.
In the same paragraph Epstein gives the official name of the building in which Oswald worked as "the Texas Book Depository." It was the “Texas School Book Depository."
In Epstein's account of the first questioning of Oswald at police headquarters, which can have as a source only the police versions because not a single note and no tape recording existed, he says that Oswald did ask New York lawyer, John Abt, to represent him. “He tried to telephone the lawyer in his New York office but couldn't reach him” (page 246). Now this is correct but it is entirely incomplete. That incompleteness is what made all that followed possible.
Abt, who was about to leave his New York home, told the media he would not represent Oswald. The police knew and did not tell Oswald. Oswald was without a lawyer after he was arrested only because the police kept secret from him the fact that Abt had declined the case, as they also kept secret at least one offer to represent him from a Chicago lawyer. And with a lawyer to represent him, Oswald’s rights might have been preserved, and with that his life might have been saved. With his life saved there would have been a public, a very public trial at which most of the official and unofficial jimerackery, which is what the official “evidence” really is, would not have been dared.
Epstein then switches back to the Tippit killing. He says that:
Telltape hammer marks in the cartridge cases found around Tippitt’s body were traced back to the revolver Oswald had had in his hand when he was arrested (page 247).
This simplification invents that those cartridge cases were "found around Tippit's body," as they were not. They were discarded by his killer when the killer was in flight. And while the empty cases, which need not have been of the bullet fired at that time, did hold some marking of that revolver, not one of the bullets did, according to the FBI's expert examinations and testimony, and the manufacture of the cases and of the bullets recovered do not coincide. In addition to which both those empty casings and that revolver were unmarked when obtained and then lay around unmarked for hours in an unlocked desk in a police office that also was not locked.
Continuing his switching around Epstein says that before the assassination Marina
had refused to discuss her husband's activities with the FBI. When agents came to the door, she told them they already had her husband under surveillance and knew all there was to know about them. The agents left quietly.
In the weeks ahead she continued to conceal potentially important elements of the case from the FBI (page 248).
She had no “elements of the case" to conceal. She did not answer the door when the FBI knocked on it. Ruth Paine did and Paine, in her testimony, said no such thing. As also Hosty did not.
Marina did change "her story" as Epstein says but that was for a reason he does not give although it is explicit in her testimony, with which from his own accounts Epstein is familiar. She actually testified at her last testimony, in Texas and just before the Report was issued, that the FBI told her that if she did not want to be deported she would do what was expected of her and say what they wanted her to say. This was all drawn together for Epstein as well as for others in the first book on the subject, my 1965 book Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report beginning on page 135. It is based on and includes a lengthy excerpt from that testimony, pages 79 and 80. FBI records later disclosed to me in FOIA litigation revealed that the FBI, not trusting the local Immigration and Naturalization Service official to be tough enough on her, had brought one they did regard as sufficiently tough all the way down from New York. He did lean on her hard enough. She then said what the FBI wanted her to say.
Continuing his switching around Epstein goes back to before the assassination and down to Mexico City again and to the CIA camera surveillance of the Soviet embassy. He writes:
Somehow, despite CIA surveillance, Oswald had managed to enter and leave the Soviet embassy on a number of occasions without being seen. For all the CIA knew, his visits with Kostikov could have taken place under clandestine circumstances which evaded surveillance (page 249).
From the disclosed official evidence not a word of this is true.
Oswald had been inside that embassy on one occasion only, not "on a number of occasions," as without source or proof Epstein says. That one time, the CIA says, with contemporaneous records to prove it, the cameras were malfunctioning and replacements of them had already been requested.
Oswald never met with Kostikov, as the CIA also knew and disclosed. That one time, seeking a visa, he met with Yatskov.
But if it had been Kostikov, as it was not, the CIA had Kostikov under physical surveillance and would have seen any Oswald “clandestine” visit with him.
Epstein has more, mostly conjecture, on Kostikov but with its total lack of relevance it is worth no more time here.
After a bit more switching Epstein is again back in Mexico City. He makes clear just how twisted he was and just how crazy the CIA was.