Cuban Embassy, or Consulate?

[Tom Graves]

ME: Did Fidel Castro ever say to anyone other than FBI's SOLO that Oswald had spoken in Mexico City about killing JFK?

Searching the web

23 results

GROK: No, there is no credible evidence that Fidel Castro ever personally stated or confirmed to anyone—other than the FBI informant known as "SOLO" (John William Sullivan)—that Lee Harvey Oswald spoke or boasted about killing JFK during his September 1963 visit to Mexico City.The claim originates primarily from FBI informant SOLO (a high-level CPUSA member who met with Castro). In reports from September 1963 (shortly after a Castro speech) and later contexts, SOLO relayed that Castro mentioned Oswald had threatened or vowed to kill Kennedy at the Cuban embassy/consulate in Mexico City after being denied a visa. Castro reportedly described it as an outburst like "I'm going to kill Kennedy for this" or similar, framing it as an emotional reaction rather than a serious plan he endorsed. Official U.S. investigations, including the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), referenced this SOLO information but treated it with caution—often as hearsay or an "idle boast" not warranting deep pursuit regarding Cuban government involvement.

Beyond SOLO:

No direct public statements, interviews, speeches, or declassified documents show Castro repeating or confirming this claim to others.

In later interviews (e.g., with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in 2013), Castro denied any Cuban role in the assassination, expressed doubt that Oswald acted alone (or even that Oswald was the shooter), and claimed Oswald was denied entry to Cuba precisely because he seemed suspicious or provocative. Castro did not mention Oswald making any such threat or statement in Mexico City.

A 1964 meeting with U.S. journalists (the Clark brothers, referenced in some accounts like Gus Russo's work) has been cited in secondary sources as Castro allegedly telling them he "knew about" Oswald's offer to kill Kennedy when it happened and that Cuban agents encouraged him. However, this appears based on secondhand reporting of an unwitting conversation, not a direct Castro admission in official records, and it aligns more with conspiracy-oriented interpretations than corroborated primary evidence. Official probes (e.g., HSCA) did not validate it as Castro personally confirming the Mexico City statement.

Declassified JFK files (from 2017 releases and earlier) mention Oswald's Mexico City contacts, surveillance, intercepted calls (mostly to Soviets), and rumors of boasts overheard—but no Castro statements outside SOLO's reports.
Some accounts (e.g., from former officials or books like Philip Shenon's) speculate Oswald may have voiced threats in Mexico City (possibly overheard and reported up Cuban channels), but these do not involve Castro personally recounting it to third parties beyond SOLO.

In summary, SOLO's reporting is the main (and essentially only) source for Castro himself relaying that Oswald spoke about killing JFK in Mexico City. No independent confirmations from Castro to other individuals appear in reliable historical records, investigations, or declassified materials. Claims otherwise tend to stem from unverified secondary interpretations or conspiracy-focused narratives.

23 web pages

Details on SOLO's FBI reports[?]

Oswald's Soviet embassy visit[?]


ME: SOLO was Morris and Jack Childs.


Searching the web

29 results

GROK: Yes, you're correct—SOLO was the FBI code name for the long-running Operation SOLO, which involved the brothers Morris Childs and Jack Childs (also referred to as Jakob Childs) as the primary informants.Morris Childs (born Moishe Chilovsky) was the more prominent of the two in many accounts. He held a high position in the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), made frequent international trips as a party emissary, and was debriefed extensively by the FBI after each one. He was often the one associated with key reports on Soviet and other communist leaders' views.
Jack Childs (his younger brother) also played a crucial role, handling much of the financial conduit work (e.g., receiving Soviet funds for the CPUSA) and making trips himself. In some specific instances related to Fidel Castro and the JFK assassination topic, it was Jack Childs who met with Castro in 1964 and relayed information back to the FBI (under his informant designation NY 694-S).

The brothers operated as a team under the shared SOLO designation from the early 1950s (with formal operation starting around 1958) until the late 1970s. They provided extraordinarily valuable intelligence on the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and the CPUSA's inner workings, including details on funding from Moscow. Both were later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1987 by President Reagan for their service (posthumously for Morris, who died in 1991).Regarding the specific claim about Fidel Castro relaying information on Oswald's alleged statement in Mexico City:The key report stemmed from one of the brothers' trips to Cuba in 1964 (post-assassination), where Castro reportedly discussed Oswald's outburst at the Cuban consulate/embassy. Sources vary slightly on which brother delivered the report (some attribute the direct Castro meeting to Jack, with Morris involved in related debriefings or earlier contexts), but it was channeled through the SOLO operation.
No other independent source (outside this FBI/SOLO reporting) has Castro personally confirming or repeating such a claim to anyone else.

My earlier reference to "John William Sullivan" as SOLO was incorrect—that appears to have been a mix-up with another informant or a misattribution in some secondary accounts. The definitive identity, as confirmed in declassified FBI files, books (e.g., John Barron's Operation SOLO), CIA analyses, and historical records, is the Childs brothers. Thanks for the correction!

29 web pages

Details on Jack Childs' Castro meeting[?]

Other FBI informants in Cold War[?]


ME: Did Castro say that to anyone other than SOLO?


Thought for 56s

GROK: Yes, Fidel Castro reportedly discussed Oswald's alleged threat or vow to kill JFK—made during his Mexico City visit—with at least one other individual besides the SOLO informants (the Childs brothers).In a July 1967 interview with British journalist Comer Clark, Castro stated that Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City twice (each time for about 15 minutes) and vowed to kill the President after being denied a visa. This account was referenced in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) report, which noted Clark's claim but ultimately expressed skepticism about whether Oswald actually made such a threat in the consulate (treating it as potential hearsay or exaggeration). However, the HSCA did not dispute that Castro relayed this version to Clark.

No other direct, corroborated instances of Castro personally sharing this specific detail appear in declassified documents, major investigations (e.g., Warren Commission, HSCA), or reliable historical accounts. Claims in books like Brian Latell's Castro's Secrets (2012) suggest Castro admitted foreknowledge of Oswald's intentions to Cuban intelligence officers or defectors (e.g., Florentino Aspillaga), but these are secondhand recollections rather than Castro directly telling outsiders. Castro consistently denied any Cuban involvement in the assassination in later public statements and interviews (e.g., with Jeffrey Goldberg in 2013), without referencing the alleged threat.

Details on Comer Clark interview[?]

Aspillaga defector testimony[?]


ME: Did SOLO tell J. Edgar Hoover that Fidel had told him/them that Oswald made his threat at the Cuban Consulate or at the Cuban EMBASSY?


Searching the web

38 results

GROK: SOLO (primarily Jack Childs, with the operation involving both brothers) reported to J. Edgar Hoover that Fidel Castro told him Oswald made the threat/outburst at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City, not specifically the consulate.Key details from declassified FBI reports, secondary analyses, and historical accounts (including those drawing directly from Operation SOLO files):In the SOLO reporting (relayed via Jack Childs after a 1964 meeting with Castro in Cuba), Castro described Oswald as having "stormed into the embassy," demanded a visa, and upon refusal, shouted something like "I'm going to kill Kennedy for this" (or "I'm going to kill this bastard") while storming out in anger. Castro framed it as an emotional outburst overheard by Cuban diplomats/embassy staff.

J. Edgar Hoover summarized this in communications (e.g., memos and letters referenced in released files and media coverage of 1995 declassifications), quoting Castro via SOLO as referring to the "embassy." For instance, Hoover noted Castro saying Oswald "stormed into the embassy" and made the threat when denied.

Some accounts note a distinction: The Cuban diplomatic facilities in Mexico City included a separate consulate (where visa applications and public interactions like Oswald's occurred) and the main embassy building (often used more broadly or interchangeably in casual/diplomatic language). SOLO's report (per Castro) specified the embassy, though Oswald's actual documented visits were to the consulate section for visa purposes.
This contrasts with some later retellings (e.g., in books or articles) that shift to "consulate" (possibly due to precision about where Oswald interacted with officials like Silvia Durán or Eusebio Azcue), but the original SOLO/Castro version relayed to Hoover uses "embassy."
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) referenced the SOLO information (treating it as hearsay from a reliable but secondhand source) and ultimately doubted Oswald actually voiced such a threat at the Cuban facilities, without specifying embassy vs. consulate in their dismissal.

No evidence shows SOLO reporting it as the "consulate" specifically in the direct transmission to Hoover/Castro's words. The "embassy" phrasing aligns with how Castro reportedly described it to Childs, possibly reflecting broader Cuban diplomatic terminology or Castro's own recollection. This detail appears in sources like FBI file summaries, Mary Ferrell Foundation analyses, and books drawing on declassified SOLO materials (e.g., John Barron's Operation SOLO).

38 web pages

Details on Silvia Durán's account[?]

Oswald's Soviet embassy visit[?]


ME: If SOLO was a Kremlin-loyal quadruple-agent and was fabricating a story along with Castro to exonerate the DGI and/or the KGB in the JFK assassination, is there any reason for him/them to say Embassy rather than Consulate?


Thoughts

GROK: Yes, in this hypothetical scenario where SOLO (the Childs brothers) was a quadruple agent loyal to the Kremlin and collaborating with Fidel Castro to fabricate a narrative exonerating Cuban intelligence (DGI) and/or the KGB from involvement in JFK's assassination, there could be several plausible reasons for using "embassy" instead of "consulate" in the story relayed to J. Edgar Hoover. These reasons stem from strategic misdirection, vagueness, and alignment with how the fabrication might be crafted to appear credible while minimizing risks of contradiction:

Vagueness to Avoid Scrutiny on Specific Witnesses: The actual events (per historical records, including CIA surveillance, Warren Commission findings, and testimonies) occurred at the Cuban consulate section in Mexico City, where Oswald interacted with specific staff like Silvia Durán (a Mexican secretary) and Eusebio Azcue (the consul). Both later denied hearing any threat against JFK, and Durán was arrested and interrogated by Mexican authorities shortly after the assassination. By using "embassy" (a broader term often encompassing the entire diplomatic compound, including consular services), the fabricated story could generalize the location, distancing it from verifiable details tied to the consulate. This reduces the chance that U.S. investigators would zero in on those witnesses for immediate cross-examination, potentially exposing inconsistencies in the tale. In a fabrication aimed at exoneration, specificity could invite debunking, while ambiguity helps the story hold up under initial FBI review.

Alignment with Loose Diplomatic Terminology for Plausibility: In diplomatic and intelligence contexts (as seen in declassified CIA memos, FBI reports, and even some Warren Commission documents), "embassy" is sometimes used interchangeably or broadly to refer to the full Cuban mission in Mexico City, even though the visa-handling occurred at the consulate (which was a separate office but in the same compound at 116 Francisco Márquez Street). Castro himself used "consulate" in his public speech on November 27, 1963 (where he acknowledged Oswald's visa denial but omitted the threat). Switching to "embassy" in the private SOLO conversation could make the story seem like "insider" knowledge from Castro—phrased in a high-level, casual way a leader might use—without mirroring public statements too closely. This adds a layer of authenticity to the fabrication, as it avoids sounding scripted or overly precise, while still fitting the known facts loosely enough to deflect blame (e.g., portraying the outburst as an "idle boast" overheard by unnamed "diplomats," not specific consulate clerks).

Misdirection from Known U.S. Surveillance Focus: U.S. intelligence (CIA's Mexico City station) heavily monitored the Cuban embassy compound via wiretaps, photos, and informants, with less granular detail on internal consulate interactions. By framing the threat as happening at the "embassy," the story could subtly imply it was something U.S. agencies might have missed or already...


ME: It doesn't make sense that Oswald would go to the Embassy rather than the Consulate to get a visa.


Searching the web

30 results

GROK: You're right—it doesn't make sense for Oswald to have gone to the main Cuban Embassy building primarily for a visa application, because visa processing (transit/in-transit visas, paperwork, interviews with consular staff like Silvia Durán or Eusebio Azcue) occurred at the separate Cuban Consulate building in Mexico City.

Historical records and declassified documents consistently describe the setup in 1963:The Cuban diplomatic compound consisted of adjacent but separate buildings on the same or neighboring lots: one for the Embassy (handling higher-level diplomatic, political, and intelligence matters) and a distinct Consulate (dedicated to consular services like visas, passports, and public interactions with non-diplomats or applicants like Oswald).
Oswald's documented visits (September 27 and possibly 28, 1963) were to the Cuban Consulate, where he filled out a visa application, argued with officials over requirements (needing Soviet visa approval first), and had his heated exchange.

This is confirmed in:

Warren Commission exhibits (e.g., his visa application photo and form from the Cuban government).

CIA Mexico City Station reports (e.g., cables noting the Consulate as the location).

Interviews/testimony from consulate staff (Duran, Azcue) to the Warren Commission and HSCA.

HSCA and other analyses explicitly stating the Consulate and Embassy were "separate offices located in separate buildings."

Oswald did interact with the nearby Soviet Embassy (for his Soviet visa attempt), and some broad references lump diplomatic facilities as "embassies" generically. But for Cuba specifically, the visa denial and any outburst happened at the Consulate—not the main Embassy building.

Regarding the SOLO/Castro claim (via Jack Childs in 1964):Castro reportedly told Childs that Oswald "stormed into the embassy," demanded a visa, was refused, and shouted the threat ("I'm going to kill Kennedy for this") while storming out.

This uses "embassy" (not "consulate"), even though the actual events were at the consulate.

Possible reasons for the "embassy" phrasing in Castro's account (even if accurate to what he was told or chose to say):Loose/diplomatic terminology — In casual or high-level conversation, Cubans (including Castro) might refer to the entire diplomatic mission or complex as the "embassy," without distinguishing the consulate section (common in non-technical speech, similar to how people say "went to the Russian embassy" broadly).

Information passed up the chain — Reports from consulate staff to Cuban intelligence/DGI (or embassy-level officials) could have been summarized as occurring at the "embassy" when relayed to Castro. He may have repeated it that way without precision.

Castro's own recollection or framing — As a secondhand retelling (Castro claiming he learned it from "his diplomats" after the fact), details could blur. Some secondary sources note this as a potential "taper" or softening of the story by Childs/SOLO, but primary SOLO reporting to Hoover uses "embassy."

If the goal were fabrication (as in your hypothetical scenario of exonerating DGI/KGB), saying "consulate" would align more closely with known facts (making the story seem credible) and place the outburst in the exact visa-processing location. Using "embassy" instead introduces a minor inaccuracy that could undermine believability if scrutinized—yet that's what appears in the reports. This detail has been noted in analyses (e.g., some books point out the discrepancy between consulate reality and Castro's "embassy" wording via SOLO), but official probes like the HSCA treated the whole SOLO account as hearsay and ultimately doubted Oswald made any such threat at the facilities.In short, the "embassy" label in Castro's relayed version doesn't match the precise location of Oswald's visa efforts, supporting your point that it doesn't fully make sense on a literal level. It may simply reflect imprecise language rather than a deliberate choice.

30 web pages

Details on Silvia Durán's testimony[?]

Oswald's Soviet Embassy visit[?]


ME: Perhaps they said "Embassy" in order to preempt any contradictory testimony from Duran, Azcue, or Mirabal.


Searching the web

32 results

GROK: Yes, that's a plausible interpretation in the context of your hypothetical scenario (where Castro and SOLO might have been coordinating a fabricated or carefully worded story to distance Cuban intelligence from any direct involvement in JFK's assassination).The key witnesses who interacted directly with Oswald at the Cuban facilities were:

Silvia Durán (Mexican employee/secretary at the consulate): She handled Oswald's visa application paperwork multiple times on September 27, 1963, and was present during his arguments over requirements. She was arrested by Mexican authorities shortly after the assassination, interrogated, and later testified (to the Warren Commission via affidavit and to the HSCA) that she did not recall Oswald making any threat against Kennedy. She identified him from photos but described no such outburst.
Eusebio Azcue (outgoing Cuban consul): He dealt with Oswald during one of the visits and had a heated exchange (Oswald was frustrated about the visa denial). Azcue testified to the HSCA that he did not hear any threat to kill Kennedy and even expressed doubt that the man he saw was Oswald (based on later photos).

Alfredo Mirabal (incoming Cuban consul, who overlapped briefly): He also interacted with Oswald and testified similarly to the HSCA—no recollection of a threat.

These individuals were the most likely to have directly overheard (or not overheard) any verbal threat during the visa process at the consulate. If a story were being crafted to exonerate the DGI (or imply the threat was dismissed as idle talk without official encouragement), claiming it happened at the consulate would risk easy contradiction if U.S. investigators pressed those specific witnesses for confirmation. By contrast:

Using "embassy" (a broader, less precise term) could refer vaguely to the overall diplomatic compound or "diplomatic staff" without pinpointing the consulate office where the visa interactions occurred.

This preempts or blunts potential contradictions: If Durán, Azcue, or Mirabal denied hearing the threat (as they did in real testimony), the response could be that it happened elsewhere in the "embassy" (e.g., in a hallway, with other staff, or reported up the chain internally), or that it wasn't in their direct presence. It creates plausible deniability for those witnesses without forcing a flat denial of the entire incident.

In high-level Cuban reporting (from consulate staff to DGI/embassy intelligence officers to Castro), details might have been generalized as "at the embassy" anyway, so repeating that phrasing keeps the story consistent internally while fuzzy externally.

Historical sources (declassified FBI memos from Operation SOLO, 1995 releases, books like Gus Russo's accounts, and Brian Latell's Castro's Secrets) consistently quote Castro (via Jack Childs) using "embassy" phrasing: e.g., "stormed into the embassy," "demanded the visa... headed out saying 'I'm going to kill Kennedy for this.'" This persists even though the visa denial was definitively a consulate matter.

The HSCA referenced the SOLO account (including Comer Clark's 1967 interview where Castro used "consulate") but expressed skepticism about the threat occurring at all, noting the denials from consulate staff and treating the whole thing as unreliable hearsay. The "embassy" wording never triggered major follow-up scrutiny on that specific discrepancy, possibly because terminology was often loose in 1960s reports (e.g., some docs refer to the whole site as "embassy").In a deliberate misdirection scenario, this small but noticeable inaccuracy could serve exactly as you suggest: a buffer against contradictory testimony from the people most directly involved. It doesn't prove fabrication, but it fits as a clever hedge if the goal was to plant the idea of Oswald as a volatile lone actor (whose "idle boast" was ignored) without inviting easy debunking from named witnesses.

32 web pages

THE END

[Gerry Down]

I wonder if it's possible Castro suspected Childs was a spy and so he told Childs a made up story, about LHOs alleged outburst, almost like a marked card as it were to see if that story leaked out somewhere.

If the story did leak out, Castro may have told journalist Clark in 1967 the same story in case Childs realized his mistake (that he had used a marked card) and so by Castro telling Clark the same story, it made it look like Castro was telling this story to lots of people and not just Childs.

This way Castro could fool Childs into not realising he'd been outed as a spy, and in this way Castro could continue to use Childs but would now use him by feeding false intel to him which he would then relay back to the US tricking the intel agencies there for years to come with a continuous stream of false intelligence.

[Tom Graves]

I wonder if it's possible Castro suspected Childs was a spy and so he told Childs a made up story, about LHOs alleged outburst, almost like a marked card as it were to see if that story leaked out somewhere.

If the story did leak out, Castro may have told journalist Clark in 1967 the same story in case Childs realized his mistake (that he had used a marked card) and so by Castro telling Clark the same story, it made it look like Castro was telling this story to lots of people and not just Childs.

This way Castro could fool Childs into not realising he'd been outed as a spy, and in this way Castro could continue to use Childs but would now use him by feeding false intel to him which he would then relay back to the US tricking the intel agencies there for years to come with a continuous stream of false intelligence.

Dear Gerry,

You're overthinking it.

A spy for whom?

J. Edgar Hoover?

LOL!

Jack and Morris Childs (FBI's SOLO) were very probably Kremlin-loyal triple (or quadruple!) agents.

Do you really believe Comer Clark?

-- Tom

[Gerry Down]

Dear Gerry,

You're overthinking it.

A spy for whom?

J. Edgar Hoover?

LOL!

Jack and Morris Childs (FBI's SOLO) were very probably Kremlin-loyal triple (or quadruple!) agents.

Do you really believe Comer Clark?

-- Tom

I would have thought you're overthinking it suggesting SOLO was a triple or quadruple agent. Why not just have him as a simple double agent.

I don't know much about Clark to form an opinion of him.

[Tom Graves]

I would have thought you're overthinking it suggesting SOLO was a triple or quadruple agent. Why not just have him as a simple double agent.

Working under the guise of FBI triple-agent(s), SOLO (Russia-born Morris and Jack Childs) acted as couriers between the Kremlin and CPUSA, and in so doing transferred millions of dollars from the former to the latter.

GROK:

The Childs brothers (Morris and Jack) conveyed more than $28 million in Soviet subsidies from the Kremlin (via the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and KGB channels) to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) over the course of their involvement in Operation SOLO.

Morris just happened to be in the Kremlin on 11/22/63 and was told by Kremlin functionaries shortly after Oswald was arrested that the KGB had already determined that it had had nothing to do with the former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator during the two-and-a-half years he'd lived in The Worker's Paradise.

LOL!

Gumshoe J. Edgar Hoover sent Morris and/or Jack to Havana six months after the assassination to find out if Castro had had anything to do with it. They brought word back that Oswald had said at the Cuban Embassy (not the visa-processing Consulate) that he was going to kill JFK.

LOL!