Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

False allegations from agent “D” about assassination payment

This section details the investigation of false allegations from a young Latin American secret agent codenamed “D,” who claimed to have witnessed Lee Harvey Oswald receive $6,500 from a tall, thin red-haired Black man at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City to assassinate the President. “D” alleged he overheard a partial conversation in English and Spanish between the man and Oswald, and that he attempted to warn the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City of a planned killing of a prominent U.S. figure prior to the assassination but was told to stop wasting time. Intensive investigation found “D” had no verifiable record of the assignment he described, and Mexican authorities confirmed he admitted in writing that his entire narrative was fabricated to gain U.S. entry to support anti-Castro action against Fidel Castro. Discrepancies in his story, including Oswald’s limited Spanish skills, verifiable alibi evidence that Oswald was in New Orleans on the date “D” claimed to have seen him, and no Embassy records of “D”’s purported calls, confirmed his account was false. A later retraction of his recantation, in which he claimed Mexican police pressured him to lie, was also disproven via polygraph testing and evidence inconsistencies.

Debunking of Cuba-related assassination conspiracy claims

This section presents the Commission’s conclusive findings that there is no evidence linking Oswald’s September 1963 trip to Mexico City to the JFK assassination, nor any evidence of Cuban government involvement in the assassination. CIA and FBI sources corroborated the account of Senora Duran in all material respects, confirming the Cuban government had no relationship with Oswald beyond what Duran described. Secretary of State Rusk testified that Cuba expressed very significant concern after the assassination about being held responsible for the attack and the potential impact on its own safety and position.

Oswald’s contacts with the U.S. Soviet Embassy

This section documents Oswald’s confirmed contacts with the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. after his return to the United States in June 1962. It notes that Oswald wrote to the Embassy requesting information on subscriptions to Russian newspapers and magazines, which he ultimately pursued, and that his wife Marina, as a Soviet citizen living abroad, was required by Soviet law to maintain regular contact with the Embassy for administrative purposes. In 1963, after Oswald faced repeated employment difficulties, the couple submitted a formal request for permission to return to the Soviet Union: Marina’s February 17, 1963 letter stated she wished to return to Russia while her husband would remain in the U.S. as an American national. The Soviet Union provided the Commission with its full correspondence with the Oswalds, which contained no detectable codes, and no suspicious content aside from a November 1963 letter from Oswald to the Embassy discussed later in the chapter.

Analysis of Oswald’s November 1963 Soviet Embassy letter

This section analyzes Oswald’s November 9, 1963 letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C., which referenced his meetings with Soviet Embassy official Comrade Kostin (identified by the CIA as KGB officer Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov) in Mexico City, and mentioned a Cuban consul (identified as Eusebio Azque, who was permanently transferred from Mexico to Cuba on November 18, 1963, four days before the assassination) with whom Oswald had a dispute. Comparing the final letter to a preliminary draft found among Oswald’s possessions, the Commission found Oswald intentionally altered details to make his Mexico trip appear more mysterious and important than it was. For example, he falsely claimed he left Mexico due to expiring 15-day visa restrictions (his tourist card still had a full week of validity when he departed on October 3) rather than because he found the trip useless, and falsely claimed he returned to the U.S. using his real name to request a new visa when he had used his real name for all official dealings during the trip. The Commission concluded the letter was a clumsy attempt to ingratiate himself with the Soviet Embassy, with no conspiratorial implications.