Jump to content
The Education Forum

Silvia Odio and Other Inconvenient Witnesses


Recommended Posts

It has become fashionable for many JFK assassination researchers to adopt revisionist postures towards once seminal pro-conspiracy witnesses. On this forum alone, much time and effort was devoted in attempting to destroy the credibility of Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell and Ralph Yates. Now it is being suggested that Silvia Odio didn't encounter an Oswald impersonator, yet somehow wasn't lying.

In her Warren Commission testimony, Silvia Odio stated, in regards to her FBI interview:

"...And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald...." (WC Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. 11, p. 369)

This is crucial, because it has been stated that Odio testified that the angry, ex-marine who hated Kennedy was only referred to as "Leon." It is technically true that she did state, later in her testimony, that in the subsequent phone call from "Leopoldo," he was referred to only as "Leon, but Odio clearly testified that, when the men first visited her residence, they introduced him as Leon Oswald.

The Warren Commission couldn't discredit Odio, and even the HSCA essentially accepted her story. Sylvia Meagher called the Odio incident "the proof of the plot." Why there is an effort to discredit Odio's story, by researchers who believe there was a conspiracy, is beyond me.

The series of encounters with Oswald impostors in the weeks leading up to the assassination are one of the strongest indicators we have of conspiratorial behavior. There seems to be an inordinate desire on the part of too many researchers now to scrutinize witnesses whose testimony buttressed the case for conspiracy, to the extent of dissecting their lives, in what I believe is a misguided effort to cleanse the community of "far out" theories that somehow weaken the arguments against the official story.

This is an issue apart from the "Harvey and Lee" thesis, although it obviously may buttress that theory. To diminish the nature of the Oswald impersonations is to dismiss one of the most overt examples of conspiratorial behavior that we have in the record.

As I've noted on this forum before, no evidence has emerged in recent years to cause this curious backsliding by researchers. The Umbrella Man was a strange figure, and he wasn't Steven Witt. There were lots of mysterious deaths associated with the assassination. There is at the very least serious doubt about the figure in the TSBD doorway (not to mention the doubts about just who "Prayer Man" is), there is again at least serious doubt about a bullet hole in the limo's windshield, and there is no rational reason to raise the bullet hole location in JFK's back, as it was documented in the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill and the clothing itself.

Research that has been conducted since the first generation of critics raised these valid questions has only solidified the case for conspiracy. Nothing can rehabilitate the absurd fairy tale devised by the FBI, Dallas Police, Warren Commission and mainstream media. We should be building upon the solid foundation constructed by Lane, Weisberg, Meagher and others, not chipping away senselessly at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don,

I agree that when a credible witness becomes inconvenient to one's theory, it's the theory that needs adjusting. Failure to follow this principle is central to the Warren Report.

Question: Assuming Odio is credible, do you believe she encountered Marina's husband, or someone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

I don't think Oswald was trying to incriminate himself, so I'd have to say that the Odio incident, along with several other similar encounters, was part of an orchestrated campaign to frame him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don - I completely agree with your basic premise, as restated by Jon, that when a credible witness doesn't fit ones theory it is the theory that needs adjusting. But refresh my memory - did the Oswald that visited Odio do anything in person to incriminate himself? I recall the followup phone call by Leopoldo was quite incriminating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I believe the phone call was certainly more incriminating, but when he was introduced to Odio (he was an American, and appeared not to understand much of the conversation, which was in English), "Oswald" was portrayed primarily as someone who might be willing to help overthrow Castro. It was the phone conversation from "Leopoldo" the next day, in which he was quoted as saying the Cubans "lacked guts" and that they should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs.

To add to what I wrote earlier, during her 1976 interview, Silvia Odio reiterated that the American had been introduced to her as "Leon Oswald," and also added that he himself had said "My name is Leon Oswald."

Whoever the American was, he wasn't the real Oswald. And the primary purpose of the visit to Odio certainly seems to have been to introduce the Oswald name, and associate it with the marines, anti-communism and a hatred of President Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I believe the phone call was certainly more incriminating, but when he was introduced to Odio (he was an American, and appeared not to understand much of the conversation, which was in Spanish), "Oswald" was portrayed primarily as someone who might be willing to help overthrow Castro. It was the phone conversation from "Leopoldo" the next day, in which he was quoted as saying the Cubans "lacked guts" and that they should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs.

To add to what I wrote earlier, during her 1976 interview, Silvia Odio reiterated that the American had been introduced to her as "Leon Oswald," and also added that he himself had said "My name is Leon Oswald."

Whoever the American was, he wasn't the real Oswald. And the primary purpose of the visit to Odio certainly seems to have been to introduce the Oswald name, and associate it with the marines, anti-communism and a hatred of President Kennedy.

Dear Mr. Jeffries,

The conversation was in Spanish.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for correcting my typo, Thomas. I meant to type "Spanish," as indicated by noting that the American didn't understand the conversation.

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It has become fashionable for many JFK assassination researchers to adopt revisionist postures towards once seminal pro-conspiracy witnesses. On this forum alone, much time and effort was devoted in attempting to destroy the credibility of Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell and Ralph Yates. Now it is being suggested that Silvia Odio didn't encounter an Oswald impersonator, yet somehow wasn't lying.

In her Warren Commission testimony, Silvia Odio stated, in regards to her FBI interview:

"...And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald...." (WC Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. 11, p. 369)

This is crucial, because it has been stated that Odio testified that the angry, ex-marine who hated Kennedy was only referred to as "Leon." It is technically true that she did state, later in her testimony, that in the subsequent phone call from "Leopoldo," he was referred to only as "Leon, but Odio clearly testified that, when the men first visited her residence, they introduced him as Leon Oswald.

The Warren Commission couldn't discredit Odio, and even the HSCA essentially accepted her story. Sylvia Meagher called the Odio incident "the proof of the plot." Why there is an effort to discredit Odio's story, by researchers who believe there was a conspiracy, is beyond me.

The series of encounters with Oswald impostors in the weeks leading up to the assassination are one of the strongest indicators we have of conspiratorial behavior. There seems to be an inordinate desire on the part of too many researchers now to scrutinize witnesses whose testimony buttressed the case for conspiracy, to the extent of dissecting their lives, in what I believe is a misguided effort to cleanse the community of "far out" theories that somehow weaken the arguments against the official story.

This is an issue apart from the "Harvey and Lee" thesis, although it obviously may buttress that theory. To diminish the nature of the Oswald impersonations is to dismiss one of the most overt examples of conspiratorial behavior that we have in the record.

As I've noted on this forum before, no evidence has emerged in recent years to cause this curious backsliding by researchers. The Umbrella Man was a strange figure, and he wasn't Steven Witt. There were lots of mysterious deaths associated with the assassination. There is at the very least serious doubt about the figure in the TSBD doorway (not to mention the doubts about just who "Prayer Man" is), there is again at least serious doubt about a bullet hole in the limo's windshield, and there is no rational reason to raise the bullet hole location in JFK's back, as it was documented in the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill and the clothing itself.

Research that has been conducted since the first generation of critics raised these valid questions has only solidified the case for conspiracy. Nothing can rehabilitate the absurd fairy tale devised by the FBI, Dallas Police, Warren Commission and mainstream media. We should be building upon the solid foundation constructed by Lane, Weisberg, Meagher and others, not chipping away senselessly at it.

I have no idea why you say the umbrella man was not Steve Witt.

As I have written years ago, I knew someone well who knew the Umbrella Man's dentist, and so I heard the umbrella man's story at least a year (or more) before the HSCA hearings.

What is the basis for your asserting that the man with the umbrella in Dealey Plaza was not Steve Witt?

DSL

4/21/15

Los Angeles, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has become fashionable for many JFK assassination researchers to adopt revisionist postures towards once seminal pro-conspiracy witnesses. On this forum alone, much time and effort was devoted in attempting to destroy the credibility of Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell and Ralph Yates. Now it is being suggested that Silvia Odio didn't encounter an Oswald impersonator, yet somehow wasn't lying.

In her Warren Commission testimony, Silvia Odio stated, in regards to her FBI interview:

"...And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald...." (WC Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. 11, p. 369)

This is crucial, because it has been stated that Odio testified that the angry, ex-marine who hated Kennedy was only referred to as "Leon." It is technically true that she did state, later in her testimony, that in the subsequent phone call from "Leopoldo," he was referred to only as "Leon, but Odio clearly testified that, when the men first visited her residence, they introduced him as Leon Oswald.

The Warren Commission couldn't discredit Odio, and even the HSCA essentially accepted her story. Sylvia Meagher called the Odio incident "the proof of the plot." Why there is an effort to discredit Odio's story, by researchers who believe there was a conspiracy, is beyond me.

The series of encounters with Oswald impostors in the weeks leading up to the assassination are one of the strongest indicators we have of conspiratorial behavior. There seems to be an inordinate desire on the part of too many researchers now to scrutinize witnesses whose testimony buttressed the case for conspiracy, to the extent of dissecting their lives, in what I believe is a misguided effort to cleanse the community of "far out" theories that somehow weaken the arguments against the official story.

This is an issue apart from the "Harvey and Lee" thesis, although it obviously may buttress that theory. To diminish the nature of the Oswald impersonations is to dismiss one of the most overt examples of conspiratorial behavior that we have in the record.

As I've noted on this forum before, no evidence has emerged in recent years to cause this curious backsliding by researchers. The Umbrella Man was a strange figure, and he wasn't Steven Witt. There were lots of mysterious deaths associated with the assassination. There is at the very least serious doubt about the figure in the TSBD doorway (not to mention the doubts about just who "Prayer Man" is), there is again at least serious doubt about a bullet hole in the limo's windshield, and there is no rational reason to raise the bullet hole location in JFK's back, as it was documented in the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill and the clothing itself.

Research that has been conducted since the first generation of critics raised these valid questions has only solidified the case for conspiracy. Nothing can rehabilitate the absurd fairy tale devised by the FBI, Dallas Police, Warren Commission and mainstream media. We should be building upon the solid foundation constructed by Lane, Weisberg, Meagher and others, not chipping away senselessly at it.

I have no idea why you say the umbrella man was not Steve Witt.

As I have written years ago, I knew someone well who knew the Umbrella Man's dentist, and so I heard the umbrella man's story at least a year (or more) before the HSCA hearings.

What is the basis for your asserting that the man with the umbrella in Dealey Plaza was not Steve Witt?

DSL

4/21/15

Los Angeles, California

Witt's description of his actions before, during, and after the shots do not jibe with what he is seen doing in the films and photographs.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has become fashionable for many JFK assassination researchers to adopt revisionist postures towards once seminal pro-conspiracy witnesses. On this forum alone, much time and effort was devoted in attempting to destroy the credibility of Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell and Ralph Yates. Now it is being suggested that Silvia Odio didn't encounter an Oswald impersonator, yet somehow wasn't lying.

Well said, Don.

In her Warren Commission testimony, Silvia Odio stated, in regards to her FBI interview:

"...And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald...." (WC Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. 11, p. 369)

Interesting that "Leon's" companions used their "war names," and only "Oswald" gave his last name. "Leon" is so close to "Lee" I have to wonder why they bothered to change it. Unless of course they wanted to create the impression that Oswald was using a fake name while being certain that the Odios would make the connection to "Lee" if he happened to become well known some time in the near future.

It appears that Leon had nothing to contribute to the meeting with Odio, so why was he there? OTOH, the phone call subsequent to the meeting was primarily, if not entirely to depict Leon as a crazy American capable of assassination. It is likely that "Leon" had no knowledge of the phone call. Certainly it would have been more effective to have Leon himself, at the in-person meeting, angrily display the image that was portrayed during the phone call. But if "Leon" was Lee would he have done this?

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah so! I was going to ask why someone impersonating Lee Harvey would be called Leon instead. But the Spanish may explain it. Maybe the name Lee is typically Leon (it would have been pronounced Le-ON) in Spanish. I know that Charlene, for example, becomes Carlota in Spanish. OTOH I spent two years in Peru, and in Spanish I was always called Ronald (not Ron, which is "rum" in Spanish), not Reynaldo or some such. So I'm curious at to the use of Leon for Lee in Spanish.

Edit: Again I'm incapable of using the quote function here. Is it just me?

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has become fashionable for many JFK assassination researchers to adopt revisionist postures towards once seminal pro-conspiracy witnesses. On this forum alone, much time and effort was devoted in attempting to destroy the credibility of Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell and Ralph Yates. Now it is being suggested that Silvia Odio didn't encounter an Oswald impersonator, yet somehow wasn't lying.

Well said, Don.

In her Warren Commission testimony, Silvia Odio stated, in regards to her FBI interview:

"...And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald...." (WC Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. 11, p. 369)

Interesting that "Leon's" companions used their "war names," and only "Oswald" gave his last name. "Leon" is so close to "Lee" I have to wonder why they bothered to change it. Unless of course they wanted to create the impression that Oswald was using a fake name while being certain that the Odios would make the connection to "Lee" if he happened to become well known some time in the near future.

It appears that Leon had nothing to contribute to the meeting with Odio, so why was he there? OTOH, the phone call subsequent to the meeting was primarily, if not entirely to depict Leon as a crazy American capable of assassination. It is likely that "Leon" had no knowledge of the phone call. Certainly it would have been more effective to have Leon himself, at the in-person meeting, angrily display the image that was portrayed during the phone call. But if "Leon" was Lee would he have done this?

Tom

What has become fashionable - at least among the crowd I hang with is following the evidence wherever it leads. Sticking to orthodoxy belief because changing ones mindset is difficult, or because you have tied your own credibility to it, or because you grew up with one dogma or another and you have a knee jerk reaction to anyone disturbing your comfort zone, is the real issue.

And Tom, I'm sorry, but calling him "Leon" that Oswald was using a fake name like the others, but close enough to his real name so she'd later make the connection, is just lame. Your second para is much better. It is something I once considered myself. If I thought for a minute this really was Lee, I'd probably go with what you suggest.

But the whole notion of these doppelgangers is just loony tunes.

Don has a doppelganger who was privy to conversations Oswald had months earlier, he's got the government sending a thug to beat up on Bogard despite already successfully disposing of his testimony as useless, he's got Maynard G Krebbs as Oswald's doppelganger for Odio. And as I pointed out, Oswald simply changing "Lee" for "Leon" not only makes no sense as an alias to disguise who you are - it makes no sense as someone impersonating him to tie him to anything nefarious - otherwise you would give the name correctly as "Lee Oswald".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah so! I was going to ask why someone impersonating Lee Harvey would be called Leon instead. But the Spanish may explain it. Maybe the name Lee is typically Leon (it would have been pronounced Le-ON) in Spanish. I know that Charlene, for example, becomes Carlota in Spanish. OTOH I spent two years in Peru, and in Spanish I was always called Ronald (not Ron, which is "rum" in Spanish), not Reynaldo or some such. So I'm curious at to the use of Leon for Lee in Spanish.

Edit: Again I'm incapable of using the quote function here. Is it just me?

Or more mundanely, the guy's name really was Leon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or more mundanely, the guy's name really was Leon.

Then I'm confused and will just stay out of the discussion.

Hey, I used the quote function correctly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...