Leopoldo and Angel

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, you could only disqualify de Torres if you believed his remark about knowing Odio in Cuba. Most likely, if he did go to Dallas that would have been a lie to cover up his motive.

If you look into it further you find that there would have been an immense social gulf between his family and hers. Also, de Torres is the real deal, you can find him present on exile boat missions and with true contacts to the real operation players in the exile community. Basically he was he read deal as compared to Hall who was nothing but a talker...

Heck Hall was so general mistrusted that the John Birch society guys in California made him take a polygraph before they would even let him address their group. On the other hand de Torres had truly deep connections and appeared to have been widely trusted by the most activist groups ranging from Commandos L to Alpha 66....

Well, Larry, I reviewed Joan Mellen's, FAREWELL TO JUSTICE (2005) again, and I think I can respond to your challenges here.

(1) First, you want to claim that De Torres was lying about knowing Odio in Cuba so that you can make the case that he was "Leopoldo" (who was a total stranger to Odio). But one can only be certain that a person is lying when they actively contradict themselves. De Torres did not contradict himself -- your position is attributing a lie to him to fit your theory.

(2) Secondly, De Torres never *claimed* to be Leonardo. According to Joan Mellen, it was only Angel Murgado, a Cuban and a friend of De Torress, who claimed that.

Yet there are major problems with Angel Murgado's story -- he contradicted himself. We can see this on the Spartacus site. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmurgado.htm

Murgado said that he and De Torres went to visit Silvia Odio, but that Lee Harvey Oswald as already there, sitting with Silvia in her living room. Nor did Murgado ever meet Oswald beore that moment (or after) or even shake hands with him (said his son, Amaury Murgado to John Simkin in 2005).

This is the opposite of what Silvia testified about Angelo -- who drove up with Oswald in a car with Leopoldo. Also, Angelo was given as a war name -- not his real name. Also, Angelo was a Mexican, not a Cuban (and though Anglos can rarely tell the difference, Cubans can tell the difference immediately). Also, Lee Harvey Oswald never set foot inside her house, she said.

So, Angel Murgado never actually met Lee Harvey Oswald, he said -- except at that moment.

So, to be as generous as possible, then De Torres and Angelo visited Odio at some other time, and met some other person in her living room who might have looked like Oswald. Angelo said he never even spoke to whoever it was, because "his business was with Silvio Odio."

(3) Thirdly, you say there was an immense social gulf between the De Torres family and the Odio family. This would not preclude the possibility of their seeing each other in Cuba -- but only the possibility of their dating in Cuba. And that is what De Torres said -- he could not get a date with her.

(4) Fourthly, yes De Torres was a genuine Cuban counter-revolutionary, while Loran Hall was at best playing at that status. Further, Loran Hall was well-known for his lack of honesty.

HOWEVER, we must remember that Silvia Odio testified that the "Leopoldo" she saw at her doorstep was a xxxx. He was not the real deal.

So that would also disqualify De Torres. "Leopoldo" was a xxxx, and that is a key argument that he was also Loran Hall.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I was not challenging anything, I was simply providing information on de Torres for your reference since it had come up in discussion on

the thread. I'll cease doing that from this point on. You clearly have a path you wish to follow and I have no wish to divert you from it.

[Paul Trejo]

Larry, I didn't mean "challenging" as in an argument. I simply meant that you contradicted my sentence...and that's OK!

You might think that I'm just beating the drum against Ex-General Walker and for Harry Dean -- but that's not quite accurate. I've been very much influenced by your writings -- I now give more weight to the CIA role in the JFK murder than I ever did before. At the same time, I still find gaps in data regarding Dallas Strategic Planning.

Also, I note that Joan Mellen's book is full of unresolved contradictions. Gerry Patrick Hemming, e.g. handed over Loran Hall and Larry Howard to Jim Garrison, but later Hemming told Garrison that Howard was uninvolved. Joan Mellen didn't find a need to explain this.

One gets the idea from Joan Mellen that the CIA was the puppet-master -- but she really doesn't get much higher than Gerry Patrick Hemming as a key information source (much like Jim Garrison). In other words, it's mainly Gerry Patrick Hemming's claims that the CIA was pulling strings -- but that could be another exaggeration and misdirection on the part of Hemming.

She reports that Gary Hemming for months provided "disinformation" to Jim Garrison (much like Bernardo Torres spent three months feeding "disinformation" to Jim Garrison and taking money for it). This certainly suggests a CIA control.

But it could also suggest a blaming of the CIA, even in cases where Hemming himself could have made decisions.

While Jim Garrison was not interested in the ground-crew but in the planners, he was never able to solve the mystery. Perhaps if he had focused on the ground-crew more, he would have been killed quickly -- so perhaps he made the right choice.

Anyway -- my point is that Gerry Patrick Hemming knew more than he would say -- and Loran Hall knew more than he would say -- AND BOTH WERE EXPERT LIARS. They both suggested, at various times, that the CIA pulled their strings. That could be a grosser exaggeration than we have so far seen.

There may be plenty of evidence to suggest that they finally took one (or more) of the many bribes they were offered, and used Interpen to serve as the ground crew.

They both knew General Walker very well -- who had control of many of the extreme rightists in the DPD (e.g. Roscoe White and J.D. Tippit). (We have in General Walker's personal papers some correspondence with Gary Patrick Hemming; and we have in Jim Garrison's papers Loran Hall's recollections of General Walker.)

The names, fingerprints and associates of Gerry Hemming and Loran Hall keep cropping up all over the JFK murder!

All right -- the CIA was clearly needed to send Fletcher Prouty to the South Pole. We cannot doubt the witness of Fletcher Prouty -- I firmly accept that. Below that level, hoever, we still don't have the ground-crew,

IMHO, from all these new sources, I am updating my theory -- I now suspect that INTERPEN WAS THE GROUND-CREW OF THE JFK MURDER. .

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

You say, "Except for height and weight, Howard fit Odio's description well."

That's like saying, "If you disregard the size difference, a chihuahua could be mistaken for a Great Dane."

Now, regarding "Lorenzo"-- Sylvia Odio said several times that he was tall and thin. She specifically said, "He must have been six feet," and when asked how much she thought he weighed, she said "He was thin, about 165 pounds." In my mind, her saying that Leopoldo "must have been six feet" is the same as "he was at least six feet"

in September of 1964, Loran Hall was 5'11.5" and weighed 215 pounds, so he was definitely not definitely not "thin" and can be eliminated him from consideration.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=47745&relPageId=156

So, who do we know from the Cuban Exile community who was at least six feet tall but weighed only 165 pounds?

Well, the following document shows a 6'2" Cuban who was born in 1934 in Havana, who moved to Detroit, Michigan, in 1955 to play professional baseball, and who was later captured at the Bay of Pigs.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=52134&relPageId=31

The next page of the same Spanish-language document shows that this guy weighed only 164 pounds.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=52134&relPageId=32

Oh yeah, and he had an unusual hairline as can be seen in several photographs.

His full name is Bernardo Gonzalez De Torres Y Alvarez.

We know him as Bernardo De Torres.

Based on the physical resemblance alone, I think Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo."

Now, if I can just prove that Bernardo De Torres owned a totally-rad... I mean red ... car in 1963...

--Tommy

Tommy, I noticed on the Spartacus site, that there is speculation (inspired by Joan Mellen, evidently) that Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo" and Edwin Collins (whom you picture with Torres above) was "Angelo."

I gather that you might favor that speculation, because Edwin Collins seems closer to the Height and Weight as the "Angelo" that Silvia Odio described.

HOWEVER -- Silvia Odio also described Angelo as MEXICAN looking, stocky, with ruddy skin, with hair all over his body, and a hairy chest (perhaps his chest hair protruded from his undershirt).

Edwin Collins does not look MEXICAN (at least to this Mexican-American he doesn't) he looks CUBAN. His skin is not ruddy. Also, he's not stocky. Also, he's not hairy all over. Also, his hair does not appear to be "shiny black" (like most Mexican hair) as Silvia described it. All these other descriptions match Larry Howard whose photo can be seen here: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhowardL.htm

I think tThat's a late picture of him, so he's probably fatter there than in 1963.

Comments?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

You say, "Except for height and weight, Howard fit Odio's description well."

That's like saying, "If you disregard the size difference, a chihuahua could be mistaken for a Great Dane."

Now, regarding "Lorenzo"-- Sylvia Odio said several times that he was tall and thin. She specifically said, "He must have been six feet," and when asked how much she thought he weighed, she said "He was thin, about 165 pounds." In my mind, her saying that Leopoldo "must have been six feet" is the same as "he was at least six feet"

in September of 1964, Loran Hall was 5'11.5" and weighed 215 pounds, so he was definitely not definitely not "thin" and can be eliminated him from consideration.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=47745&relPageId=156

So, who do we know from the Cuban Exile community who was at least six feet tall but weighed only 165 pounds?

Well, the following document shows a 6'2" Cuban who was born in 1934 in Havana, who moved to Detroit, Michigan, in 1955 to play professional baseball, and who was later captured at the Bay of Pigs.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=52134&relPageId=31

The next page of the same Spanish-language document shows that this guy weighed only 164 pounds.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=52134&relPageId=32

Oh yeah, and he had an unusual hairline as can be seen in several photographs.

His full name is Bernardo Gonzalez De Torres Y Alvarez.

We know him as Bernardo De Torres.

Based on the physical resemblance alone, I think Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo."

Now, if I can just prove that Bernardo De Torres owned a totally-rad... I mean red ... car in 1963...

--Tommy

Tommy, I noticed on the Spartacus site, that there is speculation (inspired by Joan Mellen, evidently) that Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo" and Edwin Collins (whom you picture with Torres above) was "Angelo."

I gather that you might favor that speculation, because Edwin Collins seems closer to the Height and Weight as the "Angelo" that Silvia Odio described.

HOWEVER -- Silvia Odio also described Angelo as MEXICAN looking, stocky, with ruddy skin, with hair all over his body, and a hairy chest (perhaps his chest hair protruded from his undershirt).

Edwin Collins does not look MEXICAN (at least to this Mexican-American he doesn't) he looks CUBAN. His skin is not ruddy. Also, he's not stocky. Also, he's not hairy all over. Also, his hair does not appear to be "shiny black" (like most Mexican hair) as Silvia described it. All these other descriptions match Larry Howard whose photo can be seen here: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhowardL.htm

I think tThat's a late picture of him, so he's probably fatter there than in 1963.

Comments?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

It's interesting to me that you are speculating on what you think I might have been trying to imply.

The only reason I included the top photo of Bernardo De Torres (which happens to include Collins) was because it shows that Bernardo De Torres was tall and thin and had an unusual hairline, too. Just like Sylvia Odio described "Leopoldo" -- about thirty years old, tall, thin, and with an unusual hairline.

I agree with you that Eddie Collins could not have been "Angelo."

(Sorry to take some wind out of your sails.)

I suppose that Collins could have been "Leon Oswald" with his funny little mustache, perhaps, but not "Angelo."

--Tommy

Edited April 24, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

It's interesting to me that you are speculating on what you think I might have been trying to imply.

The only reason I included the top photo of Bernardo De Torres (which happens to include Collins) was because it shows that Bernardo De Torres was tall and thin and had an unusual hairline, too. Just like Sylvia Odio described "Leopoldo" -- about thirty years old, tall, thin, and with an unusual hairline.

I agree with you that Eddie Collins could not have been "Angelo."

(Sorry to take some wind out of your sails.)

I suppose that Collins could have been "Leon Oswald" with his funny little mustache, perhaps, but not "Angelo."

--Tommy

Thanks, Tommy, for clearing that up for me.

By the way, if you think Bernardo De Torres might have been "Leopoldo," then who do you think might have been "Angelo"?

As for Bernardo De Torres, the fact that Silvia Odio said these men were total strangers would tend to cancel him, since he claimed he knew her in Cuba.

Also -- "tall and thin" might merely mean "taller and thinner" as compared to, say, "Angelo."

Also, Loran Hall was not always heavy -- he was always muscular, but sometimes he was quite slender compared to other times.

The younger he was, the more slender he tended to be. Also, he developed something of an addiction to amphetemines, which are also used as diet or pep pills -- and often those who take them become too slender.

In October 1963 (the month after the Silvia Odio incident) in Dallas, Loran Hall and William Seymour were on one of their gun running expeditions, and were arrested for possession of amphetemines. (According to Jim Garrison's transcripts, it was Ex-General Edwin Walker's lawyer, Robert Morris, who raised the bail bond to release Hall and Seymour.)

It is remarked -- I believe in FBI records -- that the JBS in Southern California would supply Hall, Howard and Seymour (and Alba) with guns, ammunition and "medicines" to deliver to Cuba Raider mercenary training camps in Florida and points between. Those medicines turned out to be largely amphetemines -- which soldiers allegedly "needed" because it helped them "fight longer without food." Yes, amphetemines will do that.

It is possible that Loran Hall took amphetimines habitually when on his gun-running trips. If so, then these would have been among his more "slender" times. He was 5'11" and nearly 6' tall -- and had a curly top of hair with *sharply* receding temples.

https://www.google.com/#q=loran+hall

Besides this, the FBI picked him up regarding Silvia Odio, and he confessed at first that he and Larry Howard were at her doorstep (only to recant his story later, under pressure).

It's this whole FBI episode that convinces me, ultimately. And Loran Hall named Larry Howard as "Angelo" and aside from the exact height and weight (and who knows what his weight really was in September 1963, especially if Howard also took amphetemines) -- the evidence is weighty, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

[...] WHY DID LORAN HALL CONFESS AT FIRST? AND WHY DID THE FBI PICK UP LORAN HALL ALMOST IMMEDIATELY?

Paul,

Sylvia Odio was questioned by FBI agents James P. Hosty and Bardwell D. Odum on December 18, 1963.

See page 369:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Odio.pdf

But not until nine months later on September 16, 1964, did Loran Eugene Hall "confess" to having visited Odio.

What's so "almost immediately" about that?

--Tommy

Edited April 28, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Sylvia Odio was questioned by FBI agents James P. Hosty and Bardwell D. Odum on December 18, 1963.

See page 369:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Odio.pdf

But not until nine months later on September 16, 1964, did Loran Eugene Hall "confess" to having visited Odio.

What's so "almost immediately" about that?

--Tommy

Tommy, what scrambled my time track was that I was measuring time using the official Warren Commission Hearings.

Sylvia Odio was among the last witnesses for the Warren Commission -- during the final week of July 1964.

It was during the final weeks of the Warren Commission hearings that Commission members demanded follow-up questions about Sylvia Odio, before they would sign off on the final results.

Therefore, the FBI scrambled to get the answers -- and why they picked up Loran Hall is still unexplained. Anyway, they did, and he confessed to being at Sylvia Odio's doorstep during the final week of September 1963 with Larry Howard and an American (William Seymour).

However, when the FBI asked Larry Howard and William Seymour to confirm that story -- both men loudly objected and denied everything. (There was a rumor told around Jim Garrison's investigation that Howard and Seymour threatened to kill Loran Hall.) A few days later, Loran Hall reversed his own story to the FBI.

Even though J. Edgar Hoover knew all this, he still took Loran Hall's first story to the Warren Commission, claiming that Sylvia Odio's testimony was merely a case of "mistaken identity" -- of mistaking William Seymour for Lee Harvey Oswald, and therefore the case could be closed out.

Based on Hoover's deliberately false memo, the Commission members accepted this story, and it is the story we find in the Warren Report today.

That was the time-track as it actually happened. Sorry about my mis-statement above.

Still -- I have exactly the same questions. Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place? Also, why did Loran Hall confess at first?

Do you have an opinion about that?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

Sylvia Odio was questioned by FBI agents James P. Hosty and Bardwell D. Odum on December 18, 1963.

See page 369:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Odio.pdf

But not until nine months later on September 16, 1964, did Loran Eugene Hall "confess" to having visited Odio.

What's so "almost immediately" about that?

--Tommy

Tommy, what scrambled my time track was that I was measuring time using the official Warren Commission Hearings.

Sylvia Odio was among the last witnesses for the Warren Commission -- during the final week of July 1964.

It was during the final weeks of the Warren Commission hearings that Commission members demanded follow-up questions about Sylvia Odio, before they would sign off on the final results.

Therefore, the FBI scrambled to get the answers -- and why they picked up Loran Hall is still unexplained. Anyway, they did, and he confessed to being at Sylvia Odio's doorstep during the final week of September 1963 with Larry Howard and an American (William Seymour).

However, when the FBI asked Larry Howard and William Seymour to confirm that story -- both men loudly objected and denied everything. (There was a rumor told around Jim Garrison's investigation that Howard and Seymour threatened to kill Loran Hall.) A few days later, Loran Hall reversed his own story to the FBI.

Even though J. Edgar Hoover knew all this, he still took Loran Hall's first story to the Warren Commission, claiming that Sylvia Odio's testimony was merely a case of "mistaken identity" -- of mistaking William Seymour for Lee Harvey Oswald, and therefore the case could be closed out.

Based on Hoover's deliberately false memo, the Commission members accepted this story, and it is the story we find in the Warren Report today.

That was the time-track as it actually happened. Sorry about my mis-statement above.

Still -- I have exactly the same questions. Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place? Also, why did Loran Hall confess at first?

Do you have an opinion about that?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

More than a year ago you were rhetorically demanding to know why the FBI had interviewed Loran Hall "immediately" after Sylvia Odio had officially stated that Oswald had visited her with two other men.

From your post on this thread on 11/01/12:

" [W]hen Sylvia Odio told the Warren Commission about that September 1963 visit by Leopoldo, Angel and Leon in December 1963, she told them she could not identify anybody except Lee Harvey Oswald in that trio. Yet the FBI immediately picked up Loran Hall for questioning. Why in the world was that? "

But the amount of time at issue wasn't the two months which you mistakenly believed in (the period of time between Odio's WC testimony and the FBI's questioning of Hall) and which you had the audacity to call "immediate."

It was nine months.

Which only goes to show that you are, at times, not only ignorant of the "facts" that you so willingly propound, but that you are more than willing to "spin" them to what you think is your advantage.

Your claiming that Odio said that Leopoldo had an "athletic" - rather than a "thin" - build also comes to mind.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

More than a year ago you were rhetorically demanding to know why the FBI had interviewed Loran Hall "immediately" after Sylvia Odio had officially stated that Oswald had visited her with two other men.

From your post on this thread on 11/01/12:

" [W]hen Sylvia Odio told the Warren Commission about that September 1963 visit by Leopoldo, Angel and Leon in December 1963, she told them she could not identify anybody except Lee Harvey Oswald in that trio. Yet the FBI immediately picked up Loran Hall for questioning. Why in the world was that? "

But the amount of time at issue wasn't the two months which you mistakenly believed in (the period of time between Odio's WC testimony and the FBI's questioning of Hall) and which you had the audacity to call "immediate."

It was nine months.

Which only goes to show that you are, at times, not only ignorant of the "facts" that you so willingly propound, but that you are more than willing to "spin" them to what you think is your advantage.

Your claiming that Odio said that Leopoldo had an "athletic" - rather than a "thin" - build also comes to mind.

Yes, Tommy, I already admitted that I over-spoke on that point. As you say, it was mere rhetoric.

I retract that statement -- it was not an "immediate" jump from Sylvia's testimony to picking up Loran Hall.

That was a gross exaggeration. It was two months as measured from her Warren Commission testimony, and it was nine months as measured from her first FBI interview.

I was mistaken. I admit it.

So -- can we please return to my main two questions regarding the "Leopoldo and Angel" episode:

(1) Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place?

(2) Why did Loran Hall confess at first?

Do you have an opinion about that, Tommy?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Sadly the forum functions as if the few of us left here are sitting at a dinner table with Paul Trejo at the head running the discussion. Paul - how many posters have to express their frustration with your debate style before you turn the spotlight on yourself and examine what you are doing? In my view, your real blindness is that you see Walker and Hoover and others as heroes who faltered, rather than the villains they always were. You said in a recent post that you just cannot see the possible involvement of the joint chiefs in a conspiracy to assassinate a president. Do you view Curtis LeMay in that light? Was he a hero in your eyes?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul...In my view, your real blindness is that you see Walker and Hoover and others as heroes who faltered, rather than the villains they always were. You said in a recent post that you just cannot see the possible involvement of the joint chiefs in a conspiracy to assassinate a president. Do you view Curtis LeMay in that light? Was he a hero in your eyes?

Well, Paul B., I welcome the discussion. I'm really open to new arguments.

In my view, Ex-General Edwin Walker was once a great US General who became infected by the John Birch Society. At that point he transformed from a hero into a villain. He opposed JFK with more energy than any single individual in 1962-1963, in my opinion.

I'm still undecided, however, about J. Edgar Hoover. I see two main possibilities; either: (1) Hoover was an original part of the plot to murder JFK, in which case he played a leading role as well as a ground-crew role; or else (2) Hoover was the hero who prevented the JFK plotters from moving forward to Stage 2 of their plot, namely, to invade Cuba, assassinate Fidel Castro and restore the Cuban Exiles (and thus move the USA to the brink of World War III).

I still haven't decided about Hoover because I haven't seen enough information to convince me that he was aware of every aspect of the plot to murder JFK before 11/22/1963.

I appreciate your viewpoint, Paul B. For one thing, you convinced me to take a fresh look at General Edward Lansdale, and I'm finally convinced that he became a villain.

I'm not sure if Lansdale turned the heads of CIA rogues, or if they turned his head, but his manipulation of the ground-crew itself was proven by Fletcher Prouty -- and there is no way that I can bend Prouty's story to exonerate General Edward Lansdale.

As for General Curtis LeMay -- I need more information about him. It was not a crime to dislike JFK, nor even to hate JFK. We know the actions of General Lansdale were harmful to JFK on 11/22/1963. What were the actions of General LeMay that you have in mind?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 30, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I don't think it was me who opened your eyes about Lansdale. I have nothing good to say about Hoover. LeMay's actions on Nov 22 are hard to decipher as you know, but one eye witness places him at the autopsy chomping on a cigar. Apparently he was contacted by an aide of his who was on Air Force One. I imagine you have looked at the more complete transcripts from the flight that Bill Kelly has posted here. The bookends of his career are basically killing more Japanese citizens during the air campaign he ran during WW 2, to joining Wallace on his 1968 presidential ticket. I'm sure you are familiar with LeMay's confrontations with JFK at meetings. He was a thoroughly distasteful individual by most accounts, a war monger and undoubtedly a racist. To answer your question directly, we have no proof of his involvement in the assassination. But surely the 'Generals - Lansdale, Walker, LeMay - are all suspects, and not heroes ever.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - I don't think it was me who opened your eyes about Lansdale. I have nothing good to say about Hoover. LeMay's actions on Nov 22 are hard to decipher as you know, but one eye witness places him at the autopsy chomping on a cigar. Apparently he was contacted by an aide of his who was on Air Force One. I imagine you have looked at the more complete transcripts from the flight that Bill Kelly has posted here. The bookends of his career are basically killing more Japanese citizens during the air campaign he ran during WW 2, to joining Wallace on his 1968 presidential ticket. I'm sure you are familiar with LeMay's confrontations with JFK at meetings. He was a thoroughly distasteful individual by most accounts, a war monger and undoubtedly a racist. To answer your question directly, we have no proof of his involvement in the assassination. But surely the 'Generals - Lansdale, Walker, LeMay - are all suspects, and not heroes ever.

Well, Paul B., surely we can disagree on politics and still make progress on the presentation of material facts.

Every General of World War 2 was, in my opinion, a hero of our greatest generation. America was transformed by their leadership -- we left behind our isolationism (in practice if not always in theory).

So, I'm willing to give our Generals every benefit of every doubt that I can. You are free to respond differently, of course, and you might -- yet that doesn't diminish my respect for your intuition or for your sense of reason regarding dealing with material facts.

I appreciate that you admit that you find "no proof of his involvement" in the JFK murder -- still, I appreciate your willingness to offer a specific focus of the material behavior of General LeMay for discussion.

You cite the presence of LeMay at the JFK autopsy, which most researchers agree was grossly manipulated. This is clearly suspicious behavior, and I'm willing to take a deeper dive into it.

To justify this detour on a thread about "Leopoldo and Angel," I will show that the linkage between a few over-zealous US Generals and the CIA Cuba Desk, provides a direct connection to "Leopoldo and Angel," whomever they may turn out to be.

Richard Case Nagell, a CIA operative, claimed that he knew "Leopoldo and Angel" as well as Lee Harvey Oswald, and claimed that he had a tape recording of all them them around a single table. Jim Garrison tried his best to appropriate that tape recording.

Insofar as rogues in the Pentagon were also involved in the JFK murder, then it is my opinion that they were the leaders, and that the CIA was subordinate to these Pentagon rogues, just as "Leopoldo and Angel" were subordinate to the CIA in this operation.

I will dig deeper into this specific allegation about LeMay (and his attendance at JFK's autopsy) and will reply to this thread, Paul B.

Again, I appreciate your discussion.

Oh, and by the way, it was certainly your Forum posts that caused me to seriously reevaluate my notes on General Lansdale.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

More than a year ago you were rhetorically demanding to know why the FBI had interviewed Loran Hall "immediately" after Sylvia Odio had officially stated that Oswald had visited her with two other men.

From your post on this thread on 11/01/12:

" [W]hen Sylvia Odio told the Warren Commission about that September 1963 visit by Leopoldo, Angel and Leon in December 1963, she told them she could not identify anybody except Lee Harvey Oswald in that trio. Yet the FBI immediately picked up Loran Hall for questioning. Why in the world was that? "

But the amount of time at issue wasn't the two months which you mistakenly believed in (the period of time between Odio's WC testimony and the FBI's questioning of Hall) and which you had the audacity to call "immediate."

It was nine months.

Which only goes to show that you are, at times, not only ignorant of the "facts" that you so willingly propound, but that you are more than willing to "spin" them to what you think is your advantage.

Your claiming that Odio said that Leopoldo had an "athletic" - rather than a "thin" - build also comes to mind.

Yes, Tommy, I already admitted that I over-spoke on that point. As you say, it was mere rhetoric.

I retract that statement -- it was not an "immediate" jump from Sylvia's testimony to picking up Loran Hall.

That was a gross exaggeration. It was two months as measured from her Warren Commission testimony, and it was nine months as measured from her first FBI interview.

I was mistaken. I admit it.

So -- can we please return to my main two questions regarding the "Leopoldo and Angel" episode:

(1) Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place?

(2) Why did Loran Hall confess at first?

Do you have an opinion about that, Tommy?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Moved here from the Harry Dean Memoirs thread:

<snip>

Why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Examples:

1) Calling Leopoldo's "thin" build an "athletic" one in an attempt to convince us that this "Leopoldo" must have been Loran Hall whom we already know was an "athletic" 200 lbs on a 5'11.5" frame -- a lot more "athletic" than the skinny, six-foot plus, 165 pound "Leopoldo" that Sylvia Odio saw. (I mistakenly suggested that Sylvia said that Leopoldo was "160 lbs" in an earlier post, but what's interesting is not only that you didn't catch my mistake, but that what she really said, 165 lbs, indicates that Sylvia was confident of her memory and willing and able to be very precise by using 5-pound increments! (Bernaro De Torres perfectly matches Sylvia Odio's description of Leopoldo's being "very tall and slim" and weighing "about 165 lbs." Bernardo De Torres was 6' 2" and weighed only 164 lbs. Therefore, it's very likely that Sylvia missed "Leopoldo's" true weight by only one pound!

2) Calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." (The two months of course are the two months you thought were between the date that Loran Hall was "picked up" by the FBI and the date that Sylvia Odio informed the authorities about the strange visit by three men.) The point is that two months is not "immediate." (Nor is nine months, for that matter, "almost immediate.")

3) Calling Sylvia Odio's comparative and informed estimates just "random guesses"

4) Claiming that Sylvia Odio admitted in her WC testimony to "just guessing" when in reality she did no such thing although Liebler tried to insinuate that she was.

Bull Pucky.

One again, why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Are you so desperate to get us to see things your way that you must, so darn often, twist words and facts and spin them to what you think is your "advantage?"

LOL

--Tommy

<snip>

Well, Tommy, I deny that I "twist" words and facts deliberately. If I make a mistake and its shown to me, then I'll apologize, as you know.

(1) My objection to your claims about "Leopoldo" have less to do with the height and weight of Loran Hall (as you noted) than with the notion that estimated height and weight are as important as you make them.

I myself cannot accurately guess the height or weight of people. I really can't. I once saw a Carnival barker who could guess anybody's height and weight within one inch and one pound -- and I was truly amazed. I thought there had to be a trick to it.

My denial that Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo" is that Sylvia Odio first and foremost claimed that these three men at her doorstep were strangers to her. Yet Bernardo and Sylvia had seen each other in Cuba (says Joan Mellen). Also, Angelo Murgado knew people in Sylvia Odio's family -- did he not?

So, on that basis alone, it is utterly impossible that Bernardo De Torres could be "Leopoldo". I've already explained why it is utterly impossible for Angelo Murgado to be "Angelo."

You are quite right to note that Bernardo De Torres matches Sylvia's "estimated" height and weight for "Leopoldo," and if those facts (and the receding hairline) were her only descriptions, then you'd have a match.

Yet, since Sylvia knew Bernardo -- there is no possibility of a match.

If one wants to be totally LITERAL about it, then of course we don't have any match at all -- nobody we know matches "Leopoldo" exactly as Sylvia Odio described him. The FBI showed Sylvia many, many photographs, and she denied that any one of them was "Leopoldo" or "Angelo".

HOWEVER -- the FBI *eventually* picked up Loran Hall -- and at that time Loran Hall confessed that yes, it was he himself, Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) and Larry Howard (alias Alonzo Escruido) who visited Sylvia Duran during the final week of September 1963.

That is the evidence that theorists must explain.

I think that you make entirely too much of the heights and weights given by Sylvia Odio -- and because I myself find it so difficult to guess people's height and weight, you'll have to do a lot more than repeat yourself to convince me.

(2) I've already apologized for calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." It was an exaggeration that was intended to draw attention to my point. I wasn't aware that confessed exaggerations were unforgivable around here.

(3) I will apologize today for calling Sylvia Odio's height and weight estimates just "random guesses." That again was an exaggeration. I should have said, "estimates."

(4) I will also apologize today for saying that Sylvia Odio admitted to "just guessing" in her WC testimony, when actually the words she used were, "about" and "something like that." While one cannot obtain precision from that sort of language, I admit today that this is not the same as "just guessing."

All right, Tommy? I've apologized where I used exaggeration. I hope you're satisfied with an apology.

Also, I'm not in the slightest desperate for anybody to see things my way -- and I obtain no "advantage" one way or another.

Despite an occasional error on my part (usually due to exaggeration or a figure of speech) the points I make about history and about evidence in the JFK murder case tends to be stronger than most.

For example -- in the case of Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo," I think your case, Tommy, is decidedly weak.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Trejo,

Why do you "spin" and "twist" words and facts so?

(The correct answer: To try to stay on the offensive through the effective use of Damage Control!)

You grudgingly apologized for calling a two month period of time "immediate" only after you tried to avoid the issue altogether by saying that your "time track" had gotten "scrambled" and you "apologized" for not realizing that what was at issue was a nine month period of time - not two months - and just leaving it at that.

When I called you on that you wrote:

Yes, Tommy, I already admitted that I over-spoke on that point. As you say, it was mere rhetoric.

"Over spoke"? LOL. What the heck is that? Sounds like Trejo Speak (highly creative damage control) to me. Are you saying that you said too much, or that you exaggerated? Is it just your way of saying "I intentionally under-exaggerated two months down to "immediate"; I lied"?

And get something else straight, Trejo: I never used the word "mere." Nor did I imply anything that the word "mere" connotes or denotes. So should forum members consider this just another example of your habitual "over speaking," or would it be more correct to say that it was a sneaky attempt by you to put words in my mouth?

And, by the way, Trejo, my using of the word "rhetorically" in the earlier post was my polite attempt to suggest that a previous question by you was "devious" in nature!

I retract that statement -- it was not an "immediate" jump from Sylvia's testimony to picking up Loran Hall.

That was a gross exaggeration. It was two months as measured from her Warren Commission testimony, and it was nine months as measured from her first FBI interview.

Finally! But then, immediately, back to your old ways:

I was mistaken. I admit it.

You were mistaken about two months being "immediate?" That doesn't make sense. How can anyone be "mistaken" about the difference between two months and "immediate?" It looks like you're sneakily retracting your apology for having intentionally and grossly under-exaggerated "two months." Instead of saying "I was mistaken, I admit it" shouldn't you be saying, "I lied, I admit it"??

So -- can we please return to my main two questions regarding the "Leopoldo and Angel" episode[?]

Well, I can certainly understand why you would like to leave this subject. I must be very embarrassing for you!

After all, not only were you unaware that the FBI had questioned Sylvia Odio nine months before they "picked up" Loran Hall, but even worse, you intentionally and grossly under exaggerated (i.e., lied) your mistaken two months down to "immediate."

IMHO it takes way too much time and energy to "debate" you because of your lackadaisical approach to research and fact checking and, more importantly, your devious nature and willingness to "grossly exaggerate" as exhibited multiple times on this forum's pages.

So like Greg Burnham and others, I'm finished with you.

You've exhausted me.

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thomas Graves