It's important for historical accuracy to recall that all three intelligence
agencies (CIA, FBI and the regional MI groups like the 111th and 112th)
had very active programs underway in 1963 against both sides of the
Cuban conflict.
All three groups, with the lead by the FBI and CIA were actively penetrating, bugging, monitoring and performing psych ops and more overt disruption against the FPCC not to mention Counter Intelligence against Cuban intelligence.
All three groups were monitoring targeted exile groups who might engage
in missions against Cuba from U.S. soil and all were active in trying to
identify and disrupt individuals involved in organizing and supporting such
actions. An example of that can be seen in the sting run against Masen
by a combination of MI and FBI (with Ellsworth and ATF totally out of the loop)
with the objective of finding out more about the Cubans talking about a new
military action against Cuba.
If you belive Oswald was being used by U.S. intelligence as a "dangle" as I do, then standard practice would be to have him associate with any Cubans of whichever stripe and change his tune to match the circumstances. That gives maximum "production" and the agencies watching him would be interested in anybody who approached him from either direction.
Full Version: The Odio Incident
QUOTE
If you belive Oswald was being used by U.S. intelligence as a "dangle" as I do, then standard practice would be to have him associate with any Cubans of whichever stripe and change his tune to match the circumstances. That gives maximum "production" and the agencies watching him would be interested in anybody who approached him from either direction.
I agree with Larry,
Oswald working both sides would make him feel as if he was doing his "job", which he was, little did he know, this all led to him being set up as the scape goat ....
Hi Larry,
And isn't it interesting that in spite of taking some rather public pro-Castro positions - leafletting, radio debates, street fights, etc. that as far as we know, Oswald was not approached by anyone from the pro-Castro camp.
It was only anti-Castro people who sought him out, or that he sought out - visiting Bringuer and Bannister, etc.
Steve Thomas
QUOTE (Larry Hancock @ Mar 17 2005, 07:49 PM)
If you belive Oswald was being used by U.S. intelligence as a "dangle" as I do, then standard practice would be to have him associate with any Cubans of whichever stripe and change his tune to match the circumstances. That gives maximum "production" and the agencies watching him would be interested in anybody who approached him from either direction.
And isn't it interesting that in spite of taking some rather public pro-Castro positions - leafletting, radio debates, street fights, etc. that as far as we know, Oswald was not approached by anyone from the pro-Castro camp.
It was only anti-Castro people who sought him out, or that he sought out - visiting Bringuer and Bannister, etc.
Steve Thomas
The thought that Oswald was an agent/provacateur has run through my head many times. Even in jail, he seemed overly anxious to tie the ACLU into his actions, when he'd only been to one meeting, and that was with Michael Paine. His dragging the FPCC into his New Orleans actions, when he'd never met a single FPCC representative face to face, is perhaps the best example. And then, of course, there are the backyard photographs (which may or may not be faked--I still can't decide) which tie in two opposing groups of American communists.
An often overlooked dangle I believe is Oswald's late night phone call to Mrs. Horace Twiford, while on his way to Mexico. To me this is an obvious attempt to tie Twiford, a member of the Socialist Labor Party, into Oswald's Mexican excursion, and thus the assassination attempt. Mrs. Twiford said Oswald asked if he could come by and talk to her husband, and she said no because her husband was out of town. The WC went to great pains to show that Oswald could have made this call from a bus stop on his way into Houston. But Mrs. Twiford was under the impression it was a local call. If it was a local call, however, that would mean that Oswald had arrived in Houston by means other than Continental Trailways, which would imply he had an accomplice, which would make his appearance in Dallas at the Odios possible.
Well, if there's anything that people who knew Oswald could agree on, it's that he was very polite with strangers, even aloof. And I just don't see him trying to stop by Twiford's house late at night unless he was asked to do so. A second trait of Oswald's on which people seem to agree is that he was cheap, and I don't see him paying for a 6 mile cab ride (each way) to Twiford's just to talk to a man he's never met and never plans to see again for a few hours in the middle of the night. The WC went to great lengths to show how Oswald could have saved up just enough to pay for his trip to Mexico, but they never mentioned his setting aside money for a cab ride. In fact, they made great hay over Oswald taking a cab on the day of the assassination, to show how desperate he was to escape. I seem to remember they even insisted it was the first cab ride of his life. And Oswald couldn't have expected the Twifords to pick him up and drop him off so late at night, his never having met them, could he? That doesn't sound reasonable at all. Besides, Mrs. Twiford's recollection was that he said he wanted to stop by.
Oswald was with someone else in Houston, probably Angel and Leopoldo. They either drove there or were flown, perhaps by David Ferrie. Mrs. Twiford, intriguingly, stated that Oswald said he was flying to Mexico. If Oswald was hoping the Twifords would pick him up he would have had to explain why he wanted to be picked up and dropped off at the bus station when he was flying out. The Houston Trailways station and airport were miles apart.
I conclude therefore that it's probable Oswald's phone call to Twiford was an attempt to drag yet another leftist into the assassination web, the web in which Oswald himself was entangled.
An often overlooked dangle I believe is Oswald's late night phone call to Mrs. Horace Twiford, while on his way to Mexico. To me this is an obvious attempt to tie Twiford, a member of the Socialist Labor Party, into Oswald's Mexican excursion, and thus the assassination attempt. Mrs. Twiford said Oswald asked if he could come by and talk to her husband, and she said no because her husband was out of town. The WC went to great pains to show that Oswald could have made this call from a bus stop on his way into Houston. But Mrs. Twiford was under the impression it was a local call. If it was a local call, however, that would mean that Oswald had arrived in Houston by means other than Continental Trailways, which would imply he had an accomplice, which would make his appearance in Dallas at the Odios possible.
Well, if there's anything that people who knew Oswald could agree on, it's that he was very polite with strangers, even aloof. And I just don't see him trying to stop by Twiford's house late at night unless he was asked to do so. A second trait of Oswald's on which people seem to agree is that he was cheap, and I don't see him paying for a 6 mile cab ride (each way) to Twiford's just to talk to a man he's never met and never plans to see again for a few hours in the middle of the night. The WC went to great lengths to show how Oswald could have saved up just enough to pay for his trip to Mexico, but they never mentioned his setting aside money for a cab ride. In fact, they made great hay over Oswald taking a cab on the day of the assassination, to show how desperate he was to escape. I seem to remember they even insisted it was the first cab ride of his life. And Oswald couldn't have expected the Twifords to pick him up and drop him off so late at night, his never having met them, could he? That doesn't sound reasonable at all. Besides, Mrs. Twiford's recollection was that he said he wanted to stop by.
Oswald was with someone else in Houston, probably Angel and Leopoldo. They either drove there or were flown, perhaps by David Ferrie. Mrs. Twiford, intriguingly, stated that Oswald said he was flying to Mexico. If Oswald was hoping the Twifords would pick him up he would have had to explain why he wanted to be picked up and dropped off at the bus station when he was flying out. The Houston Trailways station and airport were miles apart.
I conclude therefore that it's probable Oswald's phone call to Twiford was an attempt to drag yet another leftist into the assassination web, the web in which Oswald himself was entangled.
Pat, right on target. When you look a little further at Twiford's Merchant
Marine background and add in the interviews by a researcher who has found
Oswald apparently spent a good deal of time down by the docks in NO talking
to seaman coming in and hanging around the boats....well you could get the idea that one of his minor assignments was to poke around looking for ways for people to get in or out to Cuba....something the FBI and even MI was extremely sensitive aobut in 1963. That was part of their FPCC crackdown.
Then consider his appearance at McKewons, trying to trap him into another gun dealing rap....and McKewon's background was with Castro.
When you look at the things Oswald was doing - well if he wasn't a dangle they should have been watching him like a hawk anyway.
And then there is the thing Oswald didn't do (in tribute to Holmes). Oswald, the outspoken, always ready to debate, supposed Marxist political student....didn't ever hunt up any actual Socialists or Marxists.....even in the Soviet Union he appears to have avoided personally entering into any of the available political forums. He would write (think paper trail) to the organizations at length but as far as contacting them in person no dice......and we know he wasn't bashful.
You might almost think it was the "game" that interested him, not the politics per se.
Marine background and add in the interviews by a researcher who has found
Oswald apparently spent a good deal of time down by the docks in NO talking
to seaman coming in and hanging around the boats....well you could get the idea that one of his minor assignments was to poke around looking for ways for people to get in or out to Cuba....something the FBI and even MI was extremely sensitive aobut in 1963. That was part of their FPCC crackdown.
Then consider his appearance at McKewons, trying to trap him into another gun dealing rap....and McKewon's background was with Castro.
When you look at the things Oswald was doing - well if he wasn't a dangle they should have been watching him like a hawk anyway.
And then there is the thing Oswald didn't do (in tribute to Holmes). Oswald, the outspoken, always ready to debate, supposed Marxist political student....didn't ever hunt up any actual Socialists or Marxists.....even in the Soviet Union he appears to have avoided personally entering into any of the available political forums. He would write (think paper trail) to the organizations at length but as far as contacting them in person no dice......and we know he wasn't bashful.
You might almost think it was the "game" that interested him, not the politics per se.
Absolutely, the game has winners and losers...
The game with David Ferrie, the game of defector and counter-defector, the extremes that Oswald went to to involve those groups Pat mentioned are obvious signs of manipulation, and LHO should be seen as a program (or LEGEND) rather than a person, like the Minsk diaries and embassy appeals, the Connally letter.... Read some Grahame Greene or John Le Carre and you will get this sense that people use allegiance, alliance and identification in multiple orders of false ways, and Oswald was of that special time, of that era, in that Milieux.
For the agencies and commisssions (and Tim Gratz ) to walk us through a "Communist" conspiracy based on Oswald, is almost laughable at this point.
Oswald comes across as a loyal American kid, given over to intrigue, used by forces in ways that he never imagined, since he was lost in a Cold War counterintelligence program and assassination deception plan.
I call him a "burn card," a programmed guy in the bowels of the Marine/ONI list of loyal losers.
The game with David Ferrie, the game of defector and counter-defector, the extremes that Oswald went to to involve those groups Pat mentioned are obvious signs of manipulation, and LHO should be seen as a program (or LEGEND) rather than a person, like the Minsk diaries and embassy appeals, the Connally letter.... Read some Grahame Greene or John Le Carre and you will get this sense that people use allegiance, alliance and identification in multiple orders of false ways, and Oswald was of that special time, of that era, in that Milieux.
For the agencies and commisssions (and Tim Gratz ) to walk us through a "Communist" conspiracy based on Oswald, is almost laughable at this point.
Oswald comes across as a loyal American kid, given over to intrigue, used by forces in ways that he never imagined, since he was lost in a Cold War counterintelligence program and assassination deception plan.
I call him a "burn card," a programmed guy in the bowels of the Marine/ONI list of loyal losers.
There has been a major development in this case.
Professor Joan Mellen, author of the upcoming "A Farewell to Justice" wrote a letter to "The Key West Citizen" prompted by the articles Mark and I wrote. In that article, she states that in her book she identifies Angel as Angel Murgado, and Leopoldo as Bernardo de Torres.
Mark interviewed her on Monday and she stated that a few months ago she interviewed Mr. Murgado and he confirmed that he was indeed at Odio's door with Lee Harvey Oswald, confirming what Mr. Hemming had told us.
In my opinion, this demolishes the Warren Commission report's "rush to judgment" on the Odio incident as well as Posner's curt dismissal of its importance in "Case Closed".
More details must await the issuance of her book in November.
Professor Joan Mellen, author of the upcoming "A Farewell to Justice" wrote a letter to "The Key West Citizen" prompted by the articles Mark and I wrote. In that article, she states that in her book she identifies Angel as Angel Murgado, and Leopoldo as Bernardo de Torres.
Mark interviewed her on Monday and she stated that a few months ago she interviewed Mr. Murgado and he confirmed that he was indeed at Odio's door with Lee Harvey Oswald, confirming what Mr. Hemming had told us.
In my opinion, this demolishes the Warren Commission report's "rush to judgment" on the Odio incident as well as Posner's curt dismissal of its importance in "Case Closed".
More details must await the issuance of her book in November.
What's with this? In my previous post, where I wrote "Mellen states" the program underlined "states" and put it in blue. When I checked on it, a pop-up said" "Looking for states?" Well, I wasn't. It's a bit annoying. Capitalism run amock!
John, can I edit my posts to get rid of this stuff? The program could not even distinguish that I used "states" as a verb rather than as a noun.
In summary, to put it in the third person:
Tim states that he is not looking for any states.
John, can I edit my posts to get rid of this stuff? The program could not even distinguish that I used "states" as a verb rather than as a noun.
In summary, to put it in the third person:
Tim states that he is not looking for any states.
Now it disappeared on its own! What's happening?
QUOTE
The thought that Oswald was an agent/provacateur has run through my head many times. Even in jail, he seemed overly anxious to tie the ACLU into his actions, when he'd only been to one meeting, and that was with Michael Paine.
And that was the night that Edwin Walker was a speaker.
- lee
If Max Holland is still working on his defense of the WC Report, it shall be interesting to see how he treats the Odio incident now that it is established that Odio was telling the truth about an incident that certainly deserved the most careful investigation.
9/11 and 11/12
Here is a story by Joan Mellen as published (by Mark Howell) in the September 2, 2005 "Key West Citizen": (She is, of course, the author of the soon-to-be published "A Farewell to Justice"):
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer’s recent revelation that he had informed Philip Zelikow, staff director of the 9/11 Commission, that the Able Danger intelligence unit had identified Mohammed Atta and an Al Qaeda cell at least a year before the attack invites a parallel with a presidential commission 42 years ago. Colonel Shaffer has opened a window onto the failure of responsibility of not one, but two presidential commissions.
The 9/11 Commission’s ignoring the Able Danger information recalls the Warren Commission, which discovered in its final days that Lee Harvey Oswald had visited a Cuban exile and former law student named Sylvia Odio in Dallas in late September, 1963.
Just as the 9/11 Commission not only did not investigate the Able Danger warning but didn’t even mention it, so the Warren Commission never investigated this visit. As Mrs. Odio testified, she was told that Oswald had remarked, “President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that...it is so easy to do it.”
The Warren Commission had not been informed of the CIA’s attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Had they been so briefed, the conclusions of the Warren Report might have been modified, just as Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer’s information, tested, might have altered the findings of the 9/11 Commission.
In my own research, I discovered that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own clandestine plots against Fidel Castro. Bobby’s instruction to the team of Cubans he had assembled in Miami was twofold. It was to discover a means of ridding the Kennedy administration of Castro. It was no less to protect his brother from the murderous impulses of an anti-Castro Cuban incensed by John F. Kennedy’s refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
In New Orleans, Mr. Murgado met Oswald. Hitherto unreported is that Bobby Kennedy became aware of Oswald — before the assassination. Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
“If the FBI is controlling Oswald,” Bobby reasoned, according to Murgado, “he’s no problem.” Operating covertly, Bobby underestimated who Oswald was and ceased to make him a major target of his concern. Bobby knew “something was cooking in New Orleans,” Murgado says. But Bobby urged “caution.” He did not share what he knew with those charged with protecting the President.
Sylvia Odio says that three men traveled from New Orleans to visit her; two were Cubans, the other "Leon Oswald," implying that the three were in the car together. According to Angelo Murgado, however, he and his companion drove from New Orleans together to visit Odio only to discover Oswald already there, seated in Odio's apartment. That Angelo and his companion both knew Oswald, there is no doubt.
Their ostensible objective was to obtain help for their anti-Castro efforts. Murgado trusted his companion, referred to in the Warren Report as “Leopoldo,” because not only was he a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, but his brother was running for mayor of Miami. He was respectable.
Out of Murgado’s hearing, the next day “Leopoldo” phoned Mrs. Odio and told her how “Leon” Oswald had talked about murdering President Kennedy. “Leon” is “kind of nuts,” Leopoldo said.
Placing Oswald in the company of an associate of Bobby Kennedy, in an incident that suggests foreknowledge of the assassination, created a trap that would silence Bobby forever. Meanwhile Murgado had been betrayed by a man he thought he could trust, a man, it appears, who was involved in arranging for Oswald to be blamed for the assassination. The men who visited Mrs. Odio with Oswald are identified here for the first time.
After the assassination, recognizing Oswald, of course, Angelo's reaction was visceral, his distress overwhelming. He vomitted.
“Leopoldo” was Bernardo de Torres, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which accepted the CIA demand that he be granted partial immunity, so that he was not questioned about the period of time leading up to the assassination.
It may be that the assassination of President Kennedy could have been prevented, just as the people uncovered by the Able Danger team might have been apprehended by the FBI had the Bureau been allowed that opportunity. Instead, according to Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, Defense Department lawyers insisted that the FBI not be briefed at all.
That Bobby Kennedy not only knew about Oswald, but perceived him as a threat, is shocking. That Bobby put Oswald under surveillance, only to conclude that Oswald posed no danger because he was just involved in the plots against Castro, is a chilling precedent for a lack of accountability on the part of our government officials and commissions — which, it now appears, have persisted in keeping the citizenry less than fully informed.l
Footnote by Solares Hill investigator Timothy J. Gratz: Following is the relevant paragraph [113] from the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1975: “The scope of its investigation in the Odio incident was limited as a result of the inadequate investigation performed by the FBI and the Warren Commission at the time. The lack of immediate recognition of the significance of the Odio incident produced a far from comprehensive investigation at the only time a comprehensive and perhaps, fruitful investigation would have been possible.”
Regarding Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the military intelligence operative who collaborated with Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) to draw attention to the Able Danger intelligence unit, Shaffer gave an interview in the Aug. 23 issue of Government Security News that described Able Danger’s origins, explained how it tracked terrorists as they visited individual mosques around the world, discussed the CIA’s refusal to cooperate with the program, acknowledged the supporting technical role played by the Raytheon Company, and described Able Danger’s ultimate demise.
Here is a story by Joan Mellen as published (by Mark Howell) in the September 2, 2005 "Key West Citizen": (She is, of course, the author of the soon-to-be published "A Farewell to Justice"):
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer’s recent revelation that he had informed Philip Zelikow, staff director of the 9/11 Commission, that the Able Danger intelligence unit had identified Mohammed Atta and an Al Qaeda cell at least a year before the attack invites a parallel with a presidential commission 42 years ago. Colonel Shaffer has opened a window onto the failure of responsibility of not one, but two presidential commissions.
The 9/11 Commission’s ignoring the Able Danger information recalls the Warren Commission, which discovered in its final days that Lee Harvey Oswald had visited a Cuban exile and former law student named Sylvia Odio in Dallas in late September, 1963.
Just as the 9/11 Commission not only did not investigate the Able Danger warning but didn’t even mention it, so the Warren Commission never investigated this visit. As Mrs. Odio testified, she was told that Oswald had remarked, “President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that...it is so easy to do it.”
The Warren Commission had not been informed of the CIA’s attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Had they been so briefed, the conclusions of the Warren Report might have been modified, just as Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer’s information, tested, might have altered the findings of the 9/11 Commission.
In my own research, I discovered that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own clandestine plots against Fidel Castro. Bobby’s instruction to the team of Cubans he had assembled in Miami was twofold. It was to discover a means of ridding the Kennedy administration of Castro. It was no less to protect his brother from the murderous impulses of an anti-Castro Cuban incensed by John F. Kennedy’s refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
In New Orleans, Mr. Murgado met Oswald. Hitherto unreported is that Bobby Kennedy became aware of Oswald — before the assassination. Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
“If the FBI is controlling Oswald,” Bobby reasoned, according to Murgado, “he’s no problem.” Operating covertly, Bobby underestimated who Oswald was and ceased to make him a major target of his concern. Bobby knew “something was cooking in New Orleans,” Murgado says. But Bobby urged “caution.” He did not share what he knew with those charged with protecting the President.
Sylvia Odio says that three men traveled from New Orleans to visit her; two were Cubans, the other "Leon Oswald," implying that the three were in the car together. According to Angelo Murgado, however, he and his companion drove from New Orleans together to visit Odio only to discover Oswald already there, seated in Odio's apartment. That Angelo and his companion both knew Oswald, there is no doubt.
Their ostensible objective was to obtain help for their anti-Castro efforts. Murgado trusted his companion, referred to in the Warren Report as “Leopoldo,” because not only was he a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, but his brother was running for mayor of Miami. He was respectable.
Out of Murgado’s hearing, the next day “Leopoldo” phoned Mrs. Odio and told her how “Leon” Oswald had talked about murdering President Kennedy. “Leon” is “kind of nuts,” Leopoldo said.
Placing Oswald in the company of an associate of Bobby Kennedy, in an incident that suggests foreknowledge of the assassination, created a trap that would silence Bobby forever. Meanwhile Murgado had been betrayed by a man he thought he could trust, a man, it appears, who was involved in arranging for Oswald to be blamed for the assassination. The men who visited Mrs. Odio with Oswald are identified here for the first time.
After the assassination, recognizing Oswald, of course, Angelo's reaction was visceral, his distress overwhelming. He vomitted.
“Leopoldo” was Bernardo de Torres, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which accepted the CIA demand that he be granted partial immunity, so that he was not questioned about the period of time leading up to the assassination.
It may be that the assassination of President Kennedy could have been prevented, just as the people uncovered by the Able Danger team might have been apprehended by the FBI had the Bureau been allowed that opportunity. Instead, according to Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, Defense Department lawyers insisted that the FBI not be briefed at all.
That Bobby Kennedy not only knew about Oswald, but perceived him as a threat, is shocking. That Bobby put Oswald under surveillance, only to conclude that Oswald posed no danger because he was just involved in the plots against Castro, is a chilling precedent for a lack of accountability on the part of our government officials and commissions — which, it now appears, have persisted in keeping the citizenry less than fully informed.l
Footnote by Solares Hill investigator Timothy J. Gratz: Following is the relevant paragraph [113] from the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1975: “The scope of its investigation in the Odio incident was limited as a result of the inadequate investigation performed by the FBI and the Warren Commission at the time. The lack of immediate recognition of the significance of the Odio incident produced a far from comprehensive investigation at the only time a comprehensive and perhaps, fruitful investigation would have been possible.”
Regarding Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the military intelligence operative who collaborated with Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) to draw attention to the Able Danger intelligence unit, Shaffer gave an interview in the Aug. 23 issue of Government Security News that described Able Danger’s origins, explained how it tracked terrorists as they visited individual mosques around the world, discussed the CIA’s refusal to cooperate with the program, acknowledged the supporting technical role played by the Raytheon Company, and described Able Danger’s ultimate demise.
This is somewhat fantastic Tim.
It raises a lot of questions, yet provides many answers at the same time - perhaps particularly in regards to RFK's lack of a real response following his brother's murder - 'One of your guys did it,' and what Hemming related to Bobby's visit and 201 files, another secret plan despite reproachment, etc.
Lot's to think about. Great post.
BTW - Santeria - are you familiar at all with what it entails? As I have been informed from one of my Cuban friends, the names of the dead from the 'Bahia de Cochinos' are still invoked today. That was no small matter.
- lee
It raises a lot of questions, yet provides many answers at the same time - perhaps particularly in regards to RFK's lack of a real response following his brother's murder - 'One of your guys did it,' and what Hemming related to Bobby's visit and 201 files, another secret plan despite reproachment, etc.
Lot's to think about. Great post.
BTW - Santeria - are you familiar at all with what it entails? As I have been informed from one of my Cuban friends, the names of the dead from the 'Bahia de Cochinos' are still invoked today. That was no small matter.
- lee
Lee, Robert Kennedy's remark to Harry Williams, "One of your guys did it", may very well be quite important. Note it is recorded as a declaratory statement and not a question.
According to Gerry Hemming, RFK had, more than once I believe, flown in to inspect one of the Cuban exile camps and may very well have seen Oswald or even shaken hands with him. (Joan Mellen told us she tried to confirm this but was unable to do so and therefore did not include that story in her book.)
Gerry Hemming is convinced that Robert Kennedy recognized Oswald's name and/or face when his name and photo were broadcast. Of course, when he said, "One of your guys did it", he did not know at that time that (as most of us believe) Oswald was not the shooter but only a patsy.
The revelation of some of the truth of the Odio incident is certainly a development the importance of which can scarcely be over-emphasized.
According to Gerry Hemming, RFK had, more than once I believe, flown in to inspect one of the Cuban exile camps and may very well have seen Oswald or even shaken hands with him. (Joan Mellen told us she tried to confirm this but was unable to do so and therefore did not include that story in her book.)
Gerry Hemming is convinced that Robert Kennedy recognized Oswald's name and/or face when his name and photo were broadcast. Of course, when he said, "One of your guys did it", he did not know at that time that (as most of us believe) Oswald was not the shooter but only a patsy.
The revelation of some of the truth of the Odio incident is certainly a development the importance of which can scarcely be over-emphasized.
James Richards had de Torres pegged as Leopoldo a few years ago. The question is, when did de Torres start running Oswald.
Bill S.
Bill S.
Is Bernardo de Torres still alive? If so, I wonder if he will be interviewed by Mellon with the information that Murgado has "outed" him. The link between de Torres and whoever had him handle Oswald would be a huge breakthrough. Lee Forman, do you have any photos of de Torres? Wasn't he suspected of by in Dealey Plaza on 11-22?
QUOTE (Nick Bartetzko @ Sep 4 2005, 10:40 AM)
Is Bernardo de Torres still alive? If so, I wonder if he will be interviewed by Mellon with the information that Murgado has "outed" him. The link between de Torres and whoever had him handle Oswald would be a huge breakthrough. Lee Forman, do you have any photos of de Torres? Wasn't he suspected of by in Dealey Plaza on 11-22?
Just to jump in here, Nick.
De Torres is still alive. The photograph below shows from left to right, William Seymour, Dennis Harber, Rudolfo Fasco and Bernardo De Torres.
The story goes that De Torres posed as a photographer in Dealey Plaza. He has snaps of the assassination locked away in a safe deposit box. If true, that would be his insurance.
FWIW.
James
Thanks, James. With all the films and photos we have of Dealey, are there any that you think might be De Torres as photographer?
as an aside :
because sturgis and detorres had very similar noses and ears, i wonder if they were related?
(in the far left image i gave detorres a shave and a 'wig')
edit:: images moved to pure speculation topic
because sturgis and detorres had very similar noses and ears, i wonder if they were related?
(in the far left image i gave detorres a shave and a 'wig')
edit:: images moved to pure speculation topic
QUOTE (Nick Bartetzko @ Sep 4 2005, 12:24 PM)
Thanks, James. With all the films and photos we have of Dealey, are there any that you think might be De Torres as photographer?
Hi Nick,
I did have a good look at the extant collection of Dealey Plaza images and nothing jumped out at me.
Having said that, below is a photograph that shows Bernardo De Torres in the black cap. The guy on the left is Alfredo Duran. I believe I have found him in Dealey Plaza as he was photographed post shooting mingling with the crowd.
FWIW.
John,
De Torres and Sturgis are not related.
James
I realise I'm probably out on a limb here but...
(sturgis with detorres' beanie and pencilthin)
edit :: plus similarities of nose ear and hairline.
(sturgis with detorres' beanie and pencilthin)
edit :: plus similarities of nose ear and hairline.
Nick wrote:
Is Bernardo de Torres still alive? If so, I wonder if he will be interviewed by Mellon with the information that Murgado has "outed" him. The link between de Torres and whoever had him handle Oswald would be a huge breakthrough.
Nick, for purposes of clarity, it is not clear to me that Murgado himself has identified deTorres as "Leopoldo". I think we will have to await the publication of the book to see how Professor Mellen indentified Leopoldo as deTorres.
I'd also like to point out (reiterate) that if, as both Larry and I suspect, Oswald was working for the government attempting to identify people either pro- or anti-Castro who might be interested in harming Kennedy, he might very well have made the statement that Leopoldo attributed to him when Leopoldo called Odio back a day or two after the meeting. Thus, it is not necessarily true that the Leopoldo character fabricated the statement to frame Oswald.
And if it was Oswald's intention to protect Kennedy, there might be a reason why he was associating with a friend of the Kennedy family. Maybe we have things backward. Maybe Murgado, not deTorres, was assisting someone in monitoring Oswald. I raise this only as a possibility.
But the incident certainly deserves additional investigation to determine how it fits into the conspiracy.
Is Bernardo de Torres still alive? If so, I wonder if he will be interviewed by Mellon with the information that Murgado has "outed" him. The link between de Torres and whoever had him handle Oswald would be a huge breakthrough.
Nick, for purposes of clarity, it is not clear to me that Murgado himself has identified deTorres as "Leopoldo". I think we will have to await the publication of the book to see how Professor Mellen indentified Leopoldo as deTorres.
I'd also like to point out (reiterate) that if, as both Larry and I suspect, Oswald was working for the government attempting to identify people either pro- or anti-Castro who might be interested in harming Kennedy, he might very well have made the statement that Leopoldo attributed to him when Leopoldo called Odio back a day or two after the meeting. Thus, it is not necessarily true that the Leopoldo character fabricated the statement to frame Oswald.
And if it was Oswald's intention to protect Kennedy, there might be a reason why he was associating with a friend of the Kennedy family. Maybe we have things backward. Maybe Murgado, not deTorres, was assisting someone in monitoring Oswald. I raise this only as a possibility.
But the incident certainly deserves additional investigation to determine how it fits into the conspiracy.
Just a hunch: Murgado lied through his teeth. Insinuating Bobby into the Odio incident is just the kind of thing the Bringuiers of the world specialized in. I'm extremely skeptical about this new development. If anyone is ever able to show that Bobby knew about Oswald before 11-22 1963 I'll eat my hat, which means I'll have to buy one first.. The "one of your guys" comment was made while Bobby was lashing out and in shock. On the morning after the assassination, he is reported to have asked McCone if the CIA did it. Days later he told Schlesinger it was either Castro or the gangsters. He knew nothing but suspected everything. If he'd have heard of Oswald, known Oswald, or recognized him from the camps, he would have used this information and conducted his own investigation. Don't swallow this new info whole.
How much do we really know about Murgado? If he'd have heard via Eduardo and Artime that Second Naval was a scam and that Attwood was talking to Lechuga, what would have been his response????
How much do we really know about Murgado? If he'd have heard via Eduardo and Artime that Second Naval was a scam and that Attwood was talking to Lechuga, what would have been his response????
Pat, as you know, I greatly respect your analytical abilities and I also appreciate the value of hunches when they come from people of intellect and sound judgment.
In response to your last post, however, I question why Murgado would lie about this incident after all of these years. What would be his motivation to do so?
I understand from Gerry Hemming that Murgado was a long-time friend of the Kennedys.
Of course I have not interviewed the man, but would like to do so. If he indeed was at Odio's door with Oswald, it could lead to potentially new lines of inquiry. I do assume that Professor Mellen assessed Murgado as a credible person.
Query do you agree with those people who believe that deTorres was Leopoldo?
In response to your last post, however, I question why Murgado would lie about this incident after all of these years. What would be his motivation to do so?
I understand from Gerry Hemming that Murgado was a long-time friend of the Kennedys.
Of course I have not interviewed the man, but would like to do so. If he indeed was at Odio's door with Oswald, it could lead to potentially new lines of inquiry. I do assume that Professor Mellen assessed Murgado as a credible person.
Query do you agree with those people who believe that deTorres was Leopoldo?
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 3 2005, 04:19 AM)
9/11 and 11/12
Here is a story by Joan Mellen as published (by Mark Howell) in the September 2, 2005 "Key West Citizen": (She is, of course, the author of the soon-to-be published "A Farewell to Justice"):
In my own research, I discovered that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own clandestine plots against Fidel Castro. Bobby’s instruction to the team of Cubans he had assembled in Miami was twofold. It was to discover a means of ridding the Kennedy administration of Castro. It was no less to protect his brother from the murderous impulses of an anti-Castro Cuban incensed by John F. Kennedy’s refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
In New Orleans, Mr. Murgado met Oswald. Hitherto unreported is that Bobby Kennedy became aware of Oswald — before the assassination. Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
“If the FBI is controlling Oswald,” Bobby reasoned, according to Murgado, “he’s no problem.” Operating covertly, Bobby underestimated who Oswald was and ceased to make him a major target of his concern. Bobby knew “something was cooking in New Orleans,” Murgado says. But Bobby urged “caution.” He did not share what he knew with those charged with protecting the President.
Angelo Murgado and a fellow Cuban traveled with Oswald from New Orleans to Dallas where they visited Sylvia Odio. Their ostensible objective was to obtain help for their anti-Castro efforts. Murgado trusted his companion, referred to in the Warren Report as “Leopoldo,” because not only was he a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, but his brother was running for mayor of Miami. He was respectable.
Out of Murgado’s hearing, the next day “Leopoldo” phoned Mrs. Odio and told her how “Leon” Oswald had talked about murdering President Kennedy. “Leon” is “kind of nuts,” Leopoldo said.
Placing Oswald in the company of an associate of Bobby Kennedy, in an incident that suggests foreknowledge of the assassination, created a trap that would silence Bobby forever. Meanwhile Murgado had been betrayed by a man he thought he could trust, a man, it appears, who was involved in arranging for Oswald to be blamed for the assassination. The men who visited Mrs. Odio with Oswald are identified here for the first time.
“Leopoldo” was Bernardo de Torres, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which accepted the CIA demand that he be granted partial immunity, so that he was not questioned about the period of time leading up to the assassination.
Here is a story by Joan Mellen as published (by Mark Howell) in the September 2, 2005 "Key West Citizen": (She is, of course, the author of the soon-to-be published "A Farewell to Justice"):
In my own research, I discovered that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own clandestine plots against Fidel Castro. Bobby’s instruction to the team of Cubans he had assembled in Miami was twofold. It was to discover a means of ridding the Kennedy administration of Castro. It was no less to protect his brother from the murderous impulses of an anti-Castro Cuban incensed by John F. Kennedy’s refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
In New Orleans, Mr. Murgado met Oswald. Hitherto unreported is that Bobby Kennedy became aware of Oswald — before the assassination. Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
“If the FBI is controlling Oswald,” Bobby reasoned, according to Murgado, “he’s no problem.” Operating covertly, Bobby underestimated who Oswald was and ceased to make him a major target of his concern. Bobby knew “something was cooking in New Orleans,” Murgado says. But Bobby urged “caution.” He did not share what he knew with those charged with protecting the President.
Angelo Murgado and a fellow Cuban traveled with Oswald from New Orleans to Dallas where they visited Sylvia Odio. Their ostensible objective was to obtain help for their anti-Castro efforts. Murgado trusted his companion, referred to in the Warren Report as “Leopoldo,” because not only was he a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, but his brother was running for mayor of Miami. He was respectable.
Out of Murgado’s hearing, the next day “Leopoldo” phoned Mrs. Odio and told her how “Leon” Oswald had talked about murdering President Kennedy. “Leon” is “kind of nuts,” Leopoldo said.
Placing Oswald in the company of an associate of Bobby Kennedy, in an incident that suggests foreknowledge of the assassination, created a trap that would silence Bobby forever. Meanwhile Murgado had been betrayed by a man he thought he could trust, a man, it appears, who was involved in arranging for Oswald to be blamed for the assassination. The men who visited Mrs. Odio with Oswald are identified here for the first time.
“Leopoldo” was Bernardo de Torres, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which accepted the CIA demand that he be granted partial immunity, so that he was not questioned about the period of time leading up to the assassination.
I guess the part of the story I doubt most is that this so-called trap would silence Bobby. How did he even know it was Murgado in Dallas with Oswald? Since Bobby never read the Warren Report, what reason do we have to believe he even knew about the Odio incident? Does Murgado say he told Bobby about this? If so, then why didn't Bobby go after de Torres? After all this is the big murderous brat Bobby Kennedy, who was supposedly foaming at the mouth to kill Castro simply because the BOP embarrassed his brother...
The other part that smells is that Murgado would go to the Odio's apartment seeking assistance. Nonsense. They told the Odio sisters they were friends of her father's and members of JURE. That was a lie. That's called disinfo. Going to someone's house and telling them lies and then insinuating that a man affiliated with her father's political group wants to kill Kennedy is not seeking assistance. While Murgado was supposedly betrayed by Leopoldo, I see NO reason to believe him.
The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.
Joan Mellen wrote (in her article):
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.
As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.
Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans. They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.
This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba. I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.
Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?
I have multiple responses.
First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes. Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK? I don't think we do know that yet.
But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK. Why then did he not tell RFK? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer, Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.
The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK. He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.
Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence. If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward? Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.
Pat wrote:
The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.
Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall? I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything. His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.
As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.
Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans. They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.
This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba. I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.
Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?
I have multiple responses.
First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes. Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK? I don't think we do know that yet.
But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK. Why then did he not tell RFK? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer, Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.
The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK. He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.
Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence. If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward? Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.
Pat wrote:
The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.
Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall? I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything. His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.
I suspect some of this discussion should be deferred until we have had a chance to read Professer Mellen's book. Until then we are just speculating about what Murgado told her.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 4 2005, 12:44 PM)
Joan Mellen wrote (in her article):
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.
As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.
Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans.
Pointless exercise. All the "violent" Cubans were already well know to the US authorities because they were being subsidized by the US authorities, via CIA and select military teats. The Odios were on the other end of the exile spectrum, entirely.
Odio's parents were involved with Manolo Ray, whose MRP, and later JURE, were not endorsed by CIA, precisely because he/they weren't violent enough, and didn't advocate a return to Batista-style autocratic rule. Ray wanted to pursue nominally socialist policies, but without the brutal means employed by Castro to achieve them. Hence, he and his approach were denounced by Howard Hunt and various gusano leaders as "Fidelismo sin Fidel" [Castroism without Castro.]
As you try to parse the minefield of various possibilities on Odio's doorstep, it is important to bear in mind that Oswald was purportedly visiting an exile family affiliated with the exile group least likely to be endorsed by CIA and other gusano groups. If one posits that another invasion was pending, and a newly minted substitute government was covertly being assembled, having the about-to-be assassin palling around with the Odios would neutralize any chance of Manolo Ray being involved in that new, post-Castro government. The Kennedys didn't find Ray and JURE abhorent; CIA did. Perhaps that will help illuminate for you who placed "Oswald" in that position.
They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.
If "Oswald" was part of an exercise in which "the remark attributed to Oswald" had a purpose, then "Oswald" would have made the remark himself, not merely had it attributed to him. The whole point of the exercise was to place Oswald in proximity to the Odios - thus pre-emptively tainting JURE and preventing its inclusion from a post-Castro government - and then continue to portray him as an assassin on the cusp of acting against Kennedy.
This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba. I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.
Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?
I have multiple responses.
First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes. Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK? I don't think we do know that yet.
If that thought has never crossed Murgado's mind, then he must be incredibly stupid.
But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK. Why then did he not tell RFK? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer, Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.
You place a remarkable premium on self-preservation in your own analyses, per Castro's alleged pre-emptive murder of Kennedy. Surely you can understand it when applied in other situations.
The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK. He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.
What about fear of retribution from RFK? "Oh, by the way, Bobby... you know that other Cuban guy who helped me do the dance with Oswald on Odio's doorstep? Well, I think he had something to do with offing your brother, but I didn't......" You think that'd fly very far, Tim?
Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence. If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward? Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.
Pat wrote:
The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.
Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall? I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything. His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.
Only because FBI yawned in complete disinterest, and then merely went through the motions in identifying the "Oswald" companions who visited the Odios, knowingly providing the WC with a false conclusion, and only when it was too late to be clarified prior to the issuance of the WC's report. Murgado would have had no reason to count upon that fact, unless he was a Bureau operative himself, and the revelation he was with Oswald would have been sufficiently embarassing to Hoover to merit being covered up.
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.
As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.
Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans.
Pointless exercise. All the "violent" Cubans were already well know to the US authorities because they were being subsidized by the US authorities, via CIA and select military teats. The Odios were on the other end of the exile spectrum, entirely.
Odio's parents were involved with Manolo Ray, whose MRP, and later JURE, were not endorsed by CIA, precisely because he/they weren't violent enough, and didn't advocate a return to Batista-style autocratic rule. Ray wanted to pursue nominally socialist policies, but without the brutal means employed by Castro to achieve them. Hence, he and his approach were denounced by Howard Hunt and various gusano leaders as "Fidelismo sin Fidel" [Castroism without Castro.]
As you try to parse the minefield of various possibilities on Odio's doorstep, it is important to bear in mind that Oswald was purportedly visiting an exile family affiliated with the exile group least likely to be endorsed by CIA and other gusano groups. If one posits that another invasion was pending, and a newly minted substitute government was covertly being assembled, having the about-to-be assassin palling around with the Odios would neutralize any chance of Manolo Ray being involved in that new, post-Castro government. The Kennedys didn't find Ray and JURE abhorent; CIA did. Perhaps that will help illuminate for you who placed "Oswald" in that position.
They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.
If "Oswald" was part of an exercise in which "the remark attributed to Oswald" had a purpose, then "Oswald" would have made the remark himself, not merely had it attributed to him. The whole point of the exercise was to place Oswald in proximity to the Odios - thus pre-emptively tainting JURE and preventing its inclusion from a post-Castro government - and then continue to portray him as an assassin on the cusp of acting against Kennedy.
This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba. I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.
Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?
I have multiple responses.
First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes. Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK? I don't think we do know that yet.
If that thought has never crossed Murgado's mind, then he must be incredibly stupid.
But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK. Why then did he not tell RFK? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer, Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.
You place a remarkable premium on self-preservation in your own analyses, per Castro's alleged pre-emptive murder of Kennedy. Surely you can understand it when applied in other situations.
The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK. He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.
What about fear of retribution from RFK? "Oh, by the way, Bobby... you know that other Cuban guy who helped me do the dance with Oswald on Odio's doorstep? Well, I think he had something to do with offing your brother, but I didn't......" You think that'd fly very far, Tim?
Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence. If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward? Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.
Pat wrote:
The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.
Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall? I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything. His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.
Only because FBI yawned in complete disinterest, and then merely went through the motions in identifying the "Oswald" companions who visited the Odios, knowingly providing the WC with a false conclusion, and only when it was too late to be clarified prior to the issuance of the WC's report. Murgado would have had no reason to count upon that fact, unless he was a Bureau operative himself, and the revelation he was with Oswald would have been sufficiently embarassing to Hoover to merit being covered up.
QUOTE (Robert Charles-Dunne @ Sep 4 2005, 06:31 PM)
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 4 2005, 12:44 PM)
Joan Mellen wrote (in her article):
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.
As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.
Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans.
Pointless exercise. All the "violent" Cubans were already well know to the US authorities because they were being subsidized by the US authorities, via CIA and select military teats. The Odios were on the other end of the exile spectrum, entirely.
Odio's parents were involved with Manolo Ray, whose MRP, and later JURE, were not endorsed by CIA, precisely because he/they weren't violent enough, and didn't advocate a return to Batista-style autocratic rule. Ray wanted to pursue nominally socialist policies, but without the brutal means employed by Castro to achieve them. Hence, he and his approach were denounced by Howard Hunt and various gusano leaders as "Fidelismo sin Fidel" [Castroism without Castro.]
As you try to parse the minefield of various possibilities on Odio's doorstep, it is important to bear in mind that Oswald was purportedly visiting an exile family affiliated with the exile group least likely to be endorsed by CIA and other gusano groups. If one posits that another invasion was pending, and a newly minted substitute government was covertly being assembled, having the about-to-be assassin palling around with the Odios would neutralize any chance of Manolo Ray being involved in that new, post-Castro government. The Kennedys didn't find Ray and JURE abhorent; CIA did. Perhaps that will help illuminate for you who placed "Oswald" in that position.
They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.
If "Oswald" was part of an exercise in which "the remark attributed to Oswald" had a purpose, then "Oswald" would have made the remark himself, not merely had it attributed to him. The whole point of the exercise was to place Oswald in proximity to the Odios - thus pre-emptively tainting JURE and preventing its inclusion from a post-Castro government - and then continue to portray him as an assassin on the cusp of acting against Kennedy.
This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba. I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.
Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?
I have multiple responses.
First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes. Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK? I don't think we do know that yet.
If that thought has never crossed Murgado's mind, then he must be incredibly stupid.
But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK. Why then did he not tell RFK? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer, Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.
You place a remarkable premium on self-preservation in your own analyses, per Castro's alleged pre-emptive murder of Kennedy. Surely you can understand it when applied in other situations.
The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK. He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.
What about fear of retribution from RFK? "Oh, by the way, Bobby... you know that other Cuban guy who helped me do the dance with Oswald on Odio's doorstep? Well, I think he had something to do with offing your brother, but I didn't......" You think that'd fly very far, Tim?
Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence. If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward? Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.
Pat wrote:
The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.
Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall? I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything. His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.
Only because FBI yawned in complete disinterest, and then merely went through the motions in identifying the "Oswald" companions who visited the Odios, knowingly providing the WC with a false conclusion, and only when it was too late to be clarified prior to the issuance of the WC's report. Murgado would have had no reason to count upon that fact, unless he was a Bureau operative himself, and the revelation he was with Oswald would have been sufficiently embarassing to Hoover to merit being covered up.
Among those closest to Bobby was a man still living in Florida today, Angelo Murgado, who, during the summer of 1963, traveled to New Orleans on Bobby’s behalf. Moving among “Castro’s agents, double agents, and Cubans working for the C.I.A.,” as he explained to me in Miami recently, Murgado hoped to “neutralize” a future assassin.
I found this paragraph in her article most interesting.
As noted above, I think Oswald might also have been working to try to stop an assassination.
Even though the group with which Odio's parents were associated seems less radical than some, the trip to Odio's apartment could have been part of a plan to try to "flush out" violent Cubans.
Pointless exercise. All the "violent" Cubans were already well know to the US authorities because they were being subsidized by the US authorities, via CIA and select military teats. The Odios were on the other end of the exile spectrum, entirely.
Odio's parents were involved with Manolo Ray, whose MRP, and later JURE, were not endorsed by CIA, precisely because he/they weren't violent enough, and didn't advocate a return to Batista-style autocratic rule. Ray wanted to pursue nominally socialist policies, but without the brutal means employed by Castro to achieve them. Hence, he and his approach were denounced by Howard Hunt and various gusano leaders as "Fidelismo sin Fidel" [Castroism without Castro.]
As you try to parse the minefield of various possibilities on Odio's doorstep, it is important to bear in mind that Oswald was purportedly visiting an exile family affiliated with the exile group least likely to be endorsed by CIA and other gusano groups. If one posits that another invasion was pending, and a newly minted substitute government was covertly being assembled, having the about-to-be assassin palling around with the Odios would neutralize any chance of Manolo Ray being involved in that new, post-Castro government. The Kennedys didn't find Ray and JURE abhorent; CIA did. Perhaps that will help illuminate for you who placed "Oswald" in that position.
They could have assumed Odio would repeat the remark attributed to Oswald and that it might draw out anti-Castro Cubans associated with Odio's group who hated Kennedy enough to kill him.
If "Oswald" was part of an exercise in which "the remark attributed to Oswald" had a purpose, then "Oswald" would have made the remark himself, not merely had it attributed to him. The whole point of the exercise was to place Oswald in proximity to the Odios - thus pre-emptively tainting JURE and preventing its inclusion from a post-Castro government - and then continue to portray him as an assassin on the cusp of acting against Kennedy.
This analysis of the Odio incident seems more logical than that it was an attempt to link Oswald to Cuba. I do not argue that the true purpose of Odio's visitors was to solicit funds.
Why did Murgado not tell his friend Bobby that deTorres was part of the assassination?
I have multiple responses.
First, I am not yet convinced that this is what Murgado believes. Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
Even if Murgado does believe that deTorres was part of the plot, do we know he reached that conclusion prior to the murder of RFK? I don't think we do know that yet.
If that thought has never crossed Murgado's mind, then he must be incredibly stupid.
But let us assume that after the assassination Murgado concluded that his buddy deTorres was part of the plot that killed JFK. Why then did he not tell RFK? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Many have asserted that deTorres was an "enforcer" who killed witnesses, everyone from Masferrer to Mary Mayer, Well, if that is the case, Murgado could have kept his mouth shut out of sheer fear.
You place a remarkable premium on self-preservation in your own analyses, per Castro's alleged pre-emptive murder of Kennedy. Surely you can understand it when applied in other situations.
The other possibility is that Murgado was monumentally embarrassed that he had failed in his mission to protect JFK. He might not have wanted to reveal the magnitude of his failure to RFK.
What about fear of retribution from RFK? "Oh, by the way, Bobby... you know that other Cuban guy who helped me do the dance with Oswald on Odio's doorstep? Well, I think he had something to do with offing your brother, but I didn't......" You think that'd fly very far, Tim?
Or he could have feared that by coming forward he might implicate himself in the assassination despite his innocence. If you were an anti-Castro Cuban who had been hanging with Oswald, would you have come forward? Even Odio herself did not volunteer her story.
Pat wrote:
The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.
Pat, why would Murgado's back be against the wall? I have no knowledge that anyone was going to link him to anything. His name was not even on anyone's radar screen, so far as I know.
Only because FBI yawned in complete disinterest, and then merely went through the motions in identifying the "Oswald" companions who visited the Odios, knowingly providing the WC with a false conclusion, and only when it was too late to be clarified prior to the issuance of the WC's report. Murgado would have had no reason to count upon that fact, unless he was a Bureau operative himself, and the revelation he was with Oswald would have been sufficiently embarassing to Hoover to merit being covered up.
Everything that has been written up to the present about Angel and Leopoldo which is obviously quite a bit, implies that they were the ones who were steering Oswald into the assassination of JFK. Tim's point that perhaps we should wait until Joan Mellen's book comes out to weigh all the facts is one that I think belies the point that until then we are just splitting hairs about all of this.
Re Robert's post, the theory that Oswald was taken to Odio's door so that when he was blamed for the assassination blame would fall on the Manola Ray group makes no sense to me whatsover. Why would the Manola Ray group want to kill Kennedy, for heaven's sake? If Robert's analysis is correct about the politics of the group, the Kennedys were favorable to the Manola Ray operation while the CIA would not. Why would ANYONE think that a group friendly to JFK had killed him? And for that matter, why would anyone think that Oswald was associated with that group merely because he had once appeared at Silvia Odio's doostep? (There is no evidence that Oswald ever tried to infiltrate the Manola Ray organization as he had, for instance, tried to infiltrate Interpen in December of 1962.)
It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.
Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?
Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro). Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself). It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).
It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.
Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?
Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro). Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself). It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).
Let me suggest a different reason for posing as JURE members. It may not be popular with the group, because it assumes that, at least to outsiders, Oswald was viewed as a leftist. I believe, that in his own mind, Oswald may genuinely have been a leftist; but that playing spy games trumped ideology. That is neither here nor there. If as, I suggest, outsiders suspected Oswald was truly a leftist, AND, they wanted to manipulate Oswald into a plot-- either a Castro plot (I think that was the first order of business) or a JFK plot (the contingency plan)-- then the way to do it would be to do what Martino suggested... pose as pro-Castroites.
JURE was, as Robert Charles-Dunne pointed out, a leftist organization. Indeed, if one reads the documentation, they were very much like Castroism without Castro.
So from that perspective, they may have been in a better position to manipulate Oswald into action. I'm not saying Oswald would have gone along with any murder plot *internally*; but to an outside who cannot read his intentions, this might seem the best opportunity to manipulate him.
-Stu
JURE was, as Robert Charles-Dunne pointed out, a leftist organization. Indeed, if one reads the documentation, they were very much like Castroism without Castro.
So from that perspective, they may have been in a better position to manipulate Oswald into action. I'm not saying Oswald would have gone along with any murder plot *internally*; but to an outside who cannot read his intentions, this might seem the best opportunity to manipulate him.
-Stu
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 5 2005, 04:33 AM)
Re Robert's post, the theory that Oswald was taken to Odio's door so that when he was blamed for the assassination blame would fall on the Manola Ray group makes no sense to me whatsover. Why would the Manola Ray group want to kill Kennedy, for heaven's sake? If Robert's analysis is correct about the politics of the group, the Kennedys were favorable to the Manola Ray operation while the CIA would not. Why would ANYONE think that a group friendly to JFK had killed him? And for that matter, why would anyone think that Oswald was associated with that group merely because he had once appeared at Silvia Odio's doostep? (There is no evidence that Oswald ever tried to infiltrate the Manola Ray organization as he had, for instance, tried to infiltrate Interpen in December of 1962.)
It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.
Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?
Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro). Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself). It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).
It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.
Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?
Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro). Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself). It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).
Stuart, do you suggest that Leopoldo was posing as a pro-Castroite?
I assume you do not consider Murgado to be part of the plot against JFK since he was apparently a long-time Kennedy supporter.
I assume you do not consider Murgado to be part of the plot against JFK since he was apparently a long-time Kennedy supporter.
Tim, a few observations:
1) Sylvia Odio was asked to write fund raising letters for her two visitors; we don't know what they would have asked her to say specifically because she turned them down. However, personal letters of endorsement referencing JURE, signed by Sylvia - who personally associated with Ray - could have been used to contaminate JURE in many ways. Certainly if such letters had been planted on Oswald or associated with him even short of an assassination, given his active pro-Castro stance, it would have been more political ammunition against Ray within the Cuban community.
Everything doesn't have to tie to the attack in Dallas; in fact there is good reason to belive the plan as of the Odio visit may not have jelled at all as far as an attack in Dallas. Only a few weeks earlier Oswald had been writting letters about a move to the East Coast.
2) There is no concrete reason to associate Angelo's agenda with Leopoldo's; nor to associate the letter request with the call afterwards - based on the data we have so far. There is no particular reason to think either Angelo or Oswald knew about the follow-up call, indeed there is good reason to think Leopoldo was working his own separate agenda.
3) The visit could have been used to "contaminate" JURE through association with a very pro-Castro, Marxist, Russian defector may be very relevant to Angelo's agenda while Leopoldo's may have been setting up Oswald for something more violent.
4) The autonomous group project which started in 1963 had multiple players, Artime and Williams and Ray. Assuming the plan had worked, Castro had been eliminated and a coup successful, you can bet that the next step would have been a direct conflict between Artime and Ray. And unfortunately the exiles were not ones to set aside such conflicts until after their primary objective was achived. Given all that some sort of political effort against JURE makes a great deal of sense even without the assassination plot coming into play.
1) Sylvia Odio was asked to write fund raising letters for her two visitors; we don't know what they would have asked her to say specifically because she turned them down. However, personal letters of endorsement referencing JURE, signed by Sylvia - who personally associated with Ray - could have been used to contaminate JURE in many ways. Certainly if such letters had been planted on Oswald or associated with him even short of an assassination, given his active pro-Castro stance, it would have been more political ammunition against Ray within the Cuban community.
Everything doesn't have to tie to the attack in Dallas; in fact there is good reason to belive the plan as of the Odio visit may not have jelled at all as far as an attack in Dallas. Only a few weeks earlier Oswald had been writting letters about a move to the East Coast.
2) There is no concrete reason to associate Angelo's agenda with Leopoldo's; nor to associate the letter request with the call afterwards - based on the data we have so far. There is no particular reason to think either Angelo or Oswald knew about the follow-up call, indeed there is good reason to think Leopoldo was working his own separate agenda.
3) The visit could have been used to "contaminate" JURE through association with a very pro-Castro, Marxist, Russian defector may be very relevant to Angelo's agenda while Leopoldo's may have been setting up Oswald for something more violent.
4) The autonomous group project which started in 1963 had multiple players, Artime and Williams and Ray. Assuming the plan had worked, Castro had been eliminated and a coup successful, you can bet that the next step would have been a direct conflict between Artime and Ray. And unfortunately the exiles were not ones to set aside such conflicts until after their primary objective was achived. Given all that some sort of political effort against JURE makes a great deal of sense even without the assassination plot coming into play.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 5 2005, 04:33 AM)
Re Robert's post, the theory that Oswald was taken to Odio's door so that when he was blamed for the assassination blame would fall on the Manola Ray group makes no sense to me whatsover.
No surprise there. Since the day you made anti-Castroism your full-time avocation, there is much that you either don't comprehend or pretend not to.
Why would the Manola Ray group want to kill Kennedy, for heaven's sake?
They didn't. Neither did the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. However, you saw how popular that organization was after the assassination, right? Had Oswald been a Boy Scout Troop Leader in '63, post-assassination Lord Baden-Powell's group would have been dust, too. No matter how dim the self-portrait you offer us, Tim, we know that you aren't as stupid as you pretend to be by asking such questions.
If Robert's analysis is correct about the politics of the group, the Kennedys were favorable to the Manola Ray operation while the CIA would not.
That could be something of a clue for you, Sherlock.
Why would ANYONE think that a group friendly to JFK had killed him?
Nobody thought that the FPCC killed Kennedy either, but its proximity to Oswald - just as casually innocent as the encounter with Odio's JURE - did terminal damage didn't it? Why, a reasonably intelligent person might even conclude that Oswald's paper-thin allegiance to FPCC was designed to achieve precisely that result. And, since JURE was the Castro-lite alternative bruited to replace El Jefe, a reasonably intelligent person might conclude that an attempt to taint JURE with Oswald - a la FPCC - would kill two birds with one stone: the one currently holding power, and the one being favoured by the White House sponsor as the replacement.
CIA wasn't partial to either of them, as you know. That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.
Moreover, while Kennedy was the most moderate man Castro could anticipate in the White House, you nevertheless blame him for killing Kennedy. Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?" You might want to seek out a pertinent passage from your Bible, Tim; it's a little item recounted by Matthew about straining on a gnat but swallowing a camel.
And for that matter, why would anyone think that Oswald was associated with that group merely because he had once appeared at Silvia Odio's doostep?
First, we must recall that if "Oswald" and his crew only showed up "once," it was solely because Ms. Odio made plain her reluctance to indulge them. Who knows what might have transpired had Leopoldo's charade been more convincing, or had Ms. Odio been more genial than she was astute?
Yet again we see a certain disingenuity in the very question. In order to knock down your own strawman, you distort what's been suggested and then mock the result of your own fabrication. It has never been suggested that by "Oswald" appearing at Odio's transom, FBI would immediately suspect JURE for the subsequent killing. It would imply, however, that JURE's membership included the kind of loose cannons who hang out with lone nut assassins. So, maybe JURE's not the kind of organization that the US would like to see running a post-Castro Cuba. It is through provocations such as this that otherwise blameless parties have their potential neutralized and their futures foreshortened.
It is precisely the kind of political sabotage indulged in professionally by intelligence agencies, a fact you should well know if you've read even half of the books you insist should be read by others. That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.
(There is no evidence that Oswald ever tried to infiltrate the Manola Ray organization as he had, for instance, tried to infiltrate Interpen in December of 1962.)
Now it appears you've been taking large hits from Gerry Hemming's oxygen mask. You might have cited FPCC, or even DRE, with some justification, since it is well known that Oswald tried vainly to ingratiate himself with both. If you have any citations for an Oswald approach to Interpen, please post them. In so doing, perhaps you could also differentiate between actual evidence and Hemming's own extravagantly grandiose recollections, since the two only rarely intersect when it comes to the topic of Oswald.
It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.
Neutralizing both Castro and JURE's Castro-lite alternative is called killing two birds with one stone. It may not have furthered Kennedy's course, but it certainly would have served CIA's cause. That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.
As Larry Hancock has already astutely observed, there may have been several agendas being forwarded the night that Ms. Odio received her visitors, some of them overlapping, some perhaps mutually exclusive.
Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?
Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro).
Amador Odio was imprisoned because he had provided shelter to a fleeing anti-Castro Cuban who had been involved in trying to whack Castro. We don't know the extent of Senor Odio's involvement over and above that single fact. Perhaps being a good Samaritan was his sole crime. If so, that attempt on Castro's life didn't involve Ray or his group in the machinations of other more action-oriented exile outfits.
Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself). It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).
The one thing you seem determined to presuppose is that Oswald did make the remarks attributed to him by Leopoldo. Given that you have learned of this third-hand, from a secondary source whose identity you don't even know, one wonders why you would accept as genuine words thusly attributed to Oswald, that are the polar opposite of everything else we know him to have said about Kennedy and the Cubans.
Had Oswald also said to Carlos Bringuier "Kennedy's the problem and should be killed by Cubans," [or words to that effect], it would offer some confirmation for your suspicions. In the absence of a single other instance of Oswald uttering such a direct, threatening phrase, I would suggest that Leopoldo's report is less a case of truthful observation, and moreso a case of putting words in Oswald's mouth, for a specific purpose. This dovetails with the Parrot Jungle incident, and even with a few of the Sports Drome rifle range incidents, designed to paint Oswald in advance of the assassination as a Kennedy-hating marksman of some skill. All the cited incidents involved Cubans, you may wish to recall, but not Oswald.
To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.
No surprise there. Since the day you made anti-Castroism your full-time avocation, there is much that you either don't comprehend or pretend not to.
Why would the Manola Ray group want to kill Kennedy, for heaven's sake?
They didn't. Neither did the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. However, you saw how popular that organization was after the assassination, right? Had Oswald been a Boy Scout Troop Leader in '63, post-assassination Lord Baden-Powell's group would have been dust, too. No matter how dim the self-portrait you offer us, Tim, we know that you aren't as stupid as you pretend to be by asking such questions.
If Robert's analysis is correct about the politics of the group, the Kennedys were favorable to the Manola Ray operation while the CIA would not.
That could be something of a clue for you, Sherlock.
Why would ANYONE think that a group friendly to JFK had killed him?
Nobody thought that the FPCC killed Kennedy either, but its proximity to Oswald - just as casually innocent as the encounter with Odio's JURE - did terminal damage didn't it? Why, a reasonably intelligent person might even conclude that Oswald's paper-thin allegiance to FPCC was designed to achieve precisely that result. And, since JURE was the Castro-lite alternative bruited to replace El Jefe, a reasonably intelligent person might conclude that an attempt to taint JURE with Oswald - a la FPCC - would kill two birds with one stone: the one currently holding power, and the one being favoured by the White House sponsor as the replacement.
CIA wasn't partial to either of them, as you know. That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.
Moreover, while Kennedy was the most moderate man Castro could anticipate in the White House, you nevertheless blame him for killing Kennedy. Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?" You might want to seek out a pertinent passage from your Bible, Tim; it's a little item recounted by Matthew about straining on a gnat but swallowing a camel.
And for that matter, why would anyone think that Oswald was associated with that group merely because he had once appeared at Silvia Odio's doostep?
First, we must recall that if "Oswald" and his crew only showed up "once," it was solely because Ms. Odio made plain her reluctance to indulge them. Who knows what might have transpired had Leopoldo's charade been more convincing, or had Ms. Odio been more genial than she was astute?
Yet again we see a certain disingenuity in the very question. In order to knock down your own strawman, you distort what's been suggested and then mock the result of your own fabrication. It has never been suggested that by "Oswald" appearing at Odio's transom, FBI would immediately suspect JURE for the subsequent killing. It would imply, however, that JURE's membership included the kind of loose cannons who hang out with lone nut assassins. So, maybe JURE's not the kind of organization that the US would like to see running a post-Castro Cuba. It is through provocations such as this that otherwise blameless parties have their potential neutralized and their futures foreshortened.
It is precisely the kind of political sabotage indulged in professionally by intelligence agencies, a fact you should well know if you've read even half of the books you insist should be read by others. That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.
(There is no evidence that Oswald ever tried to infiltrate the Manola Ray organization as he had, for instance, tried to infiltrate Interpen in December of 1962.)
Now it appears you've been taking large hits from Gerry Hemming's oxygen mask. You might have cited FPCC, or even DRE, with some justification, since it is well known that Oswald tried vainly to ingratiate himself with both. If you have any citations for an Oswald approach to Interpen, please post them. In so doing, perhaps you could also differentiate between actual evidence and Hemming's own extravagantly grandiose recollections, since the two only rarely intersect when it comes to the topic of Oswald.
It also makes little sense to argue that it was the plan of the conspirators to blame the assassination both on Castro AND on the Manola ray group.
Neutralizing both Castro and JURE's Castro-lite alternative is called killing two birds with one stone. It may not have furthered Kennedy's course, but it certainly would have served CIA's cause. That could be something of a clue to you too, Sherlock.
As Larry Hancock has already astutely observed, there may have been several agendas being forwarded the night that Ms. Odio received her visitors, some of them overlapping, some perhaps mutually exclusive.
Robert asks if the plan (as I speculate) was for Oswald to talk about killing Kennedy to draw out violently anti-Kennedy Cubans, why would Oswald not make such remarks to Odio herself (rather than having Leopoldo repeat them to her)?
Well, Robert notes that the Manola Ray group was noted for being anti-violent (even though it was involved in one of the early efforts to kill Castro).
Amador Odio was imprisoned because he had provided shelter to a fleeing anti-Castro Cuban who had been involved in trying to whack Castro. We don't know the extent of Senor Odio's involvement over and above that single fact. Perhaps being a good Samaritan was his sole crime. If so, that attempt on Castro's life didn't involve Ray or his group in the machinations of other more action-oriented exile outfits.
Perhaps Oswald made that remark to Leopoldo precisely because he was concerned about the people with whom Leopoldo and Murgado were associated (perhaps he was concerned about Leopoldo himself). It was not necessarily Oswald's intention to have the remark repeated to Odio (if in fact Oswald's handlers were not concerned about the members of Odio's group).
The one thing you seem determined to presuppose is that Oswald did make the remarks attributed to him by Leopoldo. Given that you have learned of this third-hand, from a secondary source whose identity you don't even know, one wonders why you would accept as genuine words thusly attributed to Oswald, that are the polar opposite of everything else we know him to have said about Kennedy and the Cubans.
Had Oswald also said to Carlos Bringuier "Kennedy's the problem and should be killed by Cubans," [or words to that effect], it would offer some confirmation for your suspicions. In the absence of a single other instance of Oswald uttering such a direct, threatening phrase, I would suggest that Leopoldo's report is less a case of truthful observation, and moreso a case of putting words in Oswald's mouth, for a specific purpose. This dovetails with the Parrot Jungle incident, and even with a few of the Sports Drome rifle range incidents, designed to paint Oswald in advance of the assassination as a Kennedy-hating marksman of some skill. All the cited incidents involved Cubans, you may wish to recall, but not Oswald.
To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.
Robert wrote (in part):
To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.
According to Professor Mellen, Murgado told her in June of this year that he was at Odio's door, with Oswald.
For all your disparaging comments, Robert, I think the Forum members will remember that I am the first person to publicize (both here on the Forum and in "Solares Hill", the identities of Angel and Leopoldo. My source, of course, was Gerry Hemming, another individual you appear, for whatever reason, very anxious to deprecate.
And in my opinion this may be one of the most important developments in the case in several years. As you knmow, the mystery of who were the men at Odio's door has puzzled assassination researchers for over forty years. We do not yet know what information may be revealed as a result.
I assume you were well-read enough to know that after the Interpen people were released from the Monroe County (Key West) jail and traveled to Miami Lee Harvey Oswald approached one of Hemming's men. Shortly thereafter he called in to the Allen Courtney radio show when Hemming and Davis were appearing on the show, again asking to involve himself with Hemming's organization.
I will comment on other parts of your post later.
To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.
According to Professor Mellen, Murgado told her in June of this year that he was at Odio's door, with Oswald.
For all your disparaging comments, Robert, I think the Forum members will remember that I am the first person to publicize (both here on the Forum and in "Solares Hill", the identities of Angel and Leopoldo. My source, of course, was Gerry Hemming, another individual you appear, for whatever reason, very anxious to deprecate.
And in my opinion this may be one of the most important developments in the case in several years. As you knmow, the mystery of who were the men at Odio's door has puzzled assassination researchers for over forty years. We do not yet know what information may be revealed as a result.
I assume you were well-read enough to know that after the Interpen people were released from the Monroe County (Key West) jail and traveled to Miami Lee Harvey Oswald approached one of Hemming's men. Shortly thereafter he called in to the Allen Courtney radio show when Hemming and Davis were appearing on the show, again asking to involve himself with Hemming's organization.
I will comment on other parts of your post later.
Robert wrote:
Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?"
Gee, Robert, now it is my turn to suggest you cannot be as ignorant as this question appears!
If, as most people think, Cubela was an agent provocateur, then Castro had every reason to believe that the CIA was initiating yet another effort to kill him, one which Cubela had been assured had the full blessings of the Kennedys (whether or not it did we can debate until the cows come home). Ever heard of self-defense?
Or how about the sabotage efforts that the CIA was undertaking against Cuba the very week before the Kennedy assassination, efforts approved in a meeting in which RFK was an active participant. How about the planned second invasion of Cuba?
Castro, my friend, was the biggest beneficiary of the assassination. It may have kept LBJ out of prison and elevated him to the presidency, but it saved Castro's life and his regime. Motive alone does not prove participation, of course, but to claim Castro had no motive is--well, it's risible.
Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?"
Gee, Robert, now it is my turn to suggest you cannot be as ignorant as this question appears!
If, as most people think, Cubela was an agent provocateur, then Castro had every reason to believe that the CIA was initiating yet another effort to kill him, one which Cubela had been assured had the full blessings of the Kennedys (whether or not it did we can debate until the cows come home). Ever heard of self-defense?
Or how about the sabotage efforts that the CIA was undertaking against Cuba the very week before the Kennedy assassination, efforts approved in a meeting in which RFK was an active participant. How about the planned second invasion of Cuba?
Castro, my friend, was the biggest beneficiary of the assassination. It may have kept LBJ out of prison and elevated him to the presidency, but it saved Castro's life and his regime. Motive alone does not prove participation, of course, but to claim Castro had no motive is--well, it's risible.
Robert wrote:
Moreover, while Kennedy was the most moderate man Castro could anticipate in the White House, you nevertheless blame him for killing Kennedy. Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?"
From Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt:
Today, all that can be said is that whatever his connection, if any, Castro was better served than any other leader in the world by [JFK's] death." (P. 345)
Robert, Castro could hardly call a president plotting his immonent demise "moderate"; murder is about as extreme an action as one can take, I would suppose. And of course it matters not whether JFK or RFK had actually endorsed the Cubela plot. What matters is that Castro had every reason to believe they had. I assume you do not dispute that Fitzgerald so told Cubela.
Moreover, while Kennedy was the most moderate man Castro could anticipate in the White House, you nevertheless blame him for killing Kennedy. Despite the back-channel peace feelers; despite the meetings involving Daniel, Howard, Attwood and Lechuga; despite the olive-branch speeches of possible reconciliation, you continue to peddle that fiction. To rephrase your own question, "Why would ANYONE think that a Cuban leader then trying to achieve detente with JFK had killed him?"
From Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt:
Today, all that can be said is that whatever his connection, if any, Castro was better served than any other leader in the world by [JFK's] death." (P. 345)
Robert, Castro could hardly call a president plotting his immonent demise "moderate"; murder is about as extreme an action as one can take, I would suppose. And of course it matters not whether JFK or RFK had actually endorsed the Cubela plot. What matters is that Castro had every reason to believe they had. I assume you do not dispute that Fitzgerald so told Cubela.
I have been called many names on this Forum, some of which I would not even want to repeat.
I hardly thought things could get worse.
But in his latest post, Robert goes so far as to claim that I am not as stupid as I pretend to be! I resent that, sir. How can you claim to know that I am not as stupid as I pretend to be? Robert, I would never assume to question your . . . nah, I won't go there!
I hardly thought things could get worse.
But in his latest post, Robert goes so far as to claim that I am not as stupid as I pretend to be! I resent that, sir. How can you claim to know that I am not as stupid as I pretend to be? Robert, I would never assume to question your . . . nah, I won't go there!
Professor Mellen wrote (in the article published in last Friday's "Solares Hill":
Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
Can someone bring me "up to speed" on William Walter? Was he a credible witness?
Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
Can someone bring me "up to speed" on William Walter? Was he a credible witness?
Wasn't William Walter the guy on duty in the New Orleans FBI office when the telex came in warning of the assassination in Dallas?
I think so but I think I recall there was some controversy about his testimony. I assume it is easily researched.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 6 2005, 04:53 AM)
Robert wrote (in part):
To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.
According to Professor Mellen, Murgado told her in June of this year that he was at Odio's door, with Oswald.
For all your disparaging comments, Robert, I think the Forum members will remember that I am the first person to publicize (both here on the Forum and in "Solares Hill", the identities of Angel and Leopoldo. My source, of course, was Gerry Hemming, another individual you appear, for whatever reason, very anxious to deprecate.
Yes, you're the first person to do Hemming's latest bidding. That and a dollar will buy you a coffee. Let us assume that Hemming knew the IDs of L&A all along. Why did he wait until Mellen's book was being printed to 'scoop' her on this point? Surely it wasn't life-threatening to Hemming to put this into the public domain at any prior point in the past 40-plus years? This is merely the latest instance in which Hemming has decided to insinuate himself into an historical circumstance, and claim knowledge that may or may not be true. Your uncritical acceptance of whatever he utters is very useful to him in this.
Let's have a quick look back at what Hemming told Weberman some years back:
"You want the real story behind the Odio incident? She was a suspected Castro agent. Her father was a basically a hostage in a Cuban prison who plotted against Castro with Veciana. You know why you are not given a security clearance if you have relatives behind the Iron Curtain? She's considered a Socialist, so she's on the wrong side. To reinforce that, there's a potential that she's being blackmailed and she's working as a Castro agent..... I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files. HUNT hated him for running the resistance against Batista. HUNT'S on Batista's side. This is the enemy, people who could have killed him while he was in Havana. They were killing people. Blowing up the sewer system and the telephone system. That fucked up his party routine. He probably felt insecure going to the local whorehouse. I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'Fuck that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"
According to Hemming's rather odd logic, it was necessary to taint Oswald with Ms. Odio, a purported Castro agent - despite the fact that her family had lost its holdings to Castro, that her father was in Castro's prison and her entire family worked to overthrow Castro by supporting the least fascist alternative, Manolo Ray. Yet this is the infallible source whose every utterance you believe to be gospel? Please, dear boy, do get a grip. It was not Oswald being tainted by Odio, but Odio's group JURE being tainted by Oswald prior to his date with infamy.
And in my opinion this may be one of the most important developments in the case in several years. As you knmow, the mystery of who were the men at Odio's door has puzzled assassination researchers for over forty years. We do not yet know what information may be revealed as a result.
Given the long legacy of lies, distortions and logical contortions that have masqueraded as stunning new revelations over the past four decades, you seem far more hopeful than that history would justify. Whatever fear for his safety kept Hemming from speaking up for the past 40-ish years seems to have evaporated with the knowledge that an academic woman is brave enough to break this news to the world. 'Tis an oddly poetic twist that a man's man who refers to his detractors as "girls" has only located his gumption when a mere slip of a woman is about to demonstrate the very bravery he has declined to exemplify in the past.
I assume you were well-read enough to know that after the Interpen people were released from the Monroe County (Key West) jail and traveled to Miami Lee Harvey Oswald approached one of Hemming's men. Shortly thereafter he called in to the Allen Courtney radio show when Hemming and Davis were appearing on the show, again asking to involve himself with Hemming's organization.
I have also studied the case enough to know other things:
Sturgis and the Buchanan brothers made similar claims that LHO had tried to infiltrate their virile sounding International Anti-Communist Brigade, even writing articles on the topic in the Florida press. When asked by the FBI about this, Sturgis back-tracked and called it mere "speculation." You can file Hemming's identical claims under an identical heading.
John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both depicted Oswald as a Castro agent bent upon infiltrating the patriotic anti-Castro movement on El Jefe's behalf. Prior to his death, Martino recanted to a Newsday reporter and admitted he had spread lies about Oswald to implicate him as a Castro agent.
Despite claims by all of the above, including your newest publicity client, it is not possible for Oswald to have been in Florida to make the purported approaches, at the times reported, due to his being demonstrably elsewhere at the time. This may suggest impersonation, but the likelier explanation is that you're being fed fantasy falsely labelled as fact.
I will comment on other parts of your post later.
To date, we still don't even know with certainty that the man who appeared on Ms. Odio's doorstep was Oswald.
According to Professor Mellen, Murgado told her in June of this year that he was at Odio's door, with Oswald.
For all your disparaging comments, Robert, I think the Forum members will remember that I am the first person to publicize (both here on the Forum and in "Solares Hill", the identities of Angel and Leopoldo. My source, of course, was Gerry Hemming, another individual you appear, for whatever reason, very anxious to deprecate.
Yes, you're the first person to do Hemming's latest bidding. That and a dollar will buy you a coffee. Let us assume that Hemming knew the IDs of L&A all along. Why did he wait until Mellen's book was being printed to 'scoop' her on this point? Surely it wasn't life-threatening to Hemming to put this into the public domain at any prior point in the past 40-plus years? This is merely the latest instance in which Hemming has decided to insinuate himself into an historical circumstance, and claim knowledge that may or may not be true. Your uncritical acceptance of whatever he utters is very useful to him in this.
Let's have a quick look back at what Hemming told Weberman some years back:
"You want the real story behind the Odio incident? She was a suspected Castro agent. Her father was a basically a hostage in a Cuban prison who plotted against Castro with Veciana. You know why you are not given a security clearance if you have relatives behind the Iron Curtain? She's considered a Socialist, so she's on the wrong side. To reinforce that, there's a potential that she's being blackmailed and she's working as a Castro agent..... I dealt with Manolo Ray. We could link up this dude with somebody that's already in the files. HUNT hated him for running the resistance against Batista. HUNT'S on Batista's side. This is the enemy, people who could have killed him while he was in Havana. They were killing people. Blowing up the sewer system and the telephone system. That fucked up his party routine. He probably felt insecure going to the local whorehouse. I know one of the guys who took OSWALD to Sylvia Odio. This was a setup to dirty-up OSWALD with suspected Castro agent Sylvia Odio. They'd build a file on her. Either they are building this guy's credibility to go kill Castro, or they've abandoned that, and said, 'Fuck that, we have to make this guy look like a Castro agent and have him do something serious in this country that's provocative.'"
According to Hemming's rather odd logic, it was necessary to taint Oswald with Ms. Odio, a purported Castro agent - despite the fact that her family had lost its holdings to Castro, that her father was in Castro's prison and her entire family worked to overthrow Castro by supporting the least fascist alternative, Manolo Ray. Yet this is the infallible source whose every utterance you believe to be gospel? Please, dear boy, do get a grip. It was not Oswald being tainted by Odio, but Odio's group JURE being tainted by Oswald prior to his date with infamy.
And in my opinion this may be one of the most important developments in the case in several years. As you knmow, the mystery of who were the men at Odio's door has puzzled assassination researchers for over forty years. We do not yet know what information may be revealed as a result.
Given the long legacy of lies, distortions and logical contortions that have masqueraded as stunning new revelations over the past four decades, you seem far more hopeful than that history would justify. Whatever fear for his safety kept Hemming from speaking up for the past 40-ish years seems to have evaporated with the knowledge that an academic woman is brave enough to break this news to the world. 'Tis an oddly poetic twist that a man's man who refers to his detractors as "girls" has only located his gumption when a mere slip of a woman is about to demonstrate the very bravery he has declined to exemplify in the past.
I assume you were well-read enough to know that after the Interpen people were released from the Monroe County (Key West) jail and traveled to Miami Lee Harvey Oswald approached one of Hemming's men. Shortly thereafter he called in to the Allen Courtney radio show when Hemming and Davis were appearing on the show, again asking to involve himself with Hemming's organization.
I have also studied the case enough to know other things:
Sturgis and the Buchanan brothers made similar claims that LHO had tried to infiltrate their virile sounding International Anti-Communist Brigade, even writing articles on the topic in the Florida press. When asked by the FBI about this, Sturgis back-tracked and called it mere "speculation." You can file Hemming's identical claims under an identical heading.
John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl both depicted Oswald as a Castro agent bent upon infiltrating the patriotic anti-Castro movement on El Jefe's behalf. Prior to his death, Martino recanted to a Newsday reporter and admitted he had spread lies about Oswald to implicate him as a Castro agent.
Despite claims by all of the above, including your newest publicity client, it is not possible for Oswald to have been in Florida to make the purported approaches, at the times reported, due to his being demonstrably elsewhere at the time. This may suggest impersonation, but the likelier explanation is that you're being fed fantasy falsely labelled as fact.
I will comment on other parts of your post later.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 6 2005, 07:37 AM)
Professor Mellen wrote (in the article published in last Friday's "Solares Hill":
Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
Can someone bring me "up to speed" on William Walter? Was he a credible witness?
The construction of Dr. Mellen's sentence leaves it possible for one to draw two different inferences. Just to be clear, the "fact" drawn to the attention of the WC and HSCA was that Oswald worked for the Bureau; not that Bobby knew this "fact" about Oswald and the Bureau.
Everyone who knew Walter claimed he was credible. None of his FBI colleagues could recall the teletype he referenced, though there are other indicators that a teletype similar to the one he testified about must have been issued.
Bobby discovered that Oswald was working for the FBI, a fact brought to the attention of the Warren Commission and confirmed for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by an FBI employee, William Walter.
Can someone bring me "up to speed" on William Walter? Was he a credible witness?
The construction of Dr. Mellen's sentence leaves it possible for one to draw two different inferences. Just to be clear, the "fact" drawn to the attention of the WC and HSCA was that Oswald worked for the Bureau; not that Bobby knew this "fact" about Oswald and the Bureau.
Everyone who knew Walter claimed he was credible. None of his FBI colleagues could recall the teletype he referenced, though there are other indicators that a teletype similar to the one he testified about must have been issued.
As far as any official investigation, to date the treatment of the Odio incident has been odious.
QUOTE (Mark Knight @ Sep 7 2005, 03:41 PM)
As far as any official investigation, to date the treatment of the Odio incident has been odious.
Or as the great yodeler Slim Whitman might sing, "Odio lady who?"
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Sep 7 2005, 04:59 PM)
QUOTE (Mark Knight @ Sep 7 2005, 03:41 PM)
As far as any official investigation, to date the treatment of the Odio incident has been odious.
Or as the great yodeler Slim Whitman might sing, "Odio lady who?"
That wacky poetry-lover, Ron! Always quoting Whitman...
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 6 2005, 07:52 AM)
I think so but I think I recall there was some controversy about his testimony. I assume it is easily researched.
------------------------------
Tim:
I will repeat what I stated on the telephone yesterday, "...we are OFF THE RECORD as to what is being discussed !!"
Responding to the clown who questions my "scooping" Joan Mellen, and why didn't I "come forward" some 40 years ago ?? Sounds just like Kazahk Weberman, and; I am beginning to suspect that this is Weberman using an alias.
Go to his "Nodules" and read my response to his query about not "coming forth";
and I repeat: You don't want to know where on your anatomy I will do my "coming" !!
I took Joan Mellen to meet Angelo on June 27th this year; just as I took Russo to interview him years ago. Joan paid the expenses down to Miami, but my son and I got stuck with the costs returning north. Nevertheless, as Joan complained in an e-mail last month; If any "so-and-so" wants the inside story; then they can pony up their share of the travel and other expenses.
Now it gets very clear why certain professionals avoid forums !! Why should anybody expose themselves to having their "chains pulled" by complete amateurs ??
Joan Mellen has yet to completely resolve specific issues' specifically those which she intends to elaborate upon in more detail within her prospective tome. When she finally asks the correct questions, she will get the facts "Maam". There are others out their attempting to accomplish similar interviews, but I can assure you that they will fail.
I worked with Sylvia in Cuba. Long after both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee coverups, she stated, after her review of those documents purporting to be her "testimony" -- she bitterly denounced EVERYTHING contained therein as having been FALSIFIED.
Mrs. Connell was a longtime FBI informant, and one whom had been tasked to monitor; among others, the Odio sisters. I knew her husband, who divorced her after she snitched him out to the FBI. The last time we spoke was when he was running a "veterans" bar on West Flagler Street and 26th avenue in Miami [during 1965]. He had a lot to say about the "Odio Incident", primarily because he wanted to discover enough of the facts to "burn" his ex-wife !!
Mea culpa for not having called any of the current or past members of this forum some 40 years ago, or are you bitching because I didn't "drop-a-Dime" to Hoover, or one of LBJ's cohorts. Well kiddies, I kept my Kennedy Family intermediary up-to-date on most everything, especially after dealing with Garrison in N.O. during the Summer of 1967. My contact with Bobby ?? His name is Charles Bartlett, and he is still alive and well in Georgetown. He was the person who introduced "Jackie" to JFK at a dinner party at his home.
But don't expect that newspaperman to even answer the telephone -- girls !!
RFK spent large sums of money in his efforts in ultimately clarifying specific facts, and thereby resolved that his initial contemporaneous beliefs and suspicions were in total error. RFK "DID NOT" begin his inquiries until late 1965 !!
"Benny" de Torres was nowhere near Dealey Plaza. Moreover, the first instance of his being associated with the "investigation" of the JFK matter was via an Edward J. Epstein article in New Yorker Magazine, and wherein it was hinted that "Benny" has expended approximately 50% of Garrison's "Truth-or-Consequences" funds while "checking-out" the Miami Cubans !!
James: the person in the Seymour, Harber, "Benny" photo is none other than CIA Officer Joannides' principal D.R.E. contact -- Isidro "Chilo" Borjas.
I have no doubt that when more facts are exposed on this "Odio Incident", and hopefully by Joan Mellen ?? -- there will be the usual rants by the self-styled "critics" on this forum even then. John, I suspect you have some "damage control" artists amongst the membership !! Who are they "assisting" ?? I seriously doubt that they even know for certain. It is called "false-flag" recruitment -- Girls !!
John Martino met ALL of his Cuban contacts through me ONLY. As for his purported "confession" to John Cummings [then of NewsDay] -- Bullshit. I took over John's Central American import/export business, at his request, after his second committment to the cardiac unit at Cedars in Miami Beach. During the late 1960s, and into the mid 1970s, John ran his business from the Biltmore Hotel in Guatemala City -- where I joined him from time-to-time.
Due to compartmentalization, neither Angelo nor "Benny" ever had the full scope of exactly what they had been tasked to do, and moreover, had less knowledge of each other's moves doing that, and later operations.
"Benny" still is a pro-shooter, or facilitator, even today. However, nobody in their right mind would suspect that he was part of the "plot" -- especially
the "so-called" plot "formulated/discovered/uncovered" by the majority of wing-nutters I've encountered in my recent travels. As more than a few of the members have stated in their private e-mails to me: "....What a bunch of stupid assholes....they should get-a-life !!"
As a side-bar: I had to repeatedly twist John Cumming's arm in order that he might show even the slightest interest in the JFK matter. Bill Turner was of the same disinclination, and they, along with many others, wouldn't make ANY inquiries until they were fed inside scoop on other stories of "greater" interest. Even today, Don Bohning could give a rat's ass as to the JFK crap being spewed forth, and this is no doubt a result of his experiencing the less than adequate bona fides "brandished" by the "wing-nutter" groupings & "groupies".
I made no reference to the JFK matter to anybody of consequence until dealing with Garrison during 1967. During 1968, Harold Weizberg came to El Monte, California for a week of interviews, and it was through him that the Paul Coates TV Show producer demanded an interview. During that same short timespan, Bob Dornan & Maria Cole were prompted by Art Bell [all of Channel 9 TV, Los Angeles]to make inquiries, but we diverted them to some insider scoop on the Panthers, Ron Karenga's "US" organization, and the Brown Berets -- ALL of which entities had been created by MH/CHAOS Operators.
I will be speaking with Joan today, and if she asks the specific questions, then her book might eventually contain some more enlightenment for those of a serious nature. But it is not about to happen on this forum, that is: before she gets her chance to assemble the facts a bit more coherently !!
GPH
__________________________________
According to Mr. Hemming, Bernardo deTorres was NOT a player in the JFK assassination. I know this goes against the "conventional wisdom" on this Forum, but I would like to see facts establishing that he was a conspirator.
I would note that I posted a few days ago:
Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
I would note that I posted a few days ago:
Nor do I necessarily believe it has yet been established that deTorres was part of the plot.
QUOTE (Gerry Hemming @ Sep 8 2005, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 6 2005, 07:52 AM)
I think so but I think I recall there was some controversy about his testimony. I assume it is easily researched.
------------------------------
Tim:
I will repeat what I stated on the telephone yesterday, "...we are OFF THE RECORD as to what is being discussed !!"
Responding to the clown who questions my "scooping" Joan Mellen, and why didn't I "come forward" some 40 years ago ?? Sounds just like Kazahk Weberman, and; I am beginning to suspect that this is Weberman using an alias.
Go to his "Nodules" and read my response to his query about not "coming forth";
and I repeat: You don't want to know where on your anatomy I will do my "coming" !!
Since I am the "clown" in question, let me assure Mr. Hemming that I am not Weberman, don't look anything like Weberman, have never pored over Bob Dylan's trash, have never insisted that the three tramps were.... you get the picture. I also note that in this non-responsive reply, there is no rationale offered for not having identified either L nor A in decades gone by, only the vague implication that it might have led to harm befalling Hemming had he done so.
It's most interesting that a man who insists he was in the thick of various battles on so many different occasions, whose entire profile is built upon so much purported derring-do, was too frigthened by possible consequences to make known to the authorities what might have been helpful in resolving various JFK related mysteries. Given the wide variety of contacts Gerry had back in the day, and presumably still does, one wonders why he did not use a cutout or intermediary as a third party to float what he knew to authorities.
Given the great fear of personal harm that prevented Hemming from making the ID in past years, it is presumably highly dangerous knowledge. Then how and why did Gerry decide after all these years that now is the time to reveal the truth? Did the danger suddenly evaporate? Has some key person died, and hence there is no longer any great fear of reprisal?
It is a good general rule of thumb that when late-arriving witnesses make a grandiose claim, they be viewed with suspicion unless and until some type of confirmation for that claim can be established. This has been true of Judyth Baker, Ricky White, James Files, et al, and should be no less true in this instance.
I took Joan Mellen to meet Angelo on June 27th this year; just as I took Russo to interview him years ago. Joan paid the expenses down to Miami, but my son and I got stuck with the costs returning north. Nevertheless, as Joan complained in an e-mail last month; If any "so-and-so" wants the inside story; then they can pony up their share of the travel and other expenses.
Interesting. Presumably whatever Russo encountered in the course of his interview disinclined him to pursue this avenue. Perhaps Russo wasn't convinced that this story was genuine, or perhaps it didn't fit into Russo's own pre-conceptions.
Now it gets very clear why certain professionals avoid forums !! Why should anybody expose themselves to having their "chains pulled" by complete amateurs ??
As opposed to what? Having our cranks yanked by pros? Rather than complain with condescension, express high dudgeon about the peons who plague you, or dribble the story out piecemeal as it suits you, Gerry, you might find it far more helpful for your own credibility to merely tell the story. Don't rely upon others; find yourself a secure soapbox and write your book [half the members here would buy it, sight unseen, as you know] or sell your life story for big bucks to Oliver Stone or serialize it via any receptive periodical. Few people are better situated to strike such a deal, and then your tale would be on the record. Surely, this is far more efficient and satisfactory than taking others by the hand to meet your secret sources and contacts, and then hoping against hope that they get the story right, no?
Joan Mellen has yet to completely resolve specific issues' specifically those which she intends to elaborate upon in more detail within her prospective tome. When she finally asks the correct questions, she will get the facts "Maam". There are others out their attempting to accomplish similar interviews, but I can assure you that they will fail.
Rather than wait for Dr. Mellen to formulate the "correct questions," why don't you just supply them to her? If it's merely a question of connecting the dots, as you suggest, why do you seem so unconcerned about whether anyone will ever do it? Or is there some kind of price tag involved?
I worked with Sylvia in Cuba. Long after both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee coverups, she stated, after her review of those documents purporting to be her "testimony" -- she bitterly denounced EVERYTHING contained therein as having been FALSIFIED.
Mrs. Connell was a longtime FBI informant, and one whom had been tasked to monitor; among others, the Odio sisters. I knew her husband, who divorced her after she snitched him out to the FBI. The last time we spoke was when he was running a "veterans" bar on West Flagler Street and 26th avenue in Miami [during 1965]. He had a lot to say about the "Odio Incident", primarily because he wanted to discover enough of the facts to "burn" his ex-wife !!
Mea culpa for not having called any of the current or past members of this forum some 40 years ago, or are you bitching because I didn't "drop-a-Dime" to Hoover, or one of LBJ's cohorts. Well kiddies, I kept my Kennedy Family intermediary up-to-date on most everything, especially after dealing with Garrison in N.O. during the Summer of 1967. My contact with Bobby ?? His name is Charles Bartlett, and he is still alive and well in Georgetown. He was the person who introduced "Jackie" to JFK at a dinner party at his home.
But don't expect that newspaperman to even answer the telephone -- girls !!
Gerry, your prior three grafs are precisely why your story seems so questionable. Clearly, you had personal contact with the key players in the Odio incident, and know things worth sharing with the authorities. You also know men of Bartlett's calibre, which makes you well placed to share that information with the authorities, without implicating yourself or placing yourself in danger. My questions remain: why didn't you do so when it might have counted? And, what has changed so dramatically that it is no longer dangerous to do so now?
As we age, and grow less robust, we face our own mortality. I understand that you've not been enjoying the best of health, so you know precisely what I mean by this. Are you content to leave behind a fractured and indecipherable chronology of events, when you know you are singularly and uniquely situated to fill in the missing pieces and provide historical accuracy as your legacy?
RFK spent large sums of money in his efforts in ultimately clarifying specific facts, and thereby resolved that his initial contemporaneous beliefs and suspicions were in total error. RFK "DID NOT" begin his inquiries until late 1965 !!
"Benny" de Torres was nowhere near Dealey Plaza. Moreover, the first instance of his being associated with the "investigation" of the JFK matter was via an Edward J. Epstein article in New Yorker Magazine, and wherein it was hinted that "Benny" has expended approximately 50% of Garrison's "Truth-or-Consequences" funds while "checking-out" the Miami Cubans !!
James: the person in the Seymour, Harber, "Benny" photo is none other than CIA Officer Joannides' principal D.R.E. contact -- Isidro "Chilo" Borjas.
I have no doubt that when more facts are exposed on this "Odio Incident", and hopefully by Joan Mellen ?? -- there will be the usual rants by the self-styled "critics" on this forum even then. John, I suspect you have some "damage control" artists amongst the membership !! Who are they "assisting" ?? I seriously doubt that they even know for certain. It is called "false-flag" recruitment -- Girls !!
The only reason that confusion, "rants" and "damage control" and "false flag" nonsense exist is because those tasked with resolving these issues, haven't; those in a position to supply the missing vital pieces, haven't. Instead, we've had endless committees of inquiry that have resolved nothing; and a number of persons who claim to have key knowledge will claim to have knowledge, but refuse to share it. The irritant is not those who ask questions that they cannot themselves answer; it is those who claim to have the answers but won't provide them. If you would like to shut we "girls" up once and for all, Gerry, just do the righteous thing and place your knowledge into the history books where it belongs. That would be a fitting legacy for you to leave behind: Gerry Patrick Hemming, patriot in war and peace, who as one of his last acts did the right thing.
John Martino met ALL of his Cuban contacts through me ONLY. As for his purported "confession" to John Cummings [then of NewsDay] -- Bullshit. I took over John's Central American import/export business, at his request, after his second committment to the cardiac unit at Cedars in Miami Beach. During the late 1960s, and into the mid 1970s, John ran his business from the Biltmore Hotel in Guatemala City -- where I joined him from time-to-time.
Since Martino was in Cuba as early as 1956, which predates your own arrival on that scene significantly, there can be little doubt that Martino knew some interesting Cubans well prior to needing any introduction from you. That he "met ALL of his Cuban contacts through you ONLY" is a blanket assertion, but unsubstantiated by any evidence other than your own insistence. Ditto for your condemnation of the Cummings report, which dovetails entirely with what he also told Claasen/Klaasen. It is also odd that you would denounce as "Bullshit" what Cummings eventually begrudgingly divulged, for it might actually bolster suspect elements of your own story re: Oswald's attempts to infiltrate Interpen:
The last time he met reporter Cummings, John Martino made an astonishing claim. "It came out of the blue," Cummings recalled. "John told me he had himself met Oswald several weeks before the assassination, in Miami. He said an FBI agent named Connors asked him to come to a boat docked in Biscayne Bay, and introduced him to Oswald by name. The impression John got was that Oswald didn't know his ass from his elbow, didn't know what he was involved in. He thought the agent wanted him to meet Oswald because John was involved in anti-Communist activity, and Oswald was someone this agent was running."
I was not able to trace a Miami agent called Connors answering the description provided by Cummings. FBI files show Martino did have contacts after the assassination with an agent named James J. O'Connor, whom I tracked down in retirement. "John Martino?" he said. "I'm afraid all I could tell you is, yes, the name rings a bell.... I don't recall that he was a regular contact." O'Connor said he cannot recall whether he was in touch with Martino before the assassination. He said he never met Oswald at any time.
Cummings, an investigative reporter for more than thirty years, did not think the Martino allegation was just a crook's slur against a law enforcement officer. "I believed Martino," he said. "It came across, just before he died, like a confessional. I was told that Connors, the agent he named, was in Counterlntelligence."
Several pages that refer to Martino have been withdrawn from the Kennedy assassination collection at the National Archives, at the insistence of the CIA and the FBI.
Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)
Due to compartmentalization, neither Angelo nor "Benny" ever had the full scope of exactly what they had been tasked to do, and moreover, had less knowledge of each other's moves doing that, and later operations.
"Benny" still is a pro-shooter, or facilitator, even today. However, nobody in their right mind would suspect that he was part of the "plot" -- especially
the "so-called" plot "formulated/discovered/uncovered" by the majority of wing-nutters I've encountered in my recent travels. As more than a few of the members have stated in their private e-mails to me: "....What a bunch of stupid assholes....they should get-a-life !!"
Since I've never mentioned Benny in any of my posts, I'll assume that I'm exempted from this gratuitous slur from those who send you private comments, but lack the guts to post them here where they might actually be challenged. I'm sure all you "girls" swap much gossip.
As a side-bar: I had to repeatedly twist John Cumming's arm in order that he might show even the slightest interest in the JFK matter. Bill Turner was of the same disinclination, and they, along with many others, wouldn't make ANY inquiries until they were fed inside scoop on other stories of "greater" interest. Even today, Don Bohning could give a rat's ass as to the JFK crap being spewed forth, and this is no doubt a result of his experiencing the less than adequate bona fides "brandished" by the "wing-nutter" groupings & "groupies".
Cummings maintained that Martino divulged what he knew to Cummings only after having sworn him to keep it confidential. You know, the same way you have instructed Tim Gratz that ""...we are OFF THE RECORD as to what is being discussed !!" If so, perhaps Cummings was the journalist referred to by ARRB member Daniel Alcorn in his own ARRB testimony:
When I saw these records this year, I did some further investigation, found a journalist who was very intimate with Mr. Martino back in 1963. In fact, he had been invited to go on this raid in 1963, and he had kept in touch with Mr. Martino over a period of time, and this journalist confirmed to me that, in fact, before Mr. Martino's death he did describe such a plot to this journalist, but he had withheld the information in order to protect the family, and he had an obligation up until now to do that.
Since both Messrs. Turner and Bohning are members here, perhaps they could address your claims regarding their own alleged recalcitrance.
I made no reference to the JFK matter to anybody of consequence until dealing with Garrison during 1967. During 1968, Harold Weizberg came to El Monte, California for a week of interviews, and it was through him that the Paul Coates TV Show producer demanded an interview. During that same short timespan, Bob Dornan & Maria Cole were prompted by Art Bell [all of Channel 9 TV, Los Angeles]to make inquiries, but we diverted them to some insider scoop on the Panthers, Ron Karenga's "US" organization, and the Brown Berets -- ALL of which entities had been created by MH/CHAOS Operators.
So, despite shrewing on and on about reporters and journalists not expressing any interest in the JFK matter despite your apparent pleading - per your comments above re: Cummings, Turner and Bohning - when journalists and officials did express an interest in learning what you knew of the matter, you instead led them off on some other wild goose chase. This is, of course, precisely what I suspect you practice here and elsewhere at every opportunity. It is very accommodating of you to admit that you have a history of doing this.
I will be speaking with Joan today, and if she asks the specific questions, then her book might eventually contain some more enlightenment for those of a serious nature. But it is not about to happen on this forum, that is: before she gets her chance to assemble the facts a bit more coherently !!
Then one wonders why you pre-emptively provide information to Tim Gratz, who seizes the opportunity to do precisely what you claim you don't want done, "before she gets her chance to assemble the facts a bit more coherently."
On the one hand, you refuse to open your mouth. On the other hand, you just can't keep it shut.
Just how deep is the game you're playing, Gerry?
GPH
__________________________________
James: the person in the Seymour, Harber, "Benny" photo is none other than CIA Officer Joannides' principal D.R.E. contact -- Isidro "Chilo" Borjas. (Gerry Hemming)
WOW! I've just picked my jaw up off the floor. Did Chilo ever use the name Rudolfo Fasco that you are aware of?
So below we have Chilo, Ed Collins and Ralph Schlafter.
Thanks for the ID, Gerry. Most interesting.
James
WOW! I've just picked my jaw up off the floor. Did Chilo ever use the name Rudolfo Fasco that you are aware of?
So below we have Chilo, Ed Collins and Ralph Schlafter.
Thanks for the ID, Gerry. Most interesting.
James
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.