Leopoldo and Angel

[Paul Trejo]

So, basically, Tommy, you're merely saying that you refuse to return to the topic of my two urgent questions about "Leopoldo" namely:

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

Instead of dealing with those two questions, you consistently change the topic to my personality -- the old ad hominem gambit.

The fact is glaringly clear -- you don't have a response. Despite these urgent facts, you'll stick to your belief system, and just run away.

Oh, well.

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

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

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

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

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

It was nine months.

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

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

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

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

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

I was mistaken. I admit it.

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

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

(2) Why did Loran Hall confess at first?

Do you have an opinion about that, Tommy?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Moved here from the Harry Dean Memoirs thread:

<snip>

Why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Examples:

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

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

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

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

Bull Pucky.

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

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

LOL

--Tommy

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the evidence that theorists must explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Trejo,

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

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

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

When I called you on that you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was mistaken. I admit it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've exhausted me.

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

edited and merely bumped

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Say,Tommy, I thought you said you were FINISHED and EXHAUSTED!

Since you still have some energy left, how about returning to my two main questions about "Leopoldo" that I keep asking about week affter week, namely:

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

No? No idea? No clue?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Say,Tommy, I thought you said you were FINISHED and EXHAUSTED!

Since you still have some energy left, how about returning to my two main questions about "Leopoldo" that I keep asking about week affter week, namely:

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

(2) Why did Loran Hall confess at first?

No? No idea? No clue?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

.

Trejo,

I must have got my "second wind."

The endorphins must have finally kicked in.

Or maybe it was just the cup of coffee I drank?

Whatever.

Actually, you're very good at skirting difficult questions yourself by simply avoiding them and instead accusing your opponent of "running away," thereby provoking him into another exhausting (for him) confrontation.

Regardless,

I gotta confess that I have absolutely no idea why the FBI "picked up" (as you say) Loran Hall nine (that's 9 ; the number between "8" and "10" , n-i-n-e) whole months after Sylvia Odio told the FBI about the strange meeting with the three men, and two whole months after she'd given the Warren Commission the same information. Hmmm. Maybe they just wanted to ask him if he knew of any good fishing spots or Mexican restaurants or how he'd managed to put on fifty pounds during the previous twelve months or if he knew where Hemming's 30.06 was? Beats the hell out of me. You really got me there, Trejo. I gotta admit, I'm absolutely stumped on that one.

Now, as to why Hall "confessed" (as you like to say) on October 16, 1964, that he and Howard and Seymour had visited Odio in late September of '63, well gosh, all I can think of is that either 1) he mixed up his being in Dallas with Howard and Celio Sergio Castro Alba in late September of 1963 with his being there with Seymour in mid-to-late October of 1963, and the FBI got a little creative with it all because Hoover couldn't have Oswald at Odio's and on his way to Mexico City at the same time, or 2) that Hall thought that that was what the FBI wanted him to say, so he said it.

I think what Hall later said is plausible -- that on September 16, 1964 he had only told the FBI that it was possible that he had met a Sylvia Odio, but that he didn't remember her.

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

PS If I don't respond to your taunts in the future, it's because I've decided to finally "run away." At that point, feel free to declare yourself

---THE WINNER---

What the hell, why not go ahead and do that right now?

LOL

edit: changed "October 16, 1964" to read "September 16, 1964"

Edited May 9, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

...Regardless,

I gotta confess that I have absolutely no idea why the FBI "picked up" (as you say) Loran Hall...after Sylvia Odio told the FBI about the strange meeting with the three men, and...after she'd given the Warren Commission the same information.

Hmmm...Beats the hell out of me...I gotta admit, I'm absolutely stumped on that one.

Now, as to why Hall "confessed"...on October 16, 1964, that he and Howard and Seymour had visited Odio in late September of '63, well gosh, all I can think of is that either (1) he mixed up his being in Dallas with Howard and Celio Sergio Castro Alba in late September of 1963 with his being there with Seymour in mid-to-late October of 1963, and the FBI got a little creative with it all because Hoover couldn't have Oswald at Odio's and on his way to Mexico City at the same time, or (2) that Hall thought that that was what the FBI wanted him to say, so he said it.

I think what Hall later said is plausible -- that on October 16, 1964 he had only told the FBI that it was possible that he had met a Sylvia Odio, but that he didn't remember her.

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

<snip>

Well, Tommy, at least you admit that you don't have a strong answer for it.

The FBI picked up Loran Hall. Loran Hall admitted it is was himself and Larry Howard at Silvia Odio's doorstep with an American guy during the final week of September 1963.

There we have "Leopoldo" and "Angel."

Coincidentally we have independent confirmation from Harry Dean that he and Guy Gabaldon collected the money, arms and medical supplies (as donated from well-to-do John Birch Society members in Southern California) that Loran Hall and Larry Howard would transport in their trailer to NOLA and Miami for Cuba Raids.

Also, Harry Dean says that Hall and Howard had agreed with Gabaldon to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, and drive him to Mexico City (via Texas) to meet Guy Gabaldon for some cash and a project.

The pieces fit -- except for the height-and-weight of the two Latinos as described by Silvia Odio. For my part, I will meet you half-way and admit that this part is a mystery to me.

While IMHO the weight of the evidence seems to point to Hall and Howard -- it remains inconclusive.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

<snip>

...Regardless,

I gotta confess that I have absolutely no idea why the FBI "picked up" (as you say) Loran Hall...[nine] months after Sylvia Odio told the FBI about the strange meeting with the three men, and...[two] months after she'd given the Warren Commission the same information.

Hmmm...Beats the hell out of me...I gotta admit, I'm absolutely stumped on that one.

Now, as to why Hall "confessed"...on October 16, 1964, that he and Howard and Seymour had visited Odio in late September of '63, well gosh, all I can think of is that either (1) he mixed up his being in Dallas with Howard and Celio Sergio Castro Alba in late September of 1963 with his being there with Seymour in mid-to-late October of 1963, and the FBI got a little creative with it all because Hoover couldn't have Oswald at Odio's and on his way to Mexico City at the same time, or (2) that Hall thought that that was what the FBI wanted him to say, so he said it.

I think what Hall later said is plausible -- that on October 16, 1964 he had only told the FBI that it was possible that he had met a Sylvia Odio, but that he didn't remember her.

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

<snip>

[two original words re-inserted above in red by T. Graves]

Well, Tommy, at least you admit that you don't have a strong answer for it.

The FBI picked up Loran Hall. Loran Hall admitted it is was himself and Larry Howard at Silvia Odio's doorstep with an American guy during the final week of September 1963.

There we have "Leopoldo" and "Angel."

Coincidentally we have independent confirmation from Harry Dean that he and Guy Gabaldon collected the money, arms and medical supplies (as donated from well-to-do John Birch Society members in Southern California) that Loran Hall and Larry Howard would transport in their trailer to NOLA and Miami for Cuba Raids.

Also, Harry Dean says that Hall and Howard had agreed with Gabaldon to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, and drive him to Mexico City (via Texas) to meet Guy Gabaldon for some cash and a project.

The pieces fit -- except for the height-and-weight of the two Latinos as described by Silvia Odio. For my part, I will meet you half-way and admit that this part is a mystery to me.

While IMHO the weight of the evidence seems to point to Hall and Howard -- it remains inconclusive.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Word Twister Trejo,

No, I didn't "admit" that I had "no strong answer" for "it."

The word "it" is singular.

But you keep asking two questions.

What I said is that I had no idea how to answer your first question, i.e. why the FBI "picked up" Loran Hall NINE WHOLE MONTHS after they'd spoken with Sylvia Odio and why they waited TWO WHOLE MONTHS after her WC testimony to interrogate him.

I said that for all I knew, maybe they just wanted to ask him about good fishing spots and Mexican restaurants or about how he had managed to gain fifty pounds during the previous year (from your claim that he weighed only 165 pounds at Odio's to his present 215 pounds) or perhaps about the present whereabouts of Hemming's 30.06 Johnson.

And I did provide some perfectly good, strong answers to your second question-- "Why did Hall "confess" (as you like to say) to having visited Odio with Howard and Seymour?" Go back to my previous post and read them again if you want to.

Turnabout being fair play, let me ask you the following questions:

If it's true that Loran Hall visited Sylvia Odio in late September of 1963 with Larry Howard and Lee Harvey Oswald,

1) Why do you think the FBI waited nine whole months after interviewing Sylvia Odio in December of 1963 to interrogate Loran Hall?

and concomitantly,

2) Why do you think the FBI waited two whole months after Sylvia Odio testified to the Warren Commission in July of 1964 to interrogate him?

Why nine whole months and two whole months?

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

Edited May 9, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

Turnabout being fair play, let me ask you the following questions:

If it's true that Loran Hall visited Sylvia Odio in late September of 1963 with Larry Howard and Lee Harvey Oswald,

1) Why do you think the FBI waited nine whole months after interviewing Sylvia Odio in December of 1963 to interrogate Loran Hall?

and concomitantly,

2) Why do you think the FBI waited two whole months after Sylvia Odio testified to the Warren Commission in July of 1964 to interrogate him?

Why nine whole months and two whole months?

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

Quite right, Tommy, turnabout is always fair play. As for your first excellent question:

(1) Why do you think the FBI waited nine whole months after interviewing Sylvia Odio in December of 1963 to interrogate Loran Hall?

My opinion is that three conditions were at work:

(1a) J. Edgar Hoover had already insisted on the "Lone Gunman" theory of the case on the very evening of 11/22/1963, the day JFK was murdered;

(1b) J. Edgar Hoover held an iron-fist control over the FBI;

(1c) As Sylvia Meagher noted, the Silvia Odio episode was "proof of the plot," that is, proof that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. So Silvia Odio had evidence that J. Edgar Hoover was mistaken.

Given these three condition, the FBI put the Silvia Odio case on a back burner, hoping to find some way to discredit her testimony, so that the "Lone Gunman" argument would have no opposition.

The strongest material evidence that the Warren Commission ever entertained regarding accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, was the Silvia Odio episode.

Therefore, the FBI -- which could have easily picked up suspects on the first day, and offered Silvia Odio substantial witness protection -- chose instead to leave her dangling, question her sanity, and made her uncomfortable for nine whole months.

As for your second excellent question:

(2) Why do you think the FBI waited two whole months after Sylvia Odio testified to the Warren Commission in July of 1964 to interrogate him?

In my opinion, Silvia Odio was delayed so that she was among that final witnesses called to testify for the Warren Commission. She gave her testimony on 22 July 1964, and attorney Liebeler did his best to minimize her story. However, in late September, the final month of the Warren Hearings, the Warren Commission was worried about going to print with such a weak conclusion on the Silvia Odio episode.

It was only at that time -- nearly two months after her testimony -- that J. Edgar Hoover was asked to obtain a better, more convincing conclusion on the Silvia Odio episode. So Hoover then liberated his FBI agents and finally allowed them to do their job.

The FBI (immediately it seems) came up with Loran Hall -- I still don't know how they did it -- and Loran Hall promptly confessed that, yes, it was him and Larry Howard at Silvia Odio's doorstep a year ago with an American -- who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald, but really wasn't Oswald.

That was good enough for J. Edgar Hoover. He prepared his report for the Warren Commission based on that. However, in only a couple more days, the FBI, again doing their normal good job of research, checked out Loran Hall's story, and found that the two men he named, Larry Howard and William Seymour, both denied Loran Hall's story!

When the FBI brought these denials to Loran Hall, Loran Hall then denied he ever met Silvia Odio in his life. It was some other Cuban woman, whose name he didn't remember, and it was probably Celio Castro instead of William Seymour with him and Larry Howard that day.

When the FBI took this news to J. Edgar Hoover -- Hoover tossed it aside and took Loran Hall's first report to the Warren Commission. He told the Warren Commission that Silvia Odio was a neurotic who saw William Seymour and hysterically believed he was Lee Harvey Oswald. That is what the official record says today.

Silvia Odio was insulted by this outcome, naturally. And J. Edgar Hoover knew that he took a blatant lie to the Warren Commission and the American public.

So, Tommy, my opinion about the time delays in responding to Odio and obtaining the deposition of Loran Hall with regard to the Silvia Odio story is that J. Edgar Hoover personally put a brake on the FBI to prevent the truth from coming out. My evidence is that Hoover deliberately published a lie about it.

As Sylvia Meagher wrote in 1965, the "proof of the plot" has always been in the Silvia Odio episode.

I find it remarkable that the latest research (e.g. Fonzi, Hancock, Mellen) is able to link the Silvia Odio episode with research done by Jim Garrison in 1968.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 9, 2014 by Paul Trejo