Leopoldo and Angel

[Thomas Graves]

I agree, Paul. And thanks for the National Enquirer Article. Good stuff, and it has a photo of Hall I'd never seen before. The only problem I have with the possibility of Hall's being "Leopoldo" is that I've read that Hall was "only" 5'10" (and weighed 160-165 lbs), whereas Sylvia described "Leopoldo" as being at least six foot tall and being "thin." I mean, if Hall really was 5'10"/160-165, was 5'10" considered "tall" for a Cuban or Cuban-American male in 1963? Perhaps so. But Sylvia also did say that "Leopoldo" was "thin." So I gotta ask-- Does being 5'10" tall and weighing160-165 lbs constitute being "thin"? Hall certainly doesn't look "thin" to me in that well-known photo showing him (apparently) lecturing Howard in the presence of Seymour and and unidentified Interpen-type Latin-looking young male. Know the photo I'm referring to? (OK, everything is relative, I suppose. Maybe Sylvia was, metaphorically speaking, a "midget" and "Leopoldo" just looked "tall" to her. I mean, (to use an old Jim DiEugenio phrase), I mean, over the years I've shrunk down to my present measly 6'3.5" and weigh 200 lbs, and even complete strangers will tell me, when prompted, that I do look "thin", especially when I suck my old beer belly in. But perhaps more importantly, Sylvia said several times that "Leopoldo" had an unusual (sloping?) forehead and/or strange (receding?) hairline or top/side hair or something like that and I just don't see evidence of that in the few photos of Hall that I have seen so far. (But, Bernardo De Torres on the other hand, was tall and thin and hairy and did have a sloping forehead and a seriously receding hairline. Hmmm.....)

Also, I believe that both Hall and Howard had full beards at that time and Sylvia doesn't mention that, as far as I know, although I think she does say something about one of them having a "moustache" (and no, I'm not talking about the light, few-days-growth-moustache or "shadow" she said the "Oswald" figure was sporting, I'm talking about one of the other dudes). I will say, however that Hall does meet her description of "Leopoldo's" having hairy arms as well as hair showing on his upper chest above his shirt's collar line. Now, regarding "Angel" I believe she described him as having a face that looked sunburned or seriously weathered or something like that about his complexion (but not acne). Is there any indication that this part of the description fits Larry Howard? (It reminds me more of Hargraves, but then again, maybe it was just a temporary sunburn thing.) And while we're at it, does anyone know about how tall Larry Howard was and how much he weighed at the time?

I do, however, want to fervently believe that Hall and Howard and Oswald visited the Odio sisters in late September, 1963. Therfore, and assuming that they did, I suppose I'll now have to do some "research" to determine if there's any "evidence" that Hall and/or Howard actually did, as they later claimed, take a bus from Dallas to Miami after the Odio meeting, or whether it's possible that one or both of them accompanied (or followed) LHO at least part way to Mexico City. I should know the answer to this already, but my memory is even worse now than it used to be. Yes, I'm aware that CIA agent Gaudet's Mexican tourist visa number was only one removed from Oswald's and that the mysterious Osborne/Bowen rode on the same bus as Oswald did to M.C. As far as I know, the FBI never did determine how LHO travelled from New Orleans to Houston while on his way to Mexico City. I'm thinking maybe H and H left the trailer in Dallas and then gave LHO a ride to Houston, or perhaps even points farther south. Edit: If they did take a bus to Miami, what did they do with the car? Leave it with the trailer?

Thanks,

--Tommy

P.S. I took the liberty of correcting one of your sentences so that it now reads, "Also, Larry Howard was a Mexican-American -- He grew up in Los Angeles."

P.P.S. Is it a fair paraphrasing of the last part of your post to say that you find highly suspicious the fact that Hall so evidently (since he later retracted it under serious death threats/actions directed towards him by fellow Interpen members) "blew it" by substituting the name of Oswald-look-alike William Seymour for LHO (because he hadn't had enough time to make up an equally-plausible story that wouldn't implicate a fellow Interpen member, Seymour, in the assassination of JFK)? If so, I would tend to agree with you. In fact, it reminds me of GPH's telling Weberman, in so many words, "Heck, Hall couldn't even talk straight."

Thanks for the feedback, Tommy.

Regarding the relative height of people, I believe that taller people have an easier time estimating the height of other people. I think Sylvia Odio might have meant that Hall was tall for a Cuban. Yet Harry Dean also thought that Hall was at least 6 feet tall; yet again, Harry Dean isn't particularly tall.

Please recollect and share your source that says Hall was 5'10", Tommy. Also, height can be socially relative. For example, one FORUM member is certain that the "great" Frank Sturgis was "much taller" than 6 feet, yet photos of Sturgis next to other men suggest he was shorter than 6 feet.

Now, when Sylvia said that "Leopoldo" was "thin," this could mean many things. Descriptions of Loran Hall suggest that he was very muscular with hefty arms and shoulders and a trim waist with six-pack abs. If this was the case, then a Latina might consider that to be "thin," meaning, "thin around the waist." In America, however, we tend to say a person is "thin" when that person is thin from head to toe.

I'm not aware of a photo showing Hall lecturing Howard in the presence of Seymour. Please recollect and share that source if you can.

As for Sylvia repeating that "Leopoldo" had an unusual forehead or hairline, we should examine a few more photographs. Here are some photographs of Loran Hall's face that just might be new to you. They are from a 1975 TATTLER special report that concentrates on Loran Hall, ex-General Walker, Interpen and Harry Dean:

http://www.pet880.co...ren_Hall_02.JPG

http://www.pet880.co...ren_Hall_06.JPG

Both of those photos show Loran Hall with a "beard."

Now, regarding "Angel" and Sylvia Odio's description of his face that looked seriously weathered, this is typically a difference between a swarthy Mexican complexion and a more Spanish-influenced Cuban complexion. I believe it does fit Larry Howard. Here are three pictures of Larry Howard from that same 1975 TATTLER article:

http://www.pet880.co...ren_Hall_07.JPG

http://www.pet880.co...ren_Hall_09.JPG

http://www.pet880.co...ren_Hall_11.JPG

I think you can see why both Sylvia and Annie Odio described the "Angel" character as "probably a Mexican". They were mostly correct, since Larry Howard was a half-breed with clear Mexican features, as his photographs show.

As for Oswald's Mexico trip, the disinformation that surrounds it was blessed by those who would keep Lee Harvey Oswald a mystery to the American people. I think Harry Dean's information clarifies and simplifies the entire situation. Coupled with clues from Dick Russell, I think the contours of the trip are pretty much explained. Hall and Howard were to ensure that Oswald had a meeting with Guy Gabaldon in Mexico. Thus they would drive him all the way there. Somebody else was on that bus, and Gaudet's story was deliberately sketchy.

Also, thanks for correcting my typo about Larry Howard (not Hall).

Also, yes, your synopsis of my opinion is correct.

Also, I believe that Loran Hall could talk straight when he wanted to, but he was terrified of the consequences of the truth on a daily basis. That National Enquirer article that I shared yesterday explains why. His attitude grew even worse over time.

Finally -- to read most of that TATTLER issue, just change the final digit of that URL above to a figure between "01" to "13".

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul,

I just spent the better part of an hour replying to you and lost it all when I clicked on "clear selection" after getting the Education Forum "error message" informing me that the photo (from Spartacus Educational's website's page on William Seymour) I had tried to upload to this thread was "too large". So I'm a bit frustrated now and I'm gonna keep this "short".

I WAS WRONG ABOUT LORAN HALL'S BEING 5'10", 160-165 LBS. I GOT HIM CONFUSED WITH "ANGEL" (LARRY HOWARD?). That's what I get for going from memory. MY BAD. I APPOLOGIZE. (BTW, This was according to Colonel William C. Bishop's description of "Angel" to Dick Russell in TMWKTM.)

Also, Russell quotes Richard Case Nagell as telling him that "Angel" was 5'11" - 6'0", and a "stocky" 180 pounds. If that's true, then we have two different people (Bishop and Nagell) saying that "Angel" was somewhere between 5'10" and 6'0". Not exactly "short" in anyone's book, is it? So I wonder how Sylvia Odio could have called him "short" (Or did she? Hmmm... Going from memory here. I should probably appologize in advance. She probably said he was just "shorter" than Leopoldo, or perhaps she said he was really, really "tall". Oh, my!)

Regarding the photo of Hall "apparently lecturing" Howard in the presence of Seymour and an "unidentified Cuban," please go to Spartacus Educational's wonderful website page on William Seymour. When you find the photo, please post it here if you want to.

P.S. I just knew I shouldn't have used the phrase "(apparently) lecturing" . LOL ....

http://www.spartacus...JFKseymourW.htm

Thanks,

--Tommy .

P.P.S. My whole point about Hall (and/or Howard) having a full beard at that time (late September 1963) was that IF they were at Sylvia Odio's apartment door with whomever (Oswald, Seymour, The Tooth Fairy, etc), wouldn't Sylvia have mentioned that Hall (and/or Howard) had a full beard? I don't remember reading anywhere that she'd mentioned that. Just something about a mustache on the face of either "Leopoldo" or "Angel." (of course, I can't remember which one right now. But there I go, again, relying on my memory. I appologize....

Edited October 27, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

...I WAS WRONG ABOUT LORAN HALL'S BEING 5'10", 160-165 LBS. I GOT HIM CONFUSED WITH "ANGEL" (LARRY HOWARD?). That's what I get for going from memory...

(BTW, This was according to Colonel William C. Bishop's description of "Angel" to Dick Russell in TMWKTM.)

Also, Russell quotes Richard Case Nagell as telling him that "Angel" was 5'11" - 6'0", and a "stocky" 180 pounds. If that's true, then we have two different people (Bishop and Nagell) saying that "Angel" was somewhere between 5'10" and 6'0". Not exactly "short" in anyone's book, is it? So I wonder how Sylvia Odio could have called him "short" (Or did she? Hmmm... Going from memory here. I should probably appologize in advance. She probably said he was just "shorter" than Leopoldo, or perhaps she said he was really, really "tall". Oh, my!)..

Thanks,

--Tommy .

Tommy, I believe that you may be recollecting descriptions given by Sylvia Odio herself to the Warren Commission in 1964.

I would caution readers, however, to grant Sylvia Odio some ESL leeway. Since English is her second language, her grammar must be weighted differently, IMHO. She is being honest, but her command of English differs from a native speaker.

Let's review her testimony before the Warren Commission with that in mind and see where that leads us.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 31, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

...I WAS WRONG ABOUT LORAN HALL'S BEING 5'10", 160-165 LBS. I GOT HIM CONFUSED WITH "ANGEL" (LARRY HOWARD?). That's what I get for going from memory...

(BTW, This was according to Colonel William C. Bishop's description of "Angel" to Dick Russell in TMWKTM.)

Also, Russell quotes Richard Case Nagell as telling him that "Angel" was 5'11" - 6'0", and a "stocky" 180 pounds. If that's true, then we have two different people (Bishop and Nagell) saying that "Angel" was somewhere between 5'10" and 6'0". Not exactly "short" in anyone's book, is it? So I wonder how Sylvia Odio could have called him "short" (Or did she? Hmmm... Going from memory here. I should probably appologize in advance. She probably said he was just "shorter" than Leopoldo, or perhaps she said he was really, really "tall". Oh, my!)..

Thanks,

--Tommy .

Tommy, I believe that you may be recollecting descriptions given by Sylvia Odio herself to the Warren Commission in 1964.

I would caution readers, however, to grant Sylvia Odio some ESL leeway. Since English is her second language, her grammar must be weighted differently, IMHO. She is being honest, but her command of English differs from a native speaker.

Let's review her testimony before the Warren Commission with that in mind and see where that leads us.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Actually, I was referring to what Richard Russell said Colonel William C. Bishop and Richard Case Nagell told him about "Angel", separately and independently of each other, as recounted in Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment at this library computer, but I will be happy to post the page numbers later so you can verify it if you so desire. (In case you're wondering, I've got the more recent edition, in "paperback" or whatever it's called.)

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Actually, I was referring to what Richard Russell said Colonel William C. Bishop and Richard Case Nagell told him about "Angel", separately and independently of each other, as recounted in Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment at this library computer, but I will be happy to post the page numbers later so you can verify it if you so desire. (In case you're wondering, I've got the more recent edition, in "paperback" or whatever it's called.)

--Tommy

OK, Tommy, I'd be pleased to look up those pages that you're referring to by Dick Russell in his, TMWKTM (2003).

In the meantime, I will post about a quarter of the testimony of Sylvia Odio to the Warren Commission. I will emphasize text that describes the appearance of Leopoldo and Angel. Also, here's a little of the background context of the visit of Leopoldo, Angel, Leon Oswald to the Odio residence:

* Sylvia Odio had become accustomed to hosting groups of Cubans at her house, asking her to help them in JURE, an anti-Castro committee to which she and her family belonged. JURE wanted to start a rightist revolutionary newspaper in Dallas. Despite being very busy at work and as a single mother, she agreed to help by selling bonds to help buy weapons for Cuban Exiles conducting raids on Castro's Cuba. Her parents were prisoners in Cuba, and Sylvia vowed to help as much as she could. Many Cubans in Florida, New Orleans and Dallas knew that she was involved in JURE. In other words, Sylvia Odio admits to being sympathetic with Manolo Ray and this JURE movement, whose strategy was to take power in Cuba by claiming to be "Fidelista without Fidel." This was the scenario as Leopoldo, Angel and Leon came to her door on (or about) Wednesday 25 September 1963.

---------------- Begin Extract of WC Testimony of Sylvia Odio -----------------

The testimony of Sylvia Odio was taken at 9 am, on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Texas, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you please rise and take the oath? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; I do.

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us all the circumstances surrounding the event when Oswald came to your house.

<snip>

Mrs. ODIO. … So at that time I was planning to move over to Oak Cliff because it was much nearer to my work in Irving. So we were all involved in this moving business, and my sister Annie…had come over that weekend to babysit for me….the doorbell rang-and she went over…and came back and said, “Sylvia, there are three men at the door, and one seems to be an American, the other two seem to be Cubans. Do you know them?”

So I put a housecoat on and stood at the door…and he said, “Are you Sarita Odio?” And I said, “I am not. That is my sister studying at the University of Dallas. I am Sylvia.” Then he said, “Is she the oldest?” And I said, “No; I am the oldest.” And he said, “It is you we are looking for.”

So he said, “We are members of JURE.” This at the time struck me funny, because their faces did not seem familiar, and I asked them for their names. One of them said his name was Leopoldo. He said that was his war name. In all this underground, everybody has a war name. This was done for safety in Cuba. So when everybody came to exile, everyone was known by their war names. And the other one did give me his name, but I can’t recall. I have been trying to recall. It was something like Angelo. I have never been able to remember, and I couldn’t be exact on this name, but the other one I am exact on; I remember perfectly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you this before you go ahead with the story. Which one of the men told you that they were members of JURE and did most of the talking? Was it the American?

Mrs. ODIO. The American had not said a word yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one of the Cubans?

Mrs. ODIO. The American was in the middle. They were leaning against the staircase. There was a tall one. Let me tell you, they both looked very greasy like the kind of low Cubans, not educated at all. And one was on the heavier side and had black hair. I recall one of them had glasses, if I remember. We have been trying to establish, my sister and I, the identity of this man. And one of them, the tall one, was the one called Leopoldo.

Mr. LIEBELER. He did most of the talking?

Mrs. ODIO. He did most of the talking. The other one kept quiet, and the American, we will call him Leon, said just a few little words in Spanish, trying to be cute, but very few, like “Hola,” like that in Spanish.

Mr. LIEBELER Did you have a chain on the door, or was the door completely opened?

Mrs. ODIO. I had a chain.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was the chain fastened?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I unfastened it after a little while when they told me they were members of JURE. and were trying to let me have them come into the house. When I said ‘no,’ one of them said, “We are very good friends of your father.” This struck me, because I didn’t think my father could have such kind of friends, unless he knew them from anti-Castro activities. He gave me so many details about where they saw my father and what activities he was in. I mean, they gave me almost incredible details about things that somebody who knows him really would or that somebody informed well knows. And after a little while, after they mentioned my father, they started talking about the American.

He said, “You are working in the underground.” And I said, “No, I am sorry to say I am not working in the underground.” And he said, “We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald.” He repeated it twice. Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door. She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause.

<snip>

Mrs. ODIO…This man, the other one, the second Cuban, took out a letter written in Spanish, and the content was something like, “we represent the revolutionary council, and we are making a big movement to buy arms for Cuba and to help overthrow the dictator Castro, and we want you to translate this letter and write it in English and send a whole lot of them to different industries to see if we can get some results.” …So I asked and I said, “Are you sent by Alentado? Is this a petition?” …And he said, “No.”

<snip>

Mrs. ODIO…And I said, “Were you sent by Ray,” and he said no. And I said, “Well, is this on your own?” And he said, “We have just come from New Orleans and we have been trying to get this organized, this movement organized down there, and this is on our own, but we think we could do some kind of work.” This was all talked very fast, not as slow as I am saying it now. You know how fast Cubans talk. And he put the letter back in his pocket when I said, ‘no.’

And then I think I asked something to the American, trying to be nice, “Have you ever been to Cuba?” And he said, “No, I have never been to Cuba.” And I said, “Are you interested in our movement?” And he said, “Yes.” …And I repeated, “I am going to write to my father and tell him you have come to visit me.” And he said, “Is he still in the Isle of Pines?” And I think that was the extent of the conversation. They left, and I saw them through the window leaving in a car. I can’t recall the car. I have been trying to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know which one of the men was driving?

Mrs. ODIO. The tall one, Leopoldo...oh, excuse me, I forgot something very important. They kept mentioning that they had come to visit me at such a time of night, it was almost 9 o’clock, because they were leaving for a trip. And two or three times they said the same thing. They said, “We may stay until tomorrow, or we might leave tomorrow night, but please excuse us for the hour.” And he mentioned two or three times they were leaving for a trip. I didn’t ask where….

Mr. LIEBELER. But they did not indicate where they were going?

Mrs. ODIO. ...No... The next day Leopoldo called me. I had gotten home from work, so I imagine it must have been Friday. And they had come on Thursday. I have been trying to establish that. He was trying to get fresh with me that night. He was trying to be too nice, telling me that I was pretty, and he started like that. That is the way he started the conversation. Then he said, “What do you think of the American?” And I said, “I didn’t think anything.” And he said, “You know our idea is to introduce him to the underground in Cuba, because he is great, he is kind of nuts.” This was more or less – I can’t repeat the exact words, “because he was kind of nuts.” He told us we don’t have any guts, you Cubans, because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that, because he was the one that was holding the freedom of Cuba actually. And I started getting a little upset with the conversation. And he said, “It is so easy to do it.” He has told us. And he (Leopoldo) used two or three bad words, and I wouldn’t repeat it in Spanish. And he repeated again they were leaving for a trip and they would like very much to see me on their return to Dallas. Then he mentioned something more about…”Leon...”

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald’s name except as Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or an American. He said he had been a Marine and he was so interested in helping the Cubans, and he was terrific. That is the words he more or less used. in Spanish, that he was terrific. And I don’t remember what else he said, or something that he was coming back or something, and he would see me. It’s been a long time and I don’t remember too well, that is more or less what he said.

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, a report that we have from Agent Hosty indicates that when you told him about Leopoldo’s telephone call to you the following day, that you told Agent Hosty that Leopold told you he was not going to have anything more to do with Leon Oswald since Leon was considered to be loco?

Mrs. ODIO. That’s right. He used two tactics with me, and this I have analyzed. He wanted me to introduce this man. He thought that I had something to do with the underground, with the big operation, and I could get men into Cuba. That is what he thought, which is not true. When I had no reaction to the American, he thought that he would mention that the man was loco and out of his mind and would be the kind of man that could do anything like getting underground in Cuba, like killing Castro. He repeated several times he was an expert shot-man. And he said, “We probably won’t have anything to do with him. He is kind of loco.” When he mentioned the fact that we should have killed President Kennedy and this I recall in my conversation – he was trying to play it safe. If I liked him, then he would go along with me, but if I didn’t like him, he was kind of retreating to see what my reaction was. It was cleverly done.

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that Leon could help in the underground activities in which you were presumably engaged?

Mrs. ODIO. That’s right.

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. How old were these two men that were with Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. One of them must have been – he had a mark on his face like, I can’t explain it -- his complexion wasn’t too soft. He was kind of like as if he had been in the sun. So he must have been about near 40, one of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one was that?

Mrs. ODIO. But the other one was young. That was the tall one.

Mr. UEBELER. That was not Leopoldo?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. …was younger?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELJZR. How old was he, would you say?

Mrs. ODIO. About 34, something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now how old would you say Oswald was? Did you form an opinion about that when you saw him at the time?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I have never thought about it. I mean, I never thought how old he was. He seemed to be a young man. I mean, not an old man. I would say he was a young man; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you say how old you thought he was after you saw him that day in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. I can’t say that. I can establish in my thoughts; yes, I could establish an age, but I didn’t think of it at the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. What age would you establish you thought about it?

Mrs. ODIO. Oh, 34 or 35.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you read the newspapers and watched television since the assassination and observed Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I read some of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you read how old he was?

Mrs. ODIO. I don’t even know what age he is.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how tall was he?

Mrs. ODIO. He wasn’t too tall. He was maybe 4 inches taller than I am.

Mr. LIEBELER. How tall are you?

Mrs. ODIO. I am 5 feet 6 inches.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you think he was about 5 feet 10o?

Mrs. ODIO. Probably.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how was he built? Was he a heavy man or a light man?

Mrs. ODIO. He was kind of a skinny man, because the shirt looked big on him, like it was borrowed.

Mr. LIEBELER. Like it was borrowed from somebody else?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; that is the impression he gave me, because it kind of hung loose.

Mr. LIEBELER. Didn’t fit well?

Mrs. ODIO. It didn’t fit.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever had anything to do with the DRE movement here in Dallas?

Mrs. ODIO. …Now, I have heard about the directorate in New Orleans, because I have family there and they told me about all the incidents about him in New Orleans, about Oswald giving propaganda in the street and how he was down in front of a judge and caused a fight with Carlos Bringuier, and that, of course, this man had been working pro-Castro in this Fair Play for Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald, you mean?

Mrs. ODIO. Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Carlos?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; I have met him. I don’t think he would remember me, but I know who Carlos Bringuier is. They call him Carlitos.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet him?

Mrs. ODIO. I think it was a long time ago in Cuba, or I was introduced to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never met him here in the United States?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who in New Orleans told you about this incident between Bringuier and Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. My family discussed it in New Orleans how he had been handed the propaganda. The other member of the directorate came along, and they had a problem with him, because they were taken in front of a judge. This was true.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you read about that in the newspapers?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I haven’t. This I know from my family, the information we heard from New Orleans.

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. In February of 1964?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. I remember that, because I had just come out of an operation.

< snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea how these three men came to your apartment? Have you ever thought about it and tried to establish any contact that they might have had with someone else that would have told them to come to your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. They were coming from New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. They came directly from New Orleans to your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. If it was true; it is very easy to find out any Cubans in Dallas. Either you look in the phone book, or you call the Catholic Relief Service. If you say you are a friend of so and so, they will give you information enough. They will tell you where they live and what their phone number is and how to contact them.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you have no actual knowledge as to how these men came by your address?

Mrs. ODIO. I kind of asked them, and they told me because they knew my family. That is how they established the conversation. They knew him and wanted to help me, and knew I belonged to JURE and all this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, can you remember anything else about the incident when Leon and the two men came to your apartment, or about the telephone call that you got from Leopoldo, that you haven’t already told me about?

Mrs. ODIO. No. If I have forgotten something, but I think all the important things I have told you, like the trip, that they were leaving for a trip. And this struck me funny, because why would they want to meet me, if they were leaving for some reason or purpose. And it has been a long time. You don’t think about these things every day and I am trying real hard to remember everything I can.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, is there anything else that you think we should know about that we haven’t already asked you about in connection with this whole affair?

Mrs. ODIO. No. It would be involving my opinion, but anything that is real facts of the thing, that really happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is this the only time you ever saw the man called Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. The only time.

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think they definitely look like Cubans?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, this is my opinion. They looked very much like Mexicans. But I might be wrong at that, because I don’t remember any Mexican accent. But the color of Mexicans, when I am referring to greasy, that kind of complexion, that is what I mean.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first become aware of the fact that this man who had been at your apartment was the man who had been arrested in connection with the assassination?

Mrs. ODIO. It was immediately.

Mr. LIEBELER. As soon as you saw his picture?

Mrs. ODIO. Immediately ; I was so sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt about it?

Mrs. ODIO. I don’t have any doubts.

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture which depicts the same individual that is depicted in an exhibit which has previously been marked Commission Exhibit No. 237, and I ask you if you recognize that man.

Mrs. ODIO. No, sir.

Mr. LIERELER. That is not the man that was with Leon when he came to your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. No. I wish I could point him to you. One was very tall and slim, kind of. He had glasses, because he took them off and put them back on before he left, and they were *not* sunglasses. And the other one was short, very Mexican looking. Have you ever seen a short Mexican with lots of thick hair and a lot of hair on his chest?

Mr. LIEBELER. So there was a shorter one and a tall one, and the shorter one was rather husky?

Mrs. ODIO. He was not as big as this man.

Mr. LIEBELER. Not as big as the man in Exhibit So. 237?

Mrs. OUIO. That’s right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the man in Exhibit No. 237 that had a pushed back spot on his head?

Mrs. ODIO. It was different. In the middle of his head it was thick, and it looked like he didn’t have any hair, and the other side, I didn’t notice that.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was the taller man; is that right? The one known as Leopoldo?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIERELER. About how much did the taller man weigh, could you guess?

Mrs. ODIO. He was thin - about 165 pounds.

Mr. LIERELER. How tall was he, about?

Mrs. ODIO. He was about 3.5 inches, almost 4 inches taller than I was. Excuse me, he couldn’t have. Maybe it was just in the position he was standing. I know that made him look taller, and I had no heels on at the time, so he must have been 6 feet; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the shorter man was about how tall, would you say? Was he taller or shorter than Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Shorter than Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how much, could you guess?

Mrs. ODIO. Five feet seven, something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. So he could have been 2 or 3 inches shorter than Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. That’s right.

Mr. LIEBELER. He weighed about how much, would you say?

Mrs. ODIO. 170 pounds, something like that, because he was short, but he was stocky, and he was the one that had the strange complexion.

Mrs. LIEBELER. Was it pock marked, would you say?

Mrs. ODIO. No; it was like -- it wasn’t, because he was, oh, it was like he had been in the sun for a long time.

<snip>

---------------------------- End of Excerpt of WC Testimony of Sylvia Odio ---------------------

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited November 1, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

Actually, I was referring to what Richard Russell said Colonel William C. Bishop and Richard Case Nagell told him about "Angel", separately and independently of each other, as recounted in Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment at this library computer, but I will be happy to post the page numbers later so you can verify it if you so desire. (In case you're wondering, I've got the more recent edition, in "paperback" or whatever it's called.)

--Tommy

OK, Tommy, I'd be pleased to look up those pages that you're referring to by Dick Russell in his, TMWKTM (2003).

[...]

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul,

Yes, it is interesting that 5'6" Silvia/Sylvia Odio told the Warren Commision that "Angel" was shorter than Oswald and was only about 5'7".

Unfortunately, this contradicts the recollections of "Angel" of both Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop:

From: The Man Who Knew Too Much, "Second Carroll & Graf trade paperback edition 2003" (588 pages)

From pages 183-184:

And who was the unidentified man - "said to have been an ex-CIA employee" - whom Nagell observed talking with Artime and Masferrer that January 1963 day in Miami? Based on other material supplied me by Nagell, I believe it was a Cuban exile who used the "war name" of "Angel" (pronounced On-hel). He, along with a partner, would later come into direct contact with Lee Harvey Oswald.

In a ten-page outline of "highlights" I sent Nagell in 1976, returned to me with his corrections, here is what Nagell delineated:

"The other two figures directly involved were known to Oswald by the given names 'Angel' and 'Leopoldo,' and were said to be former CIA employees of Cuban extraction, born and raised in Cuba. Both were connected with a violence-prone faction of a CIA-financed group operating in Mexico City and elsewhere. In 1962, both had participated in a bomb-throwing incident directed against an employee of Mexico's Cuban Embassy. Both were said to be well known to Mexican and Cuban authorities, and of course to the CIA. In Mexico, one name for the group may have been 'Alpha 66.'

[...]

Nagell also outlined his observations of "Angel" in a letter to Fensterwald, as follows: "Angel was in Miami during the latter part of January 1963. He may have stayed at the Holiday Inn located on Biscayne Boulevard [where Nagell was also residing]. On several occasions he visited a well-lighted Cuban restaurant that was located on Flagler Street. He also visited a small photo shop that was located on a street perpendicular to the long axis of Flagler; this shop had some kind of connection with the MRP" [the exile group Movimiento Revolucionario del Pueblo]. 25

Nagell added in another letter that Angel also used the pseudonym or "Rangel" or "Wrangel" as a surname on at least one occasion. 26 According to a description furnished by Nagell in 1968 for the Garrison investigation, the exile was twenty-eight to thirty years of age. He stood about five feet, eleven inches or six feet tall and weighed a stocky 180 pounds. He had black hair and hazel eyes. 27

When I asked Nagell on two occasions whether he knew Angel or his partner's real names, the first time he would say only, "I might have suspected a lot of things." The next time he added: "I know the names that were supposed to be real. I knew names. And their backgrounds." 28 [emphasis added]

........ And, from page 335:

I asked (Colonel William C.) Bishop whether Angel and Leopoldo may have operated off and on out of Mexico City.

"I can tell you that much," he replied.

When I asked for a physical description of Angel, Bishop glowered at me: "You're trying to come in the back door is what you're trying to do." Then he offered a similar description for Angel as Nagell had provided -- "five-ten, 160-165 weight, swarthy complexion -- before cutting himself off, saying, "I think I'd better stop at that." [emphasis added]

--Tommy

P.S. Sorry-- I was dead wrong in my earlier post when I said that RCN had told Dick Russell that "Angel" was 5'11" - 6'0" when in fact this is what, according to Russell, Nagell had told the Garrison Investigation. My bad. I appologize (again)......

Edited November 1, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Yes, it is interesting that 5'6" Silvia/Sylvia Odio told the Warren Commision that "Angel" was shorter than Oswald and was only about 5'7".

Unfortunately, this contradicts the recollections of "Angel" of both Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop:

From: The Man Who Knew Too Much, "Second Carroll & Graf trade paperback edition 2003" (588 pages)

From pages 183-184:

And who was the unidentified man - "said to have been an ex-CIA employee" - whom Nagell observed talking with Artime and Masferrer that January 1963 day in Miami? Based on other material supplied me by Nagell, I believe it was a Cuban exile who used the "war name" of "Angel" (pronounced On-hel). He, along with a partner, would later come into direct contact with Lee Harvey Oswald.

In a ten-page outline of "highlights" I sent Nagell in 1976, returned to me with his corrections, here is what Nagell delineated:

"The other two figures directly involved were known to Oswald by the given names 'Angel' and 'Leopoldo,' and were said to be former CIA employees of Cuban extraction, born and raised in Cuba. Both were connected with a violence-prone faction of a CIA-financed group operating in Mexico City and elsewhere. In 1962, both had participated in a bomb-throwing incident directed against an employee of Mexico's Cuban Embassy. Both were said to be well known to Mexican and Cuban authorities, and of course to the CIA. In Mexico, one name for the group may have been 'Alpha 66.'

[...]

Nagell also outlined his observations of "Angel" in a letter to Fensterwald, as follows: "Angel was in Miami during the latter part of January 1963. He may have stayed at the Holiday Inn located on Biscayne Boulevard [where Nagell was also residing]. On several occasions he visited a well-lighted Cuban restaurant that was located on Flagler Street. He also visited a small photo shop that was located on a street perpendicular to the long axis of Flagler; this shop had some kind of connection with the MRP" [the exile group Movimiento Revolucionario del Pueblo]. 25

Nagell added in another letter that Angel also used the pseudonym or "Rangel" or "Wrangel" as a surname on at least one occasion. 26 According to a description furnished by Nagell in 1968 for the Garrison investigation, the exile was twenty-eight to thirty years of age. He stood about five feet, eleven inches or six feet tall and weighed a stocky 180 pounds. He had black hair and hazel eyes. 27

When I asked Nagell on two occasions whether he knew Angel or his partner's real names, the first time he would say only, "I might have suspected a lot of things." The next time he added: "I know the names that were supposed to be real. I knew names. And their backgrounds." 28 [emphasis added]

........ And, from page 335:

I asked (Colonel William C.) Bishop whether Angel and Leopoldo may have operated off and on out of Mexico City.

"I can tell you that much," he replied.

When I asked for a physical description of Angel, Bishop glowered at me: "You're trying to come in the back door is what you're trying to do." Then he offered a similar description for Angel as Nagell had provided -- "five-ten, 160-165 weight, swarthy complexion -- before cutting himself off, saying, "I think I'd better stop at that." [emphasis added]

--Tommy

P.S. Sorry-- I was dead wrong in my earlier post when I said that RCN had told Dick Russell that "Angel" was 5'11" - 6'0" when in fact this is what, according to Russell, Nagell had told the Garrison Investigation. My bad. I appologize (again)......

Tommy, I'd like to firmly identify the men who visited Sylvia Odio on Wednesday 25 September 1963, but the information remains inconsistent. I would add that only a few people can accurately guess the height-weight-age of a stranger on sight. (A person who has a talent for guessing height-weight-age could work for a carnival side-show, because it is such an oddity.)

Most of us can only offer ballpark guesses. The information is useful only to identify gross mismatches -- for example, one person might say Mr. X was extremely skinny, and another person says that Mr. X was obese -- clearly we have a mismatch. Or, one person says Ms. X is Asian, and another person says Ms. X is British -- clearly we have a mismatch. Or, one person says Ms. X was "very tall" while another person says Ms. X was "very short". That's a clear mismatch.

But the attempt to make identifications based on guessing the height-weight-age of a stranger on sight, and trying to scale by inches and ten-pound weights -- that seems fruitless to me. A police record of the height-weight-age of Angel, compared with a medical record of Angel -- now that makes scientific sense. But random guesses by ordinary people based on the few glances -- that's simply not scientific evidence in any case.

It also neglects my principal question -- when 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?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 1, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

Yes, it is interesting that 5'6" Silvia/Sylvia Odio told the Warren Commision that "Angel" was shorter than Oswald and was only about 5'7".

Unfortunately, this contradicts the recollections of "Angel" of both Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop:

From: The Man Who Knew Too Much, "Second Carroll & Graf trade paperback edition 2003" (588 pages)

From pages 183-184:

And who was the unidentified man - "said to have been an ex-CIA employee" - whom Nagell observed talking with Artime and Masferrer that January 1963 day in Miami? Based on other material supplied me by Nagell, I believe it was a Cuban exile who used the "war name" of "Angel" (pronounced On-hel). He, along with a partner, would later come into direct contact with Lee Harvey Oswald.

In a ten-page outline of "highlights" I sent Nagell in 1976, returned to me with his corrections, here is what Nagell delineated:

"The other two figures directly involved were known to Oswald by the given names 'Angel' and 'Leopoldo,' and were said to be former CIA employees of Cuban extraction, born and raised in Cuba. Both were connected with a violence-prone faction of a CIA-financed group operating in Mexico City and elsewhere. In 1962, both had participated in a bomb-throwing incident directed against an employee of Mexico's Cuban Embassy. Both were said to be well known to Mexican and Cuban authorities, and of course to the CIA. In Mexico, one name for the group may have been 'Alpha 66.'

[...]

Nagell also outlined his observations of "Angel" in a letter to Fensterwald, as follows: "Angel was in Miami during the latter part of January 1963. He may have stayed at the Holiday Inn located on Biscayne Boulevard [where Nagell was also residing]. On several occasions he visited a well-lighted Cuban restaurant that was located on Flagler Street. He also visited a small photo shop that was located on a street perpendicular to the long axis of Flagler; this shop had some kind of connection with the MRP" [the exile group Movimiento Revolucionario del Pueblo]. 25

Nagell added in another letter that Angel also used the pseudonym or "Rangel" or "Wrangel" as a surname on at least one occasion. 26 According to a description furnished by Nagell in 1968 for the Garrison investigation, the exile was twenty-eight to thirty years of age. He stood about five feet, eleven inches or six feet tall and weighed a stocky 180 pounds. He had black hair and hazel eyes. 27

When I asked Nagell on two occasions whether he knew Angel or his partner's real names, the first time he would say only, "I might have suspected a lot of things." The next time he added: "I know the names that were supposed to be real. I knew names. And their backgrounds." 28 [emphasis added]

........ And, from page 335:

I asked (Colonel William C.) Bishop whether Angel and Leopoldo may have operated off and on out of Mexico City.

"I can tell you that much," he replied.

When I asked for a physical description of Angel, Bishop glowered at me: "You're trying to come in the back door is what you're trying to do." Then he offered a similar description for Angel as Nagell had provided -- "five-ten, 160-165 weight, swarthy complexion -- before cutting himself off, saying, "I think I'd better stop at that." [emphasis added]

--Tommy

P.S. Sorry-- I was dead wrong in my earlier post when I said that RCN had told Dick Russell that "Angel" was 5'11" - 6'0" when in fact this is what, according to Russell, Nagell had told the Garrison Investigation. My bad. I appologize (again)......

Tommy, I'd like to firmly identify the men who visited Sylvia Odio on Wednesday 25 September 1963, but the information remains inconsistent. I would add that only a few people can accurately guess the height-weight-age of a stranger on sight. (A person who has a talent for guessing height-weight-age could work for a carnival side-show, because it is such an oddity.)

Most of us can only offer ballpark guesses. The information is useful only to identify gross mismatches -- for example, one person might say Mr. X was extremely skinny, and another person says that Mr. X was obese -- clearly we have a mismatch. Or, one person says Ms. X is Asian, and another person says Ms. X is British -- clearly we have a mismatch. Or, one person says Ms. X was "very tall" while another person says Ms. X was "very short". That's a clear mismatch.

But the attempt to make identifications based on guessing the height-weight-age of a stranger on sight, and trying to scale by inches and ten-pound weights -- that seems fruitless to me. A police record of the height-weight-age of Angel, compared with a medical record of Angel -- now that makes scientific sense. But random guesses by ordinary people based on the few glances -- that's simply not scientific evidence in any case.

It also neglects my principal question -- when 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?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well Gosh, Paul--

"Random guesses by ordinary people" ?

I don't think Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop were just "ordinary people" making "random guesses" about the physical characteristics of the men they both knew as "Leopoldo" and "Angel". Nagell and Col. Bishop were both highly-trained intelligence operatives who had been chosen/accepted for that kind of work in the first place for, one would assume, their ability to observe and remember such things.

--Tommy

P.S. Have you read The Man Who Knew Too Much?

Edited November 2, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Well Gosh, Paul--

"Random guesses by ordinary people" ?

I don't think Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop were just "ordinary people" making "random guesses" about the physical characteristics of the men they both knew as "Leopoldo" and "Angel". Nagell and Col. Bishop were both highly-trained intelligence operatives who had been chosen/accepted for that kind of work in the first place for, one would assume, their ability to observe and remember such things.

--Tommy

P.S. Have you read The Man Who Knew Too Much?

Well, Tommy, first of all, yes, I've read TMWKTM, and I've studied it, and my copy is marked up.

Secondly, I concur that spies are trained to notice such facts -- but my main point was that Sylvia Odio could not be expected to remember such points under the circumstances.

But what does it mean that Nagell and Bishop grasped the physical dimensions of Lawrence Howard when the question is identifying the visitors who came to Odio's house on Wednesday 25 September 1963?

No matter how accurate Nagell and Bishop might be in their recollections, the simple fact is that they themselves were not present at Sylvio Odio's doorstep on that day.

So, in order to make any useful match, we must also guarantee that Sylvia Odio had the same spy training as Nagell and Bishop, so that she was also trained to notice such features. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Without a trained, educated description of the physical characteristics of her visitors from Sylvia Odio, what good is the data from Nagell and Bishop?

That was my point.

Odio could not (or would not trust the WC to protect her if she did) identify Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard as the men at her door that day. Her physical descriptions, given from memory, are very unclear.

If there was FBI involvement in a cover-up of Lee Harvey Oswald's activities in late September 1963, then we would expect the FBI to add pressure to Sylvia Odio's tortured life, and not offer her protection, comfort or encouragement.

Therefore, seeking to identify those visitors without a positive identification of two of the three, or without an accurate match of her physical description with the physical description offered by experts -- we seem to be at an impasse.

However -- it only adds fuel to my unanswered question -- since Odio admitted she could not identify Leopoldo or Angel (except by these vague "war names") why in the world would the FBI immediately pick up Loran Hall for questioning? Any ideas?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 2, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Well Gosh, Paul--

"Random guesses by ordinary people" ?

I don't think Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop were just "ordinary people" making "random guesses" about the physical characteristics of the men they both knew as "Leopoldo" and "Angel". Nagell and Col. Bishop were both highly-trained intelligence operatives who had been chosen/accepted for that kind of work in the first place for, one would assume, their ability to observe and remember such things.

--Tommy

P.S. Have you read The Man Who Knew Too Much?

Well, Tommy, first of all, yes, I've read TMWKTM, and I've studied it, and my copy is marked up.

Secondly, I concur that spies are trained to notice such facts -- but my main point was that Sylvia Odio could not be expected to remember such points under the circumstances.

But what does it mean that Nagell and Bishop grasped the physical dimensions of Lawrence Howard when the question is identifying the visitors who came to Odio's house on Wednesday 25 September 1963?

No matter how accurate Nagell and Bishop might be in their recollections, the simple fact is that they themselves were not present at Sylvio Odio's doorstep on that day.

So, in order to make any useful match, we must also guarantee that Sylvia Odio had the same spy training as Nagell and Bishop, so that she was also trained to notice such features. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Without a trained, educated description of the physical characteristics of her visitors from Sylvia Odio, what good is the data from Nagell and Bishop?

That was my point.

Odio could not (or would not trust the WC to protect her if she did) identify Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard as the men at her door that day. Her physical descriptions, given from memory, are very unclear.

If there was FBI involvement in a cover-up of Lee Harvey Oswald's activities in late September 1963, then we would expect the FBI to add pressure to Sylvia Odio's tortured life, and not offer her protection, comfort or encouragement.

Therefore, seeking to identify those visitors without a positive identification of two of the three, or without an accurate match of her physical description with the physical description offered by experts -- we seem to be at an impasse.

However -- it only adds fuel to my unanswered question -- since Odio admitted she could not identify Leopoldo or Angel (except by these vague "war names") why in the world would the FBI immediately pick up Loran Hall for questioning? Any ideas?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Well, Silvia Odio gave her testimony to the Warren Commission on July 22, 1964. Loran Hall was first interviewed by the FBI almost two months later on September 16, 1964 (and then re-interviewed on September 20, 1964). So, in my humble opinion, Loran Hall was not picked up for questioning "immediately" after Odio gave her testimony. As you know, Silvia told the WC that the two men who were at her apartment (with Oswald) called themselves "Leopoldo" (definitely) and "Angelo" (or something like that). These names are somewhat similar phonetically to Hall's and Howard's "war names" of "Lorenzo" and "Alonzo," respectively. Therefore, it's possible that the "war names" mentioned by Silvia reminded someone (who was privy to her testimony) of Hall's and Howard's "war names," and that that person, for whatever reason, pointed the FBI in the direction of Hall and Howard. The only reason I'm "arguing" with you (more as a "devil's advocate" than anything else) is because I find it curious that the FBI report says that Hall described himself as having been 5'11 1/2" and 200 pounds in September of 1963, and that he described Larry Howard as being 5'11" and 235 "fat" pounds. I'm perplexed by the fact that Silvia testified that "Leopoldo" was "thin," if indeed 200-pound Hall was "Leopoldo," and I'm equally perplexed that she testified that "Angelo" (or something like that) was only 5'7" and "stocky," if indeed "Angelo" really was big, "fat" Larry Howard. Even ordinary people who don't work in carnivals can appreciate the difference between 5'7" and "stocky" and 5'11" and "fat," and, no, I don't think these discrepencies are due to Silvia's so-called language problems. Also, both Hall and Howard told the FBI that they had had full beards when they were in Dallas in September of 1963, another thing that, if true, Silvia seems to have not noticed...

Of course I realize that I've probably completely misinterpreted what you wrote and/or that I've been "researching" the wrong documents and/or that I've misquoted the documents, so I appologize in advance...

http://www.maryferre...5&relPageId=152

--Tommy

P.S. I wonder if Hall or Howard were known to (occasionally?) wear prescription glasses back then?

Also, it's interesting that Hall said that he towed the trailer from Los Angeles to Dallas with his blue-and-white 1956 Oldsmobile. I do wonder if it was a station wagon. Lee Bowers said one of the three "mysto" cars that came into his area a short time before the assassination was a blue-and-white 1959 Oldsmobile station wagon with out-of-state plates....

Edit: I've been thinking about it some more (oh, no!), and I suppose it's possible that Hall, Howard, and Oswald were all three at Silva's apartment, but, due to her sense of self-preservation, Oswald was the only one she recognized for the authorities. In this scenario, she may have intentionally given misleading descriptions of Hall and Howard to the WC...

--Tommy

Edited November 5, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Well Gosh, Paul--

"Random guesses by ordinary people" ?

I don't think Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop were just "ordinary people" making "random guesses" about the physical characteristics of the men they both knew as "Leopoldo" and "Angel". Nagell and Col. Bishop were both highly-trained intelligence operatives who had been chosen/accepted for that kind of work in the first place for, one would assume, their ability to observe and remember such things.

--Tommy

P.S. Have you read The Man Who Knew Too Much?

Well, Tommy, first of all, yes, I've read TMWKTM, and I've studied it, and my copy is marked up.

Secondly, I concur that spies are trained to notice such facts -- but my main point was that Sylvia Odio could not be expected to remember such points under the circumstances.

But what does it mean that Nagell and Bishop grasped the physical dimensions of Lawrence Howard when the question is identifying the visitors who came to Odio's house on Wednesday 25 September 1963?

No matter how accurate Nagell and Bishop might be in their recollections, the simple fact is that they themselves were not present at Sylvio Odio's doorstep on that day.

So, in order to make any useful match, we must also guarantee that Sylvia Odio had the same spy training as Nagell and Bishop, so that she was also trained to notice such features. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Without a trained, educated description of the physical characteristics of her visitors from Sylvia Odio, what good is the data from Nagell and Bishop?

That was my point.

Odio could not (or would not trust the WC to protect her if she did) identify Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard as the men at her door that day. Her physical descriptions, given from memory, are very unclear.

If there was FBI involvement in a cover-up of Lee Harvey Oswald's activities in late September 1963, then we would expect the FBI to add pressure to Sylvia Odio's tortured life, and not offer her protection, comfort or encouragement.

Therefore, seeking to identify those visitors without a positive identification of two of the three, or without an accurate match of her physical description with the physical description offered by experts -- we seem to be at an impasse.

However -- it only adds fuel to my unanswered question -- since Odio admitted she could not identify Leopoldo or Angel (except by these vague "war names") why in the world would the FBI immediately pick up Loran Hall for questioning? Any ideas?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Well, Silvia Odio gave her testimony to the Warren Commission on July 22, 1964. Loran Hall was first interviewed by the FBI almost two months later on September 16, 1964 (and then re-interviewed on September 20, 1964). So, in my humble opinion, Loran Hall was not picked up for questioning "immediately" after Odio gave her testimony. As you know, Silvia told the WC that the two men who were at her apartment (with Oswald) called themselves "Leopoldo" (definitely) and "Angelo" (or something like that). These names are somewhat similar phonetically to Hall's and Howard's "war names" of "Lorenzo" and "Alonzo," respectively. Therefore, it's possible that the "war names" mentioned by Silvia reminded someone (who was privy to her testimony) of Hall's and Howard's "war names," and that that person, for whatever reason, pointed the FBI in the direction of Hall and Howard. The only reason I'm "arguing" with you (more as a "devil's advocate" than anything else) is because I find it curious that the FBI report says that Hall described himself as having been 5'11 1/2" and 200 pounds in September of 1963, and that he described Larry Howard as being 5'11" and 235 "fat" pounds. I'm perplexed by the fact that Silvia testified that "Leopoldo" was "thin," if indeed 200-pound Hall was "Leopoldo," and I'm equally perplexed that she testified that "Angelo" (or something like that) was only 5'7" and "stocky," if indeed "Angelo" really was big, "fat" Larry Howard. Even ordinary people who don't work in carnivals can appreciate the difference between 5'7" and "stocky" and 5'11" and "fat," and, no, I don't think these discrepencies are due to Silvia's so-called language problems. Also, both Hall and Howard told the FBI that they had had full beards when they were in Dallas in September of 1963, another thing that, if true, Silvia seems to have not noticed...

Of course I realize that I've probably completely misinterpreted what you wrote and/or that I've been "researching" the wrong documents and/or that I've misquoted the documents, so I appologize in advance...

http://www.maryferre...5&relPageId=152

--Tommy

P.S. I wonder if Hall or Howard were known to (occasionally?) wear prescription glasses back then?

Also, it's interesting that Hall said that he towed the trailer from Los Angeles to Dallas with his blue-and-white 1956 Oldsmobile. I do wonder if it was a station wagon. Lee Bowers said one of the three "mysto" cars that came into his area a short time before the assassination was a blue-and-white 1959 Oldsmobile station wagon with out-of-state plates....

Edit: I've been thinking about it some more (oh, no!), and I suppose it's possible that Hall, Howard, and Oswald were all three at Silva's apartment, but, due to her sense of self-preservation, Oswald was the only one she recognized for the authorities. In this scenario, she may have intentionally given misleading descriptions of Hall and Howard to the WC...

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Well Gosh, Paul--

"Random guesses by ordinary people" ?

I don't think Richard Case Nagell and Colonel William C. Bishop were just "ordinary people" making "random guesses" about the physical characteristics of the men they both knew as "Leopoldo" and "Angel". Nagell and Col. Bishop were both highly-trained intelligence operatives who had been chosen/accepted for that kind of work in the first place for, one would assume, their ability to observe and remember such things.

--Tommy

P.S. Have you read The Man Who Knew Too Much?

Well, Tommy, first of all, yes, I've read TMWKTM, and I've studied it, and my copy is marked up.

Secondly, I concur that spies are trained to notice such facts -- but my main point was that Sylvia Odio could not be expected to remember such points under the circumstances.

But what does it mean that Nagell and Bishop grasped the physical dimensions of Lawrence Howard when the question is identifying the visitors who came to Odio's house on Wednesday 25 September 1963?

No matter how accurate Nagell and Bishop might be in their recollections, the simple fact is that they themselves were not present at Sylvio Odio's doorstep on that day.

So, in order to make any useful match, we must also guarantee that Sylvia Odio had the same spy training as Nagell and Bishop, so that she was also trained to notice such features. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Without a trained, educated description of the physical characteristics of her visitors from Sylvia Odio, what good is the data from Nagell and Bishop?

That was my point.

Odio could not (or would not trust the WC to protect her if she did) identify Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard as the men at her door that day. Her physical descriptions, given from memory, are very unclear.

If there was FBI involvement in a cover-up of Lee Harvey Oswald's activities in late September 1963, then we would expect the FBI to add pressure to Sylvia Odio's tortured life, and not offer her protection, comfort or encouragement.

Therefore, seeking to identify those visitors without a positive identification of two of the three, or without an accurate match of her physical description with the physical description offered by experts -- we seem to be at an impasse.

However -- it only adds fuel to my unanswered question -- since Odio admitted she could not identify Leopoldo or Angel (except by these vague "war names") why in the world would the FBI immediately pick up Loran Hall for questioning? Any ideas?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Well, Silvia Odio gave her testimony to the Warren Commission on July 22, 1964. Loran Hall was first interviewed by the FBI almost two months later on September 16, 1964 (and then re-interviewed on September 20, 1964). So, in my humble opinion, Loran Hall was not picked up for questioning "immediately" after Odio gave her testimony. As you know, Silvia told the WC that the two men who were at her apartment (with Oswald) called themselves "Leopoldo" (definitely) and "Angelo" (or something like that). These names are somewhat similar phonetically to Hall's and Howard's "war names" of "Lorenzo" and "Alonzo," respectively. Therefore, it's possible that the "war names" mentioned by Silvia reminded someone (who was privy to her testimony) of Hall's and Howard's "war names," and that that person, for whatever reason, pointed the FBI in the direction of Hall and Howard. The only reason I'm "arguing" with you (more as a "devil's advocate" than anything else) is because I find it curious that the FBI report says that Hall described himself as having been 5'11 1/2" and 200 pounds in September of 1963, and that he described Larry Howard as being 5'11" and 235 "fat" pounds. I'm perplexed by the fact that Silvia testified that "Leopoldo" was "thin," if indeed 200-pound Hall was "Leopoldo," and I'm equally perplexed that she testified that "Angelo" (or something like that) was only 5'7" and "stocky," if indeed "Angelo" really was big, "fat" Larry Howard. Even ordinary people who don't work in carnivals can appreciate the difference between 5'7" and "stocky" and 5'11" and "fat," and, no, I don't think these discrepencies are due to Silvia's so-called language problems. Also, both Hall and Howard told the FBI that they had had full beards when they were in Dallas in September of 1963, another thing that, if true, Silvia seems to have not noticed...

Of course I realize that I've probably completely misinterpreted what you wrote and/or that I've been "researching" the wrong documents and/or that I've misquoted the documents, so I appologize in advance...

http://www.maryferre...5&relPageId=152

--Tommy

P.S. I wonder if Hall or Howard were known to (occasionally?) wear prescription glasses back then?

Also, it's interesting that Hall said that he towed the trailer from Los Angeles to Dallas with his blue-and-white 1956 Oldsmobile. I do wonder if it was a station wagon. Lee Bowers said one of the three "mysto" cars that came into his area a short time before the assassination was a blue-and-white 1959 Oldsmobile station wagon with out-of-state plates....

Edit: I've been thinking about it some more (oh, no!), and I suppose it's possible that Hall, Howard, and Oswald were all three at Silva's apartment, but, due to her strong sense of self-preservation, Silvia was willing to identify only Oswald for the authorities. In this scenario, she may very well have (intentionally) given misleading descriptions of Hall and Howard to the WC...

--Tommy

(edited and bumped; sorry about the double post)

Edited November 5, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[David Boylan]

Anyone have a good picture or pictures of Tony Cuesta?

[Thomas Graves]

Anyone have a good picture or pictures of Tony Cuesta?

David,

Do you think Cuesta was at Silvia Odio's apartment in late September of 1963?

--Tommy

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/cuesta.gif

Edited November 5, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[David Boylan]

Dick Russell:

Dick Russell, who was at this conference with Escalante, wrote about the story in the 2003 edition of The Man Who Knew Too Much:

The most intriguing news to come out of the Nassau conference, however, was Escalante's revelation about what another leader of the Alpha 66 group allegedly told him. As we have seen, Nagell would never reveal the true identities of "Angel" and "Leopoldo" - the two Cuban exiles who he said had deceived Oswald into believing they were Castro operatives. Instead, on several occasions when I prodded him, Nagell had cleverly steered the conversation toward a man named Tony Cuesta - indicating that this individual possessed the knowledge that he himself chose not to express. Cuesta, as noted earlier, had been taken prisoner in Cuba during a raid in 1966.

[Thomas Graves]

Dick Russell:

Dick Russell, who was at this conference with Escalante, wrote about the story in the 2003 edition of The Man Who Knew Too Much:

The most intriguing news to come out of the Nassau conference, however, was Escalante's revelation about what another leader of the Alpha 66 group allegedly told him. As we have seen, Nagell would never reveal the true identities of "Angel" and "Leopoldo" - the two Cuban exiles who he said had deceived Oswald into believing they were Castro operatives. Instead, on several occasions when I prodded him, Nagell had cleverly steered the conversation toward a man named Tony Cuesta - indicating that this individual possessed the knowledge that he himself chose not to express. Cuesta, as noted earlier, had been taken prisoner in Cuba during a raid in 1966.

David,

Thanks. I'd forgotten that.

What would you consider "a good picture of Tony Cuesta?" One that we can judge his height in?

--Tommy

Edited November 6, 2012 by Thomas Graves