Thomas Graves

bump

Just to set the record straight-- Due to the (clever?) lack of commas after the words "report" and "November," and the concomitant lack of the helping verb "had" before the verb "worked," the uncritical reader could be led to believe from the above WorldNetDaily article that the 1967 Louisiana State Police report referred to was written in November of 1963 and / or that the report, whenever it was written, must have been based on information Cheramie herself had given to the Louisiana police when it fact it was based on "hearsay" statements made in February 1967 by an A. H. Magruder, hunting partner of a psychiatrist who had allegedly spoken with Cheramie in the hospital more than three years earlier. http://www.jfk-online.com/cherdoc0.html --Tommy

Douglas, That's a really excellent article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Thanks for posting it! --Tommy

Other than on Cheramie's (unsourced) Spartacus webpage, where have you read that the two guys worked for Jack Ruby? --Tommy

From the Westfield (N.J) Leader newspaper, Thursday June 12, 1980: "Brenda L. Bowen, formerly of 18 Plymouth Road, was awarded a B.A. degree at graduation ceremonies at Colby College in Maine May 25th. She was graduated cum laude with distinction in English. Miss Bowen was also chairperson of the Colby College Cultural Life Program and was cited for her directing and acting work in Colby's drama department. Miss Bowen attended Westfield schools before moving to London where she now resides with her parents." http://archive.wmlnj.org/TheWestfieldLeader/1980/1980-06-12/pg_0014.pdf And, according to whitepages.com, there's a Charles H. Bowen, Jr. , 45 to 49 years old, living in Lawrenceburg, Indiana: http://www.whitepages.com/name/Charles-H~Bowen/Indiana --Tommy

Excellent work, Ernie! I'd be personally interested in reading the FBI files on the Minutemen in San Diego which you indicated in your previous post have already been transferred to NARA. I wonder how much that would cost me? --Tommy

Being a conspiracy theorist who wants to believe that Oswald was not wittingly a part of the assassination, I hope it's only ironic that Oswald's favorite TV show was, allegedly, Philbrick's "I Led Three Lives." --Tommy

Robert, What is the Osborne connection to Calle Niza 22? It doesn't ring a bell. Ron Rev. Fred Allen Jr. stated that the last time he had heard from John Bowen was a postcard from San Antonio, and that the new address furnished by Bowen was Niza 22, Mexico D.F. That is CE 2195http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=145196 In the FBI's Oswald Mexico City File, Wells Fargo American Express employee Manuel Pineda identified three photographs of John Bowen as "a person who had received mail at that address over the last 2 or 3 years." At that point the address is listed as Calle Niza 22; The interview with Pineda was dated 1-21-64, and Pineda stated he had seen Bowen "about 2 weeks ago." http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=742858 It's interesting that CE 2195 says that the Reverend Allen told the FBI in February of 1964 that he had "recently received" an airmail postcard from Bowen which was "postmarked 2/18/62 at San Antonio, Texas," advising Allen that he had changed his mailing address to Niza 22 in Mexico City. I wonder why it took two years for Allen to receive that postcard from San Antonio? --Tommy

Mark, It took a while, but I think I found it. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=692546 --Tommy

Well, Tommy, two or three months amounts to 60 or 90 "days". So there. --Paul Trejo Dear Word Twister Trejo, Not only do we not see eye to eye, but we're literally not even on the same page as unfortunately once again you've replied to a post while I was still editing it. Note that in the above-mentioned edit, I inserted the word "only" in my post to more accurately reflect what you had written when you wrote "only days before". It's interesting that you didn't correct me in your reply by saying, "Well actually, Tommy, I didn't say Veciana met Oswald with 'Bishop' 'days before' the assassination, I said they met 'only days before' it." I totally understand why you didn't correct me, though, because doing so would have weakened your "rebuttal" even more! Although the time period "two or three months" is indeed comprised of days, it is also comprised of seconds, minutes, hours, and, oh yeah I almost forgot, weeks. My point is that 60 to 90 days (two or three months) do not equate to your "only days before." One quarter of a year (ninety days) or even two months (60 days) isn't "only days before." An intellectually honest person would have said "several weeks before" or "a couple of months before." He wouldn't say "several days before," nor "days before," and especially not your ridiculous "only days before." Gosh, you know, maybe I'm being way too hard on you. You could have (under) exaggerated it even more than you did. You could have said "only hours before." And when I "called you" on that (an be assured that I would), you could try to "rebut" me by leaving out your original word "only" and then saying, "Well, Tommy, you know two months [cleverly leaving out "three months"] is made up of hours. So there." So there "yourself." All The Best Regards, --Tommy PS I'm truly starting to feel sorry for you because I'm coming to realize that you just can't help it. You just can't stop twisting words and facts to suit your purpose, that is. You've been doing it for so long that it's become "second nature" to you. Totally unconscious.... But then again, perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt. You may not have even known (or remembered?) that Veciana met Oswald with "Bishop" (David Atlee Phillips) in August or September of 1963, two or three months before the assassination (November 22, 1963) ! In other words, maybe you're just too lazy or too busy putting out your "Unified Field Theory" fires on this forum (and pedantically lecturing us with assassination factoids) to do much basic fact checking before you post, and you make up for your lack of knowledge and inaccuracies by always "giving yourself the benefit of the doubt," i.e. by always under-exaggerating or over-exaggerating, and / or twisting and spinning words and phrases and even "facts," whenever you deem it necessary to do so. So which is it, Trejo-- 1) Unconscious "second nature" word-and-fact-twisting on your part, or 2) A conscious decision to be lazy, cleverly turned to your advantage by over-exaggerating or under-exaggerating and by using remedial, approximating words and phrases (which technique, ironically, always seems to work to your "advantage," even if only temporarily, as in this case) ? You know, you really should read an article about cognitive dissonance. Here's a good one: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/benghazi_nuts_anti_vaxxers_birthers_do_they_really_buy_their_own_nonsense/

Well, Tommy, two or three months amounts to 60 or 90 "days". So there. --Paul Trejo Dear Word Twister Trejo, Not only do we not see eye to eye, but we're not even on the same page as you've once again replied to a post while I was unfortunately still editing it. Note my correcting of what you said from "days before" to the more accurate "only days before". It's interesting that you didn't correct me in your reply. I totally understand why you didn't, because doing so would have weakened your "rebuttal" even more. Although the time period "two or three months" is indeed comprised of days, it is also comprised of seconds, minutes, hours, and, oh yeah I almost forgot, weeks. My point is that 60 to 90 days (two or three months) do not equate to your "only days before." One quarter of a year (ninety days) or even two months (60 days) isn't "only days before." An intellectually honest person would have said "several weeks before" or "a couple of months before." He wouldn't say "several days before," nor "days before," and especially not your ridiculous "only days before." Gosh, you know, maybe I'm being way too hard on you. You could have (under) exaggerated it even more than you did. You could have said "only hours before." And when I called you on that, you would probably leave out the word "only" again and remind me by saying, "Well, Tommy, two months is made up of hours. So there." So there. All The Best Regards, --Tommy PS I'm truly starting to feel sorry for you because I'm coming to realize that you just can't help it. You just can't stop twisting words and facts to suit your purpose, that is. You've been doing it for so long that it's become "second nature" to you. Totally unconscious.... But then again, perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt. You may not have even known (or remembered?) that Veciana met Oswald with "Bishop" (David Atlee Phillips) in August or September of 1963, two or three months before the assassination (November 22, 1963) ! In other words, maybe you're just too lazy or too busy putting out your "Unified Field Theory" fires on this forum (and pedantically lecturing us with assassination factoids) to do much basic fact checking before you post, and you make up for your lack of knowledge and inaccuracies by always "giving yourself the benefit of the doubt," i.e. by always under-exaggerating or over-exaggerating, and / or twisting and spinning words and phrases and even "facts," when necessary. So which is it, Trejo-- Unconscious "second nature" word and fact twisting on your part, or conscious laziness (and its attendant "approximizing" remedial words and phrases, which, ironically, always work out to your "benefit," if only temporarily, as in this case)? You know, you really should read an article about cognitave dissonance. Here's a good one: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/benghazi_nuts_anti_vaxxers_birthers_do_they_really_buy_their_own_nonsense/

Well, Tommy, my first response is that I'm nothing like a True Believer with regard to Harry Dean. One should recollect that before his connection with me, Harry Dean was still accusing the Mormon Church of complicity in the JFK murder. I convinced Harry to drop that speculative detour, and to focus entirely on his eye-witness account. It's not a matter of being a True Believer, but of objectively evaluating which eye-witnesses to believe and which to doubt. Nothing that anybody has written in the past fifty years has caused me to find any cracks in Harry Dean's eye-witness account. There have been plenty of insults -- but none with any staying power. Good evidence stands on its own merit. My second response, Tommy, is that the time and energy we spend on the JFK assassination is always based on our personal commitment and free will. If the evidence is good, accept it. If not, move on. There's a ton of other evidence out there -- and you know that as well as anybody. I'm pleased that despite the hostile attacks of Ernie Lazar against the claims of Harry Dean, that somebody as renowned as Larry Hancock will still watch this thread from time to time. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Well, Trejo, you posted this while I was still editing my original reply to Ernie, so I've taken the liberty of incorporating my edit into your post. Specifically the phrase: "(understanding Harry's story)" --Tommy And by the way-- Regarding one of your earlier posts on another thread, Antonio Veciana met Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of "Bishop" (yes, I know-- David Atlee Phillips) not "only days" before the assassination, but two or three months before it.

Ernie, I answer by the numbers:1. If the Los Angeles FBI had praised Harry Dean, instead of insulting him (by calling him a mental case) then our problem would be much easier -- but not significantly different. The problem to solve is whether Harry Dean actually did -- as he claimed -- contact the FBI on the dates that he claimed he contacted him, with the information about Cubans, the FPCC and the JBS, as he claimed. Insofar as some FBI agents insulted Harry Dean, that does not prove that Harry Dean's claims were false -- in fact, Harry Dean himself told us that some FBI agents failed to believe him. So, with or without the FBI insults, the claims of Harry Dean can remain confirmed -- Harry contacted them on the dates in question, about the topics in question. That is the first thing history demands. So, the answer to your first question is: No, incorrect. It makes no difference to my case whether the FBI agents were flattering or insulting. I'm interested only in the factual content and dating of the communications. 2. You're mistaken in presuming that I wish to discredit comments made by FBI Agents which are derogatory references to Harry -- on the contrary, I wish to point them out. They show that the FBI in Los Angeles was composed of human beings with weaknesses -- and that they were prone to human failings such as insulting people who wanted to help. More than that, I wish to look beyond the insults to the facts themselves. What is the date of the contact? What is the topic reported by Harry? The opinion of the FBI agent might be interesting, or might be useless (e.g. calling Harry a mental case) but the factual content of the FBI record is vital for historiography. 3. What makes an FBI comment "snotty and insulting" is the sophomoric phrasing -- e.g. "mental case." It's the sort of thing we hear children say all the time. There is no way that this is "factual evidence," because no FBI agent is also a professional psychiatrist, who alone is qualified to offer such a medical opinion. Now, if the FBI agent had said something with a professional tone, like, "this source of information is unreliable because he called only yesterday to say that Martians were responsible for the JFK assassination," then I would be drawn to the logical conclusion that Harry Dean is indeed unreliable. But nothing of that kind was said by the FBI in Los Angeles. Instead, by calling Harry Dean "a mental case," that FBI agent merely showed his own unprofessional demeanor. 4. Now, WHY, in my opinion, were those FBI agents "snotty and insulting"? The only motive that is apparent is that they were personally immature individuals. To call a witness a "mental case," is not an objective observation, it is merely an insult -- pure and simple. That's obvious. That is different, by the way, from saying that somebody was "hard to follow," like Edwin Walker. It is surely relevant when the description is meant to truly describe -- but it is totally irrelevant when the phrase is used only to insult. 5. It is true that Larry Hancock once referred to Harry Dean as "inscrutable", yet Larry Hancock isn't interested in Harry Dean. Larry Hancock isn't interested in my theory about Ex-General Edwin Walker, either. Larry seems too quick to conclude that since RFK and JFK sent Walker to an insane asylum (which was a form of insult) that Walker was forever incompetent after that time. History tells a different story. So, my answer is that Larry Hancock isn't a professional FBI Agent whose job is to carefully weigh information from this or that source. Larry can afford to research what is interesting to himself -- and it just so happens that Harry Dean and Edwin Walker aren't interesting to Larry. The word 'inscrutable' connotes no childish insult; nor does it describe the details of Larry's position -- which he himself declined to offer. Larry was merely saying that he's not willing to expend the energy and patience to sort out what a complicated witness is trying to say. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> My replies correspond to your numbered comments....... 1. I start by questioning your use of the word "problem" which has a negative connotation. I prefer to use the word "evidence" which is revealed in contemporaneous documents. This is particularly important because FOIA did not even exist at the time these documents were created and the FBI employees making comments never even dreamed that their private evaluations would ever become public --- so they were free to present their unvarnished observations and evaluations without worrying about political correctness or any sort of "spin" to euphemize what they believed. This gets back to my previous point concerning what I have described as the importance of a researcher being a neutral auditor -- and NOT a "defender" or "ally" of the person or group being studied. In order to make reasonable and fair judgments, one MUST candidly acknowledge what documentary evidence reveals -- without inserting one's own personal subjective opinions or interpretations. I do not agree with your observation that describing Harry as a "mental case" was an "insult" -- in the context of what we are discussing. Nor do I agree with your attempt to obfuscate this matter by claiming that only a medical professional should be allowed to make such an observation or evaluation. That comment is contemporaneous primary source documentary evidence regarding how FBI employees interpreted their interactions with Harry--- not just in terms of the information he gave to the FBI but in terms of Harry's behavior and demeanor when he presented his "information". I previously suggested that everyone review the file of George Edward Demmerle -- because his background is so amazingly similar to that of Harry. In February 1967, Hoover responded to a request from SAC New York City to develop Demmerle as an informant. Hoover replied: "In view of the derogatory information developed on Demmerle, it is felt that he presents too great a risk of possible embarrassment to the Bureau, and, therefore, authority to use his services as a PSI [Potential Security Informant] is denied. Demmerle should be tactfully apprised that his services are not desired. Of course, there is no objection to your continuing to accept any information he might voluntarily offer just as in the case of any other citizens. However, he should not be given any encouragement to furnish such information to your office." The "derogatory information" Hoover referred to is almost identical to what the FBI developed about Harry's background, i.e. a rap sheet reflecting AWOL from military service, criminal arrests and convictions, and a period of psychological counseling at a New York mental health institution. Demmerle ALSO joined radical left groups and, subsequently, he joined the Minutemen and JBS. Demmerle did not finish high school and his employment history reflects that he worked on construction-related jobs. Demmerle continued to provide FBI-NYC with information -- even after he was informed that his services were not required. But the primary difference between Demmerle and Harry is that there is a clear paper trail showing what the FBI in New York City did with Demmerle's information --- because FBI-NYC thought it was valuable so they serialized it into numerous different FBI files on many different occasions. The NYC Agents who dealt with Demmerle did not come away from their contacts with him thinking that he was a "mental case" or "incoherent" or "rambling" or that he had difficulty getting to the point of why he contacted them. "THE PROBLEM TO SOLVE" --- is not merely what you claim it is. Your comment is just step #1 in a multi-step process. As previously noted, many thousands of people contacted their local FBI offices every year. They ALL could accurately claim to have contacted the FBI on the dates they claim and about the subjects they claim. Step #2 is to determine what was the evaluation which the FBI made of the information they received? For example, did they already have it from other sources -- so it just duplicated what they already knew?? OR did it contradict what they had received from other sources? And if contradictory, step #3 would be to determine if the FBI thought the contradictory information deserved further investigation, i.e. was it actionable? And step #4 is: after the FBI decided that information received was accurate and valuable, what did they do with it? I AGREE with your observation that just because an FBI Agent made a derogatory statement regarding Harry does NOT mean that information he provided was false---but I would like more specific details from Harry to explain your statement that: "in fact, Harry Dean himself told us that some FBI agents failed to believe him." However, where we disagree, is that you want to totally disregard the significance of derogatory judgments made by professional investigators in our nation's primary internal security agency instead of just keeping their evaluation in mind and trying to understand the basis for their judgments. 2. Making a derogatory judgment is not, as you claim, a sign of some sort of "weakness". YOU have made derogatory judgments about all sorts of people in your eBook. Does that mean YOU have "weaknesses" which you do not want to acknowledge? And those "weaknesses" totally discredit your writings or conclusions? 3. My only comment here is to repeat that you are using emotionally charged words to characterize the evaluations made by several different FBI Agents instead of trying to understand the basis for their pejorative evaluations. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is that you think nobody can ever make reasonable fact-based derogatory judgments about someone after having multiple interactions with them (in person, in writing, or on the phone). This has NOTHING to do with being a trained medical professional. As I noted previously, if you worked at a McDonald's restaurant, you would recognize the customers whom YOU decided had some sort of mental or cognitive problem. It is NOT a "medical opinion". That is YOUR inability to recognize what was being presented. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD: Let us recall that YOU concocted a FALSE psychiatric analysis of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover and you attributed all sorts of BOGUS motivations to FBI employees who supposedly "forged" the long-version to make Harry look bad in some way (according to your FALSE analysis). So for you to now complain about a FBI Agent offering his evaluation of his contacts with Harry is very odd indeed -- just because he used a general descriptive term (NOT A MEDICAL TERM). With respect to this comment by you: Now, if the FBI agent had said something with a professional tone, like, "this source of information is unreliable because he called only yesterday to say that Martians were responsible for the JFK assassination," then I would be drawn to the logical conclusion that Harry Dean is indeed unreliable. Actually, if you think about this dispassionately for a second, that is PRECISELY what was done. The "mental case" comment you are referring to was a handwritten observation on one of Harry's frequent letters to FBI-Los Angeles. The comment was written by the senior Agent in Los Angeles in charge of Cuban matters. AFTER reading Harry's letter (and considering what it said), then he made his professional conclusion about the substantive value of what Harry presented. That Agent did not (as you claim) show "his own unprofessional demeanor". In fact, when that very same Agent interviewed Harry in person or when he wrote the memos about Harry which were sent to FBI HQ (with SAC authorization) -- he DID NOT describe Harry as a "mental case". Instead, he just factually summarized what Harry wrote or said (and those summaries accurately match what is in the copies of Harry's letters that we now can see). This is where you entire argument becomes absurd. Had Agent McCauley mis-represented what Harry wrote in his letters or had he mis-quoted something in them to make Harry look "crazy" -- THEN you might argue that McCauley (or the other Agents) were "unprofessional". But nothing of that kind was said by the FBI in Los Angeles. Instead, by describing Harry Dean as "a mental case," or by using other derogatory descriptive terms FBI agents merely revealed their exasperation with Harry -- because of the quality (and frequency) of unsolicited "information" (actually Harry's speculations and anecdotes) which Harry was presenting. 4. Strange how you never consider ANY options other than the one(s) which support your own personal bias. 5. Why does it matter if Larry is "interested" in Harry or your theory? The point is that Larry Hancock is a well known JFK-researcher whose judgments are respected and based upon "carefully weighing information"". And based upon what Larry has seen in this thread (and elsewhere), regarding Harry's story ---Larry made a conclusion. Walker was not mentally incompetent but he was often incoherent -- whether you think of that as an "insult" or not is immaterial since many of Walker's friends and admirers came to the same conclusion about him! I'll go out on a limb here and say that (contrary to what you wrote), I think that if pressed to give us a more fulsome answer, Larry's position regarding Harry is closer to mine than to yours -- and Larry probably would use descriptive terms which even you would then conclude were "insults". Excellent post, Ernie! My two cents: By cleverly and politely suggesting that Larry is too lazy to expend the energy and time necessary to understand Harry, Trejo limits the word "inscrutable" to only one of its meanings, i.e. "very difficult to understand." But it also can mean "impossible to understand," and I suspect that that is what Larry meant when he used it to describe Harry's story. Regardless, just how much time and enery does Trejo expect us to invest in such a project (understanding Harry's story), and wouldn't it, by definition, require us to make some very subjective inferences and biased guesses in order to make it "internally consistent" and "comprehensble" to ourselves, thereby invalidating the "results" and turning us into True Believers, just like Trejo? --Tommy

Thanks for clarifying that, Ernie. So when Word Twister Trejo said "deposition," I guess he really meant to say suppository supposition. --Tommy

Well, Word Twister, at least you admit you're just guessing! LOL --Tommy

Word Twister Trejo, Why do you insist on saying Gilbert gave a (legal, sworn) "deposition," when in fact all he did was make some hearsay-based statements to the police, as Ernie has already pointed out a couple of times? All The Best Regards, --Tommy

[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

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"

Where did a post an "ad hominem attack" on you, Trejo? All I've done is painstakingly point out that you, sir, are not only a lackadaisical researcher who does not do enough fact-checking, but also an habitual and intentional exaggerator (a form of lying), and a world-class lexical "spin doctor" and "twist master," as well. (Ever noticed how no one ever comes to you defense?) "All The Best," --Tommy

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: 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

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: 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

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" by using 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" 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, you're 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[?] 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 intentionally "grossly exaggerate" (which is a form of lying), 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

Awww ... Bull Pucky! When you estimate the height, weight, and/or age of a person who standing a few feet away from you for several minutes, is it fair to say that you do so by just making "random guesses?" Of course not. Nobody does. And despite what you say, Sylvia Odio never said she was "just guessing." Liebler prompted her twice, by using the word "guess", to estimate the weight of "Leopoldo" and the height of "Angelo," so it could be said that he tried to put that word in her mouth but she didn't take the bait. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Odio.pdf Recap: Sylvia Odio never said she was "just guessing" about Leopoldo's weight, as you claim. Her use of words like "about" and "something like that" several times in her WC testimony is not tantamount to her admitting that she was "just guessing" about anything, but rather an indication of her honesty and forthrightness and basic accuracy about the heights, weights, and ages of the three men . Everyone, even Paul Trejo, estimates another person's height, weight, and age based on comparisons of such with their own height, weight, and age and also, perhaps, with those of close friends or relatives whose height, weight, and age they know and can remember. Call it part of 'life experience" if you want to, but don't call it "random guessing." LOL When Sylvia Odio said that Leopoldo was "very tall and slim", "must be six feet tall" , weighed "about 165 pounds" , and looked "about 34 years old," she is not making random guesses. She is making comparative and informed estimates which are, as you know, very different than just "random guesses." You make her sound like she was wearing a blindfold while meeting with the three men and met with them for only thirty seconds and therefore had to make random guesses of their respective heights, weights, and ages based solely on how they sounded. LOL 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 PS: Get it straight, Trejo. I didn't say "William F. Buckley." I said "Bull Pucky" But I fully expect that you will go ahead and make out of it what you george f------- will.

Ernie, Just because Paul Trejo fervently believes (and preaches) that Loran Hall 1) must have been actually using the benzadrine that was found in his car on October 16, 1963 while he and William Seymour were towing a trailer full of weapons and medical supplies, and 2) that Hall's supposed temporary using of said "bennies" must have caused him to weigh only 165 pounds while allegedly visiting Sylvia Odio with 5'11", 200 pound Larry "Fatso" Howard and Lee Harvey Oswald (instead of the 200 pounds that Hall one year later told the FBI that he had weighed at the time, or the 215 pounds that Hall actually did weigh in October of 1964) does not mean that Paul is biased, even though he has no evidence that Hall weighed as little as one-hundred-and-sixty pounds. LOL --Tommy

It worked fine for me, Douglas. I just clicked on it where it said "Watch it on youtube." Thanks for posting it. I think that's DPD Sergeant Patrick Dean at 6:13, talking with sombody outside by the armoured car. I wouldn't be surprised if he's saying, "Where the heck is Jack Ruby? They're gonna be bringing Oswald downstairs in a couple of minutes. Tell Ruby to get his you-know-what in here!" Here's another youtube video showing him being questioned by reporters in the basement right after Ruby killed Oswald: It's interesting that when the reporter asked Dean what kind of work Ruby was in, Dean paused and said, "Bob, I wouldn't want to say." In other words, "Having just admitted to you that I know Jack Ruby, I really wouldn't want to tell you that he owns a striptease joint and supplies girls and free alcohol to members of the police department and he used to work for Al Capone and his brother was a narcotics dealer and that Jack Ruby's an associate of Dallas mafioso Joe Civello, who, in turn, has given me a lot of good information over the years so that I can arrest Civello's narcotics-trafficking competitors !!!" --Tommy