Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

Mr. Trejo - you would do well to examine your oppositional nature and your desperate need to be right. We all want to know the truth. It is altogether a sign of a healthy mind to be willing to acknowledge that others may be right on occasion. Of all the strong minded people on this board, you are the most impervious.

All you're saying, Paul B., is that your side is in the majority. Big deal. You still haven't solved the JFK murder and you KNOW it.

Just because y'all agree with each other here, doesn't prove one thing. Your theories about CIA plots are light on fact and heavy on fiction and innuendo. Suspicion, not facts, are all you have against Ruth Paine, for example.

Jeff Caufield has proposed many facts to support his CT that General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder. You haven't addressed one of those -- you simply challenge my PERSONALITY.

That's just not an argument, Paul B., nor it is even logical. You seem to despair because you've run out of arguments.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS THAT YOU DISPUTE? Stop attacking personalities, and stick to the ISSUES.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

PT: Yet we also know that the FBI also accused Silvia Odio of being a "mental case," too. Because she said (like Harry Dean said) that LHO had accomplices (namely, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in the service of General Walker).

What does this mean?

​Loran Hall and Howard were never at Odio's door. That was something dreamed up by Hoover at the request of the WC, in late August to dispose of what Odio said.

You say that as if your claim was a FACT, James, but you show no PROOF.

Loran Hall first admitted to the FBI that he was at Silvia Odio's door with Larry Howard and "Somebody Else," but not Lee Harvey Oswald as Silvia Odio insisted. The FBI took this to Hoover, because it made Silvia Odio look "hysterical."

But when Loran Hall's life was threatened by Larry Howard and "Somebody Else" for using their names without their permission, he changed his story completely, and told the FBI that he never saw Silvia Odio before, and he and Larry Howard and "Yet Somebody Else" were visiting some other Latin Lady soliciting funds for their mercenary Anti-Castro campaign.

The Big Lie of J. Edgar Hoover in this scenario is that he knew all this, but he chose instead to report Loran Hall's FIRST STORY to the Warren Commission as the Truth -- even though he had Loran Hall's retraction on record!

That's what happened. Silvia Odio told the truth -- LHO was at her doorstep in the company of a sort of Cuban guy, and a sort of Mexican guy who gave only War Names, perhaps "Lorenzo and Angelo"

We should also remember that Loran Hall was pushy and violent, and since the FBI wouldn't guarantee Silvia Odio's protection (because they couldn't admit that LHO had accomplices), and since Loran Hall knew how to contact Silvio Odio over the telephone, it's no surprise that Silvia Odio was terrified to ID him.

But Silvia insisted -- she never saw these guys before in her life, and they weren't from Cuba, and she never let them inside her house, but kept them outside at her well-lighted, apartment porch for the full visit -- about 20 minutes.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul:

You cannot be serious.

I mean really. Please.

This is over the top even for you.

I have to provide sources for what I said about Howard and Hall (and Seymour )not being at Odio's door?

How many books have you read on this case? I mean besides Caufield's? Is that where you got this load of smelly malarkey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us start with a very good source. One which many of us revere. One of the highest compliments I ever got for Reclaiming Parkland was when Joe McBride compared that book with Sylvia Meagher's classic Accessories After the Fact.

On pages 376-87, Meagher deals with the Odio incident. Many of us consider that the high point of her book. And perhaps one of the 2-3 high points of this first generation of critical studies of the WR. She scores in no uncertain terms the fact that the WR was willing to accept the FBI's late arriving version that it was not Oswald and two unknown rightwing Cuban exiles at Odio's door. But Seymour, Howard and Hall. She asks: Where are the FBI depositions, if that is the case? And how did they find Hall, Howard and Seymour so quickly after they could not find anyone for eight months?

She then adds that, according to late arriving FBI documents, she determined that the whole Howard/Hall/Seymour scenario fell apart almost as soon as it was built by Hoover. It was all over by September 16th. Which would have been enough time to place these exhibits in the volumes. But they were not included.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us now examine the first really good biography of Oswald, Spy Saga, by Phil Melanson, a very good writer and researcher.

After describing the whole Odio/ WC affair and Rankin's famous letter to Hoover insisting that the Odio story must be either "proved or disproved" he adds this was a very crucial problem for the Commission. Because it created myriad problems for them e.g. how could Oswald be at Odio's and still be on his way to Mexico. (p. 109)

He notes that the FBI came up with Hall, Howard and Seymour as being at Odio's door. But as with Meagher, he notes that the whole BS scenario collapsed in a few days. Hall said he never met the woman. Odio, as noted above in Fonzi's interview failed t oID any of the three men. But the WC accepted this and when LIebeler complained about it, he was told by Rankin, "We are supposed to be closing doors, not opening them." (p. 110)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, let us go to Odio's interview with Fonzi for the Church Committee:

http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html

Um, James, you cited your own article, and you didn't really give Gaeton Fonzi any real place in your biased screed against Sylvia Odio, did you?

Well, at least you were correct in your citation of Silvia Meagher, who discovered that "Sylvia Odio is proof of the plot." Meagher's work was brilliant, while your work has decayed into insults and stand-up comedy.

The GREAT researcher of JFK material, Gaeton Fonzi, regarded Sylvia Odio as, in his words, "eminently believable." Furthermore, Gaeton Fonzi wrote the following on April 5, 1976:

In her interview with us, Sylvia Odio denied (as she did in her second FBI interview) that she told Mrs. Lucille Connell she had seen Oswald speak and, in fact, had never seen nor heard of Oswald prior to his visit to her apartment. Odio told us that she guessed Connell reported her to the FBI because she had been angry with her for breaking off a very close relationship. She also told us that Connell was "very intensive about the John Birch Society" and that she was involved with General Walker. (Memo to Dave Marston, from Gaeton Fonzi, 4/5/76, HSCA Number Files, Archives Record Number 180-10001-10154)

So, this ties back to Jeffrey Caufield's new book -- which is a far better resource on the JFK assassination than all of your writings put together. (I'm going through Reclaiming Parkland now, and so for I'm unimpressed.)

Lucille O'Connell -- who was working with General Walker, was clearly CLOSE TO THE JFK PLOTTERS. No wonder she wanted to ruin Sylvia Odio! The plot thickens!

But you failed to recognize that in your article, James.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, by far and away, the longest and most detailed treatment of the Odio incident is in Fonzi's sterling book, The Last Investigation. (Which Caufiled actually calls The Least Investigation. Which says a lot about both him and his book.)

Why is it the best? Because Fonzi is the investigator who spent the most time with her, both as part of the Church Committee and the HSCA. He interviewed both Annie and her older sister at length for both committees. (p. 111) Fonzi also talked to Amador Odio, and Burton Einspruch, her psychologist. (p. 113)

He then examined the FBI and WC memoranda on the matter. In his book he details how the FBI pounced on something Hall had said and then built the above mentioned ersatz scenario around it. The WC used this to say Oswald was not at Odio's that night. (ibid p. 114) Even though Hall was part of Interpen, which was notorious for passing disinfo on the JFK case e.g. Gerry Hemming.

A few days later, Hall retracted his story. He then told Fonzi and the HSCA that he never said he was at Odio's apartment. (p. 115) And if you read the interview Fonzi did with Hall, Hall says that the FBI never showed him Odio's picture, in fact, the agent did not have any pictures with him. That is how rigged the FBI interview was. And that is how bad Hoover was on this case.

As Fonzi details in his book, he and his partner the late, great Al Gonzalez, spent a lot of time trying to find who the two guys with the Oswald lookalike, or Oswald, really were.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul:

Like Ernie, I really do not know what on earth you are talking about in post 1103.

Are you trying to tell the readers here that I endorsed the LaFontaine book?

I wrote a very brief intro--not an article at all-- to Fonzi's summary interview of Odio for the Church Committee. I did just the opposite in that intro. I said his interview shows just how bad the LaFontaines were on Odio and I then criticized both Paul Hoch and Peter Scott for working with them on their book. And Scott for giving it a positive review.

I mean you can read can't you Paul? If you can then why did you say the opposite of what is there, when anyone can read it themselves and see you are wrong?

But I heartily recommend everyone read that actual document. Its a valuable contribution from the ARRB on Odio.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, by far and away, the longest and most detailed treatment of the Odio incident is in Fonzi's sterling book, The Last Investigation. (Which Caufiled actually calls The Least Investigation. Which says a lot about both him and his book.)

Why is it the best? Because Fonzi is the investigator who spent the most time with her, both as part of the Church Committee and the HSCA. He interviewed both Annie and he roller sister at length for both committees. (p. 111) Fonzi also talked to Amador Odio, and Burton Einspruch, her psychologist. (p. 113)

He then examined the FBI and WC memoranda on the matter. In his book he details how the FBI pounced on something Hall had said and then built the above mentioned ersatz scenario around it. The WC used this to say Oswald was not at Odio's that night. (ibid p. 114) Even though Hall was part of Interpen, which was notorious for passing disinfo on the JFK case e.g. Gerry Hemming.

A few says later, Hall retracted his story. He then told Fonzi and the HSCA that he ever said he was at Odio's apartment. (p. 115) And if you read the interview Fonzi did with Hall, Hall says that the FBI never showed him Odio's picture, in fact, the agent did not have any pictures with him. That is how rigged the FBI interview was. And that is how bad Hoover was on this case.

As Fonzi details in his book, he and his partner the late, great Al Gonzalez, spent a lot of time trying to find who the two guys with the Oswald lookalike, or Oswald, really were.

I agree that Gaeton Fonzi was one of the greatest of the JFK researchers in the 20th century. Also, IMHO, Gaeton Fonzi came very close to solving the JFK assassination, because he recognized the importance of Sylvia Odio in the JFK saga.

Yet at the same time, Fonzi's work is nearly a quarter-of-a-century old, and Fonzi eventually threw up his hands and gave up. Lucille Connell was linked to General Walker, and Gaeton Fonzi saw it, but didn't follow that up.

Gaeton Fonzi's work was superb -- but ultimately he disappointed Silvia Odio, because Gaeton could not get Silvia the SECURITY that she needed to pursue the ACCOMPLICES of Lee Harvey Oswald. Fonzi quoted Silvia at the of the Last Investigation when he said, "We have failed; we have all failed."

Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory mandated to the FBI that "LHO could have no accomplices who are still at large," no matter what the evidence actually showed. Hoover proposed this only hours after the JFK murder, when reports were coming in that LHO was a Communist and an FPCC secretary -- when Hoover had *inside* information that LHO was no Communist and was only the Fake secretary of a Fake FPCC in NOLA, at 544 Camp Street, under a former FBI agent named Guy Banister.

Hoover knew immediately, when LHO was picked up and framed for the JFK murder, that this was a Radical Rightist plot. Yet for purposes of National Security (and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) Hoover convinced LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren that LHO must be the "Lone Nut who has no accomplices who are still at large."

They bought it.

The FBI went about on that very evening to tamper with any and all evidence that showed that LHO was only the Patsy of the plot. Anything that proved that there were multiple shooters was CRUSHED and STOMPED on like the plague. Of course the Bethesda Naval Hospital autopsy reports on JFK had to be 100% censored -- every bit of it -- because it would show multiple bullets hitting from multiple angles.

LHO could not have driven as a passenger in a Green Rambler from the TSBD, as reported by Roger Craig. LHO could not have been the passenger of an automobile entering and exiting the Mexico City border in late September, as reported by Mexican Immigration. Mistaken identity cases had to be built up to forge the "Lone Nut" scenario.

Gaeton Fonzi was very close to the solution -- but he neglected to take General Walker seriously.

That is the same flaw that affects all CIA-did-it theorists.

Loran Hall was not only part of Interpen and an associate of Gerry Patrick Hemming (whom A.J. Weberman rightly recognized as a key conspirator) but both men were closely connected to General Walker -- and Gaeton Fonzi neglected that avenue.

Gaeton Fonzi was correct, like Silvia Meagher, to recognize the importance of Silvia Odio in solving the JFK conspiracy. But he neglected to follow up all the leads that led directly to General Walker.

So, it's now a quarter of a century later -- and finally, Jeff Caufield has ponied up the research and citations to bring General Walker front and center of the JFK conspiracy.

It's a new day.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemming and Hall and Lorenz were about as much JFK conspirators as me, Paul Brancato, and Carol Hewett were.

And Hoover did not recognize any kind of plot at first. Because he could not understand either the medical evidence, or Mexico City, or how Oswald ever got there.

And he was trying to falsify who Clay Bertrand really was. Because he knew he was Clay Shaw. (William Davy, Let Justice be Done, pgs.191-92)

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemming and Hall and Lorenz were about as much JFK conspirators as me, Paul Brancato, and Carol Hewett were.

And Hoover did not recognize any kind of plot at first. Because he could not understand either the medical evidence, or Mexico City, or how Oswald ever got there.

And he was trying to falsify who Clay Bertrand really was. Because he knew he was Clay Shaw. (William Davy, Let Justice be Done, pgs.191-92)

Well, James, if I must choose between your weak work on the JFK conspiracy, and the stellar work of A.J. Weberman, then I choose A.J. Weberman, hands down.

Your work has mainly parroted the work of Jim Garrison -- but really, his work is nearly 50 years old now; old and tired.

Hoover came up with the "Lone Nut" theory at 3pm on 11/22/1963 as stated by History Professor David Wrone of Wisconsin University. There is an FBI memo showing that he called RFK at that hour, stating firmly that LHO was not a Communist and that LHO was not an FPCC secretary.

This was despite a flood of rumors coming from Dallas and New Orleans that LHO was (1) a Communist; and (2) an FPCC Secretary! Therefore, it is clear that Hoover had a thick file on LHO already.

The only reason that Hoover even bothered to enter the Jim Garrison scene was because Hoover was committed to the "Lone Nut" theory of LHO, on the grounds of National Security.

By seeking the Actual Accomplices of LHO (who really did exist) Garrison was upsetting the FBI apple cart. Hoover didn't give two shakes about Clay Shaw -- the issue was over the "Lone Nut" theory, which by 1968 had become sacred to Hoover.

Again -- Hoover was old and perhaps slower in his thinking, but he had already agreed with LBJ, Dulles and Warren that it was a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY to maintain the fiction of the "Lone Nut."

The rational explanation is that this was the Cold War, and the USSR would have exploited the Truth about the JFK murder in an international propaganda coup.

Therefore, it's also rational that after the USSR collapsed in 1990, that President GHW Bush would sign the JFK Records Act in 1992, moving the date of JFK secret documents from 2039 to 2017. The USSR was obviously the motive force, then, for J. Edgar Hoover.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PT : Hoover didn't give two shakes about Clay Shaw.

Paul, just what the heck do you read anyway?

This is not about Jim Garrison at all. This predates Garrison on Shaw. This is back in 1963-64.

See in 1967, when Garrison arrested Shaw, Ramsey Clark committed a faux pas. He announced that the FBI had already investigated Shaw back in 1963. Which begged the question as to why. A NY Times reporter went to the Justice Department and his source said that they were convinced that Shaw was Bertrand. (Which, he was.)

Now, this was bad for the FBI but helpful to Garrison. So it had to be reversed. Which it was. So in June of 1967 the Justice Department issued a press release saying that Shaw was not investigated by the FBI and Clark was wrong. Except with the ARRB releases we now know this was a lie. How do we know?

From this declassified memo of March 2, 1967 from DeLoach to Tolson:

The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December of 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw. (emphasis added)

That document, found by Peter Vea, is one of the most valuable finds of the ARRB. Because it exposes what a farce the info furnished the public was, and what was going on behind the scenes to blunt the impact of JG and to protect Shaw. We know Hoover was in on this because he scribbled a note at the bottom.

Knowing that, let us look back at the Shaw trial testimony of FBI agent Regis Kennedy. Now before reading this, understand that these questions were only allowed after the trial was stopped and contact was made between Harry Connick of Justice and Attorney General John Mitchell. It was agreed upon in advance that the state could only ask two questions on this subject, with no follow up, since that would be all the witness would reply to.

Alcock: Mr. Kennedy, prior to your interview with Dean Andrews, were you engaged in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy? (emphasis added)

Kennedy: Yes, I was.

Alcock: Mr. Kennedy, were you seeking Clay Bertrand in connection with your overall investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy?

Kennedy: I was. (Davy, pgs. 191-94)

Kennedy found out who Bertrand was. As DeLoach said, through several parties. And the FBI then covered it up.

BTW, is this in Caufield's book? Because in Garrison's files, he has about 12-13 sources that reveal Shaw was Bertrand.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PT : Hoover didn't give two shakes about Clay Shaw.

Paul, just what the heck do you read anyway?

This is not about Jim Garrison at all. This predates Garrison on Shaw. This is back in 1963-64.

See in 1967, when Garrison arrested Shaw, Ramsey Clark committed a faux pas. He announced that the FBI had already investigated Shaw back in 1963. Which begged the question as to why. A NY Times reporter went to the Justice Department and his source said that they were convinced that Shaw was Bertrand. (Which, he was.)

Now, this was bad for the FBI but helpful to Garrison. So it had to be reversed. Which it was. So in June of 1967 the Justice Department issued a press release saying that Shaw was not investigated by the FBI and Clark was wrong. Except with the ARRB releases we now know this was a lie. How do we know?

From this declassified memo of March 2, 1967 from DeLoach to Tolson:

The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December of 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw. (emphasis added)

That document, found by Peter Vea, is one of the most valuable finds of the ARRB. Because it exposes what a farce the info furnished the public was, and what was going on behind the scenes to blunt the impact of JG and to protect Shaw. We know Hoover was in on this because he scribbled a note at the bottom.

Knowing that, let us look back at the Shaw trial testimony of FBI agent Regis Kennedy. Now before reading this, understand that these questions were only allowed after the trial was stopped and contact was made between Harry Connick of Justice and Attorney General John Mitchell. It was agreed upon in advance that the state could only ask two questions on this subject, with no follow up, since that would be all the witness would reply to.

Alcock: Mr. Kennedy, prior to your interview with Dean Andrews, were you engaged in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy? (emphasis added)

Kennedy: Yes, I was.

Alcock: Mr. Kennedy, were you seeking Clay Bertrand in connection with your overall investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy?

Kennedy: I was. (Davy, pgs. 191-94)

Kennedy found out who Bertrand was. As DeLoach said, through several parties. And the FBI then covered it up.

BTW, is this in Caufield's book? Because in Garrison's files, he has about 12-13 sources that reveal Shaw was Bertrand.

James, this is an interesting, informative exposition of the history of the Clay Shaw episode. Well researched and well-stated.

It lacks the hostility and insult that you've been showing the past month, and I appreciate that.

If only you were that objective and well-versed in the Ruth Paine saga. Oh, well, that's another thread.

However, the issue here, I thought, was about J. Edgar Hoover and how he knew that LHO wasn't a Communist and that LHO wasn't an FPCC Secretary, by 3pm on 11/22/1963, when he called RFK and told him.

This was despite a flood of phone calls and telegrams from Dallas screaming that LHO was a Communist and was an FPCC Secretary.

It was precisely this contradiction of reports from Dallas -- and the facts that the FBI had in LHO's file -- that allowed J. Edgar Hoover to recognize EXACTLY what had happened in Dallas, and EXACTLY who was responsible.

It was, indeed, as Michael Paine insinuated to Ruth Paine in their wire-tapped phone call on 11/22/1963, when Michael said, "LHO will be blamed for this, but we both know who is responsible."

As Ruth Paine admitted later, they were talking generically about those who had published the WANTED:JFK handbill and the WELCOME MISTER KENNEDY TO DALLAS black-bordered ad.

As it turns out, they were correct, because the WC demonstrated that Robert Allen Surrey, in conjunction with General Walker's JBS cell in Dallas, were the authors of those JFK murder artifacts.

This brings us right back to the new book by Jeff Caufield: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...