Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[James DiEugenio]

1.  Paulie never answered my question as to how I misrepresented Caufield's description of Oswald's Russian speaking skills. (I won't even comment on the idea that Oswald taught himself Russian.  That is just so insulting only Jean Davison or John McAdams could even proffer it.)

2 .The only time Caufield had possession of all of Garrison's surviving files was when we were copying them at a KInko's type establishment in New Orleans.  Maybe he has a truly photographic memory or maybe he brought a MInox camera with him and shot every single document before any of us copied them?  

3. The point about the Torni is just as silly as the above.   Trejo leaves this out: After the Torni, Oswald moved to the Klaus Kurki hotel in Helsinki.  Which, according to someone who visited both places: "if the Torni is the number one luxury hotel in Helsinki, the Klaus Kurki is probably number two." (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 138)  

4. But Paulie wants to have it both ways. The man who never had a decent paying job in his life, and neither did his mom, but its really not surprising that he stayed at the equivalent of the Ritz Carrolton, because he had saved up mucho money in the service. Ok Paulie, show us some account in which Oswald had this money?  Or was it in a shoe box?  If he had it in Europe then why did he travel on a transport steamer across the Atlantic?  Which is about the absolute cheapest way one can go.  Why did the Soviets have to give him a stipend and a  job in Minsk? Did he blow the money cavorting around with his Intourist guide?

Edited December 20, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Caufield's climax to his Walker conspiracy:

 

"Let us now go to what Caufield maintains was really important about New Orleans. Actually there are two points to review here. First, there is Walker’s visit there from November 20-22nd. Like several matters in the book, the author trumpets this in advance as being of great evidentiary importance. In fact, he writes in his usual over-the-top manner that his presence there is, in and of itself, inescapable evidence of conspiracy. (p. 465)

By this time, I was aware of the author’s bloviating techniques and his undying efforts to inflate little or nothing into “bombshell evidence”; for instance, his Pere Marquette Building conspiracy. Well, the same thing happens here. Walker was in New Orleans attending a meeting of the woman’s auxiliary of the Chamber of Commerce. (Caufield, p. 458) This was followed up by a series of meetings with some of his financial backers, including Leander Perez. With one exception—the meeting with Perez—all of them took place in public places, with dozens of people present. Banister was not there. But Caufield tries to make up for this by presaging that Jack Martin and Joe Newbrough were. Yet, when he produces the informant report on this, it turns out that Martin is only mentioned as an appendix to the report, not as being at any of the hotel or bank meetings Walker held. And further, there is no mention of Newbrough meeting directly with Walker; he is one among anywhere from 35-90 persons in attendance." (see pp. 460-61)

 

Got that, he was at a woman's auxiliary meeting of the Chamber of Commerce.

Edited December 20, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let us look at how Caufield says the segregationist forces actually manipulated Oswald, you know the guy Hubert Badeaux and Bill Rainich were going to use three year later, after he got out of the military.

 

"The other New Orleans aspect of what Caufield labels his conspiracy is the raid on the Southern Conference Education Fund (SCEF) office in New Orleans, which was run by the liberal integrationist James Dombrowski. As noted, earlier in the book, Caufield writes as if this were the culmination of Oswald’s undercover activities. But he then switches it around to say that, no, Walker decided to use him in the Dallas plot. (As I showed in part one, his ideas on this are patently absurd.) When I read Caufield’s chapter on the SCEF raid, I understood why he switched it around. Let me explain.

The segregationist forces in Louisiana had passed what was called a Communist Control Law. This was aimed at limiting communist influence in pubic affairs. The law said that if the state could prove an organization was directly related to a known communist, then the group could be fined and its officers placed in jail. Caufield ratchets up his rhetoric again and says the successful prosecution of this law could have ended any hopes for integration in the state, and the south. (Caufield, p. 754) The idea was to show that integration—like water fluoridation—was some kind of communist-inspired plot.

In his usual hyperbolic treatment, the author leaves out a couple of important points. First, there was such an act on the federal books since 1954. No one had tried to enforce it since almost all lawyers suspected it was unconstitutional. In Joan Mellen’s treatment of the subject, she writes that, far from being some kind of solution to integration, the Louisiana version of the act—and the Dombrowski case—was nothing but a delaying action against the inevitable destruction of the segregation system. (Mellen, Jim Garrison, His Life and Times, p. 169) And in fact, Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who was part of the effort to raid SCEF, admitted in a letter that, “The staff has nothing on these people.” (ibid) As Mellen makes clear, and Caufield does not, Jim Garrison took on the role of the prosecution to avoid the state Attorney General having to do it, since he would have prosecuted the case in a much more vigorous, aggressive manner. As she details, Garrison did only the absolute minimum necessary, since he thought the raid was unconstitutional. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the Untied States, that was the verdict. (ibid, pp. 168-69)

But more notably, in neither treatment of the case—Mellen’s nor Caufield’s—does it appear that the activities of Oswald and the FPCC were brought up during any court hearing or petition. Perhaps this is why Caufield switched horses later on in the book as to Oswald’s role in his muddled mess of a plot."

Walker at a Women's auxiliary meeting and Oswald in the SCEF raid--except there is no evidence that Eastland was going to use Oswald in that affair. This is the climax of the so called brilliant book that Trejo has been trying to sell us on for months on end.  A book he could not find one major flaw in, not one.  Now that we have seen the contents of this "brilliant book", and gained insight into Trejo's critical faculties--or lack thereof- we all have a right to equate Paulie with a man at the racetrack selling us "winners" while wearing a jacket with frayed elbows.

Just what is his point?  Why does he want to lead unsuspecting lurkers over a cliff?

[Paul Trejo]

On 12/20/2016 at 2:18 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

What do you mean by that being common, Paul? Do you mean that the Finnish government would give tourists a free night's stay at a ritzy hotel, after which they would be on their own?

I ask because I have a hard time believing that a guy like Oswald -- a person you say saved his dimes -- would blow a bunch of savings on a one night's hotel stay. He had to have gotten the room for free, or at a deep discount.

Sandy,

Marguerite Oswald testified that when LHO obtained his "hardship" deferment from the Marine Corps., a story circulated that LHO returned to Fort Worth with $1,600.  Both Marguerite and Robert Oswald believed that LHO was sincere when he said he left the Marines to take care of his mother who had experienced a sudden illness.

Now, today $1,600 is not much money, but in 1959 that money was worth ten times more in spending power.  This was -- according to testimonies -- the most money LHO ever had in his life.  Within three days LHO traveled off to Europe by himself, leaving his mother $100, she said.

LHO didn't have a lot of experience with money -- it is just as likely that the money was burning a hole in his pocket, and he stayed one night at this lavish hotel, precisely because of his inexperience.   After one night he realized there was a cheaper hotel in town.

Now -- the main reason to doubt this is to make-up a story about the CIA paying for the hotel room, am I right?   But that is just guess-work.  The facts suggest that LHO did take $1,500 to Europe (less his boat-fare) and he had never been so rich-and-free at any other time in his life.  

It is true that LHO had lived more richly -- when he was a child and his mother was married to Mr. Ekdahl the engineer, and they often stayed at lavish hotels.  But LHO wasn't free and independent at those times.  Robert Oswald suggested that LHO missed the life he had with Ekdahl..

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 23, 2016 by Paul Trejo
clarification

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Both Robert and Marguerite Oswald testified that when LHO obtained his "hardship" deferment from the Marine Corps., he returned to Fort Worth with $1,600.  They both believed that LHO was sincere when he said he left the Marines to take care of his mother who had experienced a sudden illness.

Now, today $1,600 is not much money, but in 1959 that money was worth ten times more in spending power.  This was -- according to testimonies -- the most money LHO ever had in his life.  Within three days LHO traveled off to Europe by himself, leaving his mother $100, she said.

LHO didn't have a lot of experience with money -- it is just as likely that the money was burning a hole in his pocket, and he stayed one night at this lavish hotel, precisely because of his inexperience.   After one night he realized there was a cheaper hotel in town.

Now -- the main reason to doubt this is to make-up a story about the CIA paying for the hotel room, am I right?   But that is just guess-work.  The facts are that LHO did take $1,500 to Europe (less his boat-fare) and he had never been so rich-and-free at any other time in his life.  

It is true that LHO had lived more richly -- when he was a child and his mother was married to Mr. Ekdahl the engineer, and they often stayed at lavish hotels.  But LHO wasn't free and independent at those times.  Robert Oswald suggested that LHO missed the life he had with Ekdahl..

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Let's suppose that to stay in that hotel would have cost $100 to $150 per night.

The question is, would naive Oswald have spent that much of his $1500 to stay one night. And then that much again the next night. Doing so would consume $200 to $300 of his $1500 savings.

I don't know about Oswald, but if it were me I would choose to sleep in the park rather than give up that much of my savings in such a short period of time. Or, more likely, ask around to find out the cheaper alternatives.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that Oswald wouldn't at least have known about cheap motels. Maybe even hostels, given that he'd lived outside the United States

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Let's suppose that to stay in that hotel would have cost $100 to $150 per night.

The question is, would naive Oswald have spent that much of his $1500 to stay one night. And then that much again the next night. Doing so would consume $200 to $300 of his $1500 savings.

I don't know about Oswald, but if it were me I would choose to sleep in the park rather than give up that much of my savings in such a short period of time. Or, more likely, ask around to find out the cheaper alternatives.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that Oswald wouldn't at least have known about cheap motels. Maybe even hostels, given that he'd lived outside the United States

Sandy,

I would do the same as you -- but I suspect that you and I were not raised the way that LHO was raised.  Both Robert Oswald and John Edward Pic explained the unique way in which LHO was raised -- without a regular father or a stay-at-home mother -- a latch-key kid turned bookworm.  

LHO's natural father died before he was born in 1939.  The Oswalds lived in poverty until about 1945-1949 (when LHO was about 6 to 10 years old) when LHO lived only with his mother and his wealthy stepfather, Mr. Edwin Ekdahl, who lived largely on an expense account for Texas Electric Company, in fancy hotels in New York, Boston, Texas and the West Coast.  (Robert and John went to a military school in Mississippi during that period.)

LHO's mother was the kind who could get used to that.  Sadly, they divorced around 1949, and Marguerite Oswald fell back into extreme poverty.  She pulled Robert and John out of military school, and instructed them to drop out of high-school to get jobs to support the family.  LHO himself, of course, was still in grade school, and came home to an empty home for those years.  

During these formative years, LHO became an insatiable reader.  His cousin, Marilyn Murret, said that LHO would read Encyclopedias the same way other people would read novels.

My point is that LHO did not have the same money sense as the average American boy.  So, yes, I believe that the moment that LHO stepped into Helsinki, he first stayed in a lavish hotel on his own account.  (The alternate theory would be that the CIA or ONI paid Oswald specially for only one night there, for a special Intelligence Briefing.  While not impossible, I don't need that theory to explain LHO's behavior.   LHO's personal immaturity showed in many other ways, as well.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 21, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

A better question to have asked Trejo is:  Can you site in their testimony where Robert and Marguerite say this about Oswald and his finances?

I have just been through the over four hundred pages by both in Volume 1 of the Commission.    Neither one of them ever said it in their testimony.

Jenner:  Did you ever have a conversation with your mother prior to November 22, 1963 respecting Lee's financial status at the period of time when he was immediately--right at the time he was discharged from the Marines?

Robert Oswald:  No sir, I did not.  I do not remember one.  (P. 378)

During Marguerite's testimony this comes up as a point of dispute.  She has seen this 1,600 figure in the papers and she disagrees with it.  Meaning that Lee never told her this.  And in fact, she directly says she does not think this was the case.  (p. 203)  The WR tries to refer to a previous FBI report where she said this, but they suggest she probably got that from the newspapers; and this is what she said during her session, that she had seen it in the papers.

Now, if you turn to the Warren Report, they source this to, of all people, Oswald via Aline Mosby.  Oswald was never going to admit any such special sponsorship.  Yet, they also admit there is no proof of this amount because Oswald only had 203.00 in his bank account. (Phil Melanson, Spy Saga, p. 13)  Yet the tramp steamer ticket itself was more than that. And there is a hint of such sponsorship right there.  Oswald purchased this ticket at Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart in New Orleans, at a firm called Travel Consultants which also handled Shaw's travel arrangements. On his passport application he listed import-export business as a reason for his journey. Some coincidence.

But here is the bigger giveaway.  In trying to account for the total cost of Oswald's voyage from New Orleans to Moscow, the Commission leaves out the price of the Torni and Klaus Kurki hotels in Helsinki. Yet, that was a period of at least five days, almost six. And they never even hint at the first being a five star hotel, and the second being a 4.5 hotel.  This for  a guy with 203 bucks in the bank.

Yessiree.  Recall Leslie Nielson as Frank Dreebin so memorably proclaiming with the warehouse going up in flames behind him: "Nothing to see here, nothing to see."

Dreebin=Trejo.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

It is fruitless to continue to argue that LHO stayed at a lavish Helsinki hotel because of a CIA plot of which there is no material evidence whatsoever.

Only those who are so ingrained with 50 years of the failed CIA-did-it CT will continue to insist this, precisely because they have no evidence, on the theory that the CIA is so secret that a writer can just blame everything on them, willy-nilly.

Well, it's the 21st century now, and readers are just plain bored with that old CTKA and Probe Magazine guesswork.   It just repeats itself and feeds on itself.

It's time for a whole new CT.   Thanks to Jeff Caufield (who builds in a totally new direction from Jim Garrison's papers, as Jimbo himself admitted) we have that new direction for the 21st century, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Jimbo knows that the FOIA revelations supporting Willie Somersett's spying on Joseph Milteer sits at the heart of the JFK assassination.  What Caufield has demonstrated conclusively is that Milteer was connected with General Walker, who was connected with Guy Banister, who was connected with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Caufield further shows that General Walker was connected with Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Interpen, the Minutemen, Roscoe White and even J.D. Tippit.

Caufield, to his credit, is willing to include the first-hand account of Harry Dean, personal friend of Loran Hall and Larry Howard.  Harry Dean, a former member of Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement -- as well as a volunteer FBI tattler -- said he loaded up Loran and Larry's trailer with battle supplies in Southern California to take to right-wing raiders New Orleans and Miami.  On the way, Loran and Larry were to pick up LHO and take him to Mexico City to meet with Radical Right conspirators.   On that journey, Loran, Larry and LHO stopped by the home of Sylvia Odio.  

Loran Hall confessed to the FBI that he and Larry Howard had visited Sylvia Odio around that time -- then Loran recanted his story.

Loran's war name was "Lorenzo."  Larry's war name was "Alonzo."  Harry Dean remains convinced to this very day that Sylvia Odio saw Loran Hall and Larry Howard with LHO at her doorstep on September 25, 1963.

We're coming back full circle here, folks.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Trejo, you can put the dispute about Oswald's cash to bed by citing a reliable source for the $1,600 figure.

Who might have had reason to KNOW THIS TO BE AN INDISPUTABLE FACT?

I don't want to see that the WC "said" that Marguerite said it; I want to see WHERE Marguerite said this, IF indeed she said this. WHO WAS IN A POSITION TO KNOW?

Mr. DiEugenio took us there; you steered us AWAY from direct evidence.  SHOW ME THE MONEY, to borrow a famous movie quote.

PROVE it actually existed...after Oswald's nighttime "excursions" to the bars in Japan, for example. Doesn't sound like he was all THAT frugal during his time in the service.

SHOW us...don't just TELL us, and expect us to "believe" because it's YOU telling us.

 

[Paul Trejo]

Mark,

4 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Trejo, you can put the dispute about Oswald's cash to bed by citing a reliable source for the $1,600 figure.

Who might have had reason to KNOW THIS TO BE AN INDISPUTABLE FACT?

I don't want to see that the WC "said" that Marguerite said it; I want to see WHERE Marguerite said this, IF indeed she said this. WHO WAS IN A POSITION TO KNOW?

Mr. DiEugenio took us there; you steered us AWAY from direct evidence.  SHOW ME THE MONEY, to borrow a famous movie quote.

PROVE it actually existed...after Oswald's nighttime "excursions" to the bars in Japan, for example. Doesn't sound like he was all THAT frugal during his time in the service.

SHOW us...don't just TELL us, and expect us to "believe" because it's YOU telling us.

Mark,

As James DiEugenio himself admitted, the figure comes from Warren Commission testimony.   The WC attorneys were aware of a 1959 newspaper report that gave that figure. Here is an excerpt.

Mr. RANKIN. He had quite a little money saved, didn't he, from the Marines? 
Mrs. OSWALD. I will tell you about this--please, gentlemen, I will have to break if you don't. This is a very, very serious life that I have gone through.  I didn't answer Lee. This is the way I do the children.  
The CHAIRMAN. We will take a 10 minute recess now. 
(Brief recess.) 
The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. Mr. Rankin, you may continue. 
Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Rankin, you mentioned about the $1,600. Now, I don't know if you know for a fact that Lee had $1,600. It was publicized in the paper that he had $1,600, which is right here in 1959. 

So, Mark, you can see that I'm not just inventing this $1,600 (which amounts to about $16,000 in today's dollars).  It came from a 1959 newspaper article.  Now, Marguerite Oswald was aware of that newspaper article, as was Mr. Rankin, however, they did not name the newspaper.   Are you doubting that this newspaper article existed, Mark? 

James DiEugenio would like to pretend that I made this up -- because my arguments are made so much stronger by it.  But it's right there in the WC testimony.  Mr. Rankin first raises the issue.

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

You got caught with you hand in the cookie jar.

You wrote that both Robert Oswald and Marguerite said that Lee told them he had 1600 bucks upon his return.

That is not true.  In fact, neither of them said so in their testimony.

This info comes from an Aline Mosby newspaper story via Oswald.  I footnoted my reply.  You did not footnote your info when you first stated it.  That meant I had to read through about 400 pages of testimony to try and find the accurate info.  I  object to these kind of tactics from you.  You don't like the info about a guy with $203.00 in the bank staying at a 5 star hotel in Helsinki and then a 4.5 star hotel.  So you say that, heck he told his mom and brother he had 1,600 bucks.  When the actual testimony says he did not say that.  And I have to spend five hours reading it to straighten out your inaccurate info.  

And then, what do you do?  You go back and talk about Caufield's book again. Which I have just spent about ten posts exposing how untrustworthy and bloviating that book is.

As I said above, I don't know why you do these things.  Tom Scully called you a xxxxx.  I am beginning to think he is correct.  If so, its an issue for the moderators to ponder.

 

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Trejo, I'm NOT saying you pulled the $1,600 figure from thin air.

I'm just asking you to provide a source that this amount of money actually existed.  You continue to state it as if it was a FACT, when, at this point, you haven't produced a source who can corroborate this so-called "fact."

So...are you saying he TOLD a reporter he had $1,600?  If so, didn't he also TELL the Soviet Embassy that the FBI was no longer interested in him in 1963?  What part of what Oswald told others do we believe...and what part is embellishment?  HOW do YOU decide which is which?

[Paul Trejo]

54 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Trejo, I'm NOT saying you pulled the $1,600 figure from thin air.

I'm just asking you to provide a source that this amount of money actually existed.  You continue to state it as if it was a FACT, when, at this point, you haven't produced a source who can corroborate this so-called "fact."

So...are you saying he TOLD a reporter he had $1,600?  If so, didn't he also TELL the Soviet Embassy that the FBI was no longer interested in him in 1963?  What part of what Oswald told others do we believe...and what part is embellishment?  HOW do YOU decide which is which?

Mr. Knight,

OK, so you are admitting that the $1,600 figure was common knowledge in 1959, due to a newspaper article that was published, at the very least in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.  It was known by both Marguerite Oswald (as she testified) and most likely by Robert Oswald, who followed news about his younger brother closely (as he testified).

It is also true that Robert Oswald was profoundly embarrassed by his family -- by LHO on the one hand, and by their mother on the other hand -- so he kept a tight lip about the flaws of LHO, especially where personal business was concerned.   Robert tacitly acknowledged these scandals -- like pulling teeth.

Now -- you say you want a source, and I already replied that my source was the Warren Commission testimony.  And I even quoted it for you, word for word.   Yet you say I haven't produced a source.   So, do I take this as a challenge to produce the actual author of that 1959 newspaper article?

If so, then we are in luck, because James DiEugenio has himself named this newspaper article author: Aline Mosby.  

By the way, did I actually say that LHO personally told his mother and his brother about his $1,600?   Didn't I actually suggest that the $1,600 came from Oswald through a newspaper article, which was cited by the Warren Commission? 

As for my interpretation of the Oswald events, Mr. Knight, surely I have just as much right to my interpretation and my opinion as James DiEugenio, CTK and Probe Magazine.   

You ask me HOW I decide which facts and witnesses to believe and which to disbelieve, and I have made this clear from the very start.  My CT centers on General Walker at the core of the JFK assassination.  That means that 50 years of CIA-did-it CT literature must be tossed into the ashcan of history, where it belongs.

Jeff Caufield's new book, IMHO, is nothing short of genius.  James DiEugenio has been attacking that book since the time it came out -- simply because it cancels Jimbo's JFK work.  That's not my fault.  If Jeff Caufield is a genius, we should let the readers decide, should we not?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

For the record, this is what Trejo wrote, and you can check it above:

"Both Robert and Marguerite Oswald testified that when LHO obtained his "hardship" deferment from the Marine Corps., he returned to Fort Worth with $1,600.  They both believed that LHO was sincere when he said he left the Marines to take care of his mother who had experienced a sudden illness."

But he did not use any citations. Well, neither one of them said that in their testimony before the WC.  And anyone can spend 5-6 hours like I just did in finding that out.  So why did Trejo write that as if it were a fact, when it was no such thing.

Edited December 22, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Mark Knight]

52 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

For the record, this is what Trejo wrote, and you can check it above:

"Both Robert and Marguerite Oswald testified that when LHO obtained his "hardship" deferment from the Marine Corps., he returned to Fort Worth with $1,600.  They both believed that LHO was sincere when he said he left the Marines to take care of his mother who had experienced a sudden illness."

But he did not use any citations. Well, neither one of them said that in their testimony before the WC.  And anyone can spend 5-6 hours like I just did in finding that out.  So why did Trejo write that as if it were a fact, when it was no such thing.

That, indeed, was my point.  If you are going to cite testimony--that to which one testifies--it MIGHT be a good thing to produce such testimony.  A RUMOR that he had $1,600 is NOT "testimony."  Nor is WC discussion of such a rumor. 

Again, I challenge Mr. Trejo: SHOW ME THE MONEY. Or the testimony, actually.  Just Marguerite citing that a newspaper article said that Oswald had $1,600 is NOT evidence that Oswald ACTUALLY had $1,600.

SHOW ME THE MONEY.

According to Epstein, Oswald apparently spent considerable funds "socializing" while in Japan.  How is that consistent with YOUR portrayal of Ozzie the miser who saved every penny?  Either one account or the other is false. Oswald purchased a .22 when he was in Japan.  When he was busted for the illegal possession of a weapon, he took a pay cut in addition to his reduction in rank.

SHOW ME THE MONEY.