Identity of "Leopoldo" (Silvia Odio visit)

[David Josephs]

45 minutes ago, Greg Wagner said:

Hey, Greg. Gayle Nix Jackson established the Odio visit as having occurred on Friday, September 27th. She was able to pinpoint the date via a 2016 interview with Silvia's priest, Father Machann, and a 9/24/63 Corpus-Christi Caller Times newspaper article. See pages 252-3 of her book Pieces of the Puzzle for details.

Add this to the fact the FBI invented the journey from start to finish and Hoover goes out of his way to cover for the CIA... why?

Cause his boy Oswald was doing his FBI gig spying on Cubans... the CIA left him no choice but to put him on buses to and from Mexico...

L/9 was was of AZCUE's buddies...  none of his reports mention Oswald in Mexico either....

On the 28th he is driven to the Sports Drome in Dallas and is seen there on opening day...

Hoover called Mexico classic CIA double-dealing...   who the other 2 men were is not nearly as important as accepting that the Odio sisters saw Oswald....

If we could proceed accepting that our Oswald was not in Mexico on those dates, it may help other things come into focus...

FWIW
DJ

[Greg Doudna]

On 7/23/2020 at 12:31 PM, Greg Wagner said:

Hey, Greg. Gayle Nix Jackson established the Odio visit as having occurred on Friday, September 27th. She was able to pinpoint the date via a 2016 interview with Silvia's priest, Father Machann, and a 9/24/63 Corpus-Christi Caller Times newspaper article. See pages 252-3 of her book Pieces of the Puzzle for details.

Thanks very much Greg Wagner. I have Gale Nix Jackson's excellent book and rechecked that. That comes from Father Walter Joseph Machann. I do not think the Fri 27th date is correct and will explain why. Machann was called by the Warren Commission and then by Frontline and could not understand why they kept trying to pin him down on the date (he did not realize the Mexico City timeline issue at stake). Machann confirmed that Silvia Odio had spoken to him of the visit of Oswald and two others, but whereas Silvia was uncertain as to the exact day, Father Machann thought he knew the exact day, because in his memory the Silvio Odio Oswald incident was the same evening of a "star-studded Galaxy ball" (per newspaper headline), a charity fundraiser for the Texas Association for Mental Health, with celebrities, dinner and dancing, the works, which took place on Friday, Sept 27, 1963. A photo of the newspaper article telling of this event is at Gayle Nix Jackson's p. 252. Machann said in his 2016 interview with Jackson (p. 282):

MACHANN: Oh, I see. That is why the Frontline people kept trying to pin me down on dates. The one thing I did tell them was that I remember that date because Silvia and Lucil;le were going to a celebrity party with that actress...I can't think of her name (Puts his hand to his eyes) What was her name? She was in a movie where she was married to Arnold Schwarzenegger. What's her name?

GAYLE: Jamie Lee Curtis?

MACHANN: That's it! That's her!

GAYLE: I don't think she was born then, are you sure it wasn't her Mom? The one who played in Psycho? Janet Leigh?

MACHANN: Well it may have been, I just remember Curtis. [Note: the newspaper clipping says Janet Leigh was in attendance, but no mention of Jamie Lee Curtis--gd] And I remember that Lucille and Silvia were going to this event and I felt slighted. I wondered why they didn't ask me to go (Sits forward in his chair and laughts) I would have liked to have gone. So, I told the Frontline people that's how I remember the date.

GAYLE: "I can't blame you! It would be fun to go to a celebrity party when you had all that stressful work to do.

MACHANN: (Laughs) I still remember that feeling of being left out.

Later in the interview Gayle returns to this and Machann repeats it again (p. 303):

GAYLE: So the day Oswald went to Silvia's home, that was the same day of the Galaxy ball?

MACHANN: Yes, that was the date. She went there the day the movie star came to Dallas. I can't remember if Silvia was in the paper or not.

However, I think the following testimony from Silvia shows that Machann was mistaken, and conflated two events very close together in time, both involving Silvia preparing to "go out" when the two plus Oswald were at her door. Silvia testified the visitors to her door were later in the evening, maybe 9 pm or so. According to the newspaper clipping in Gayle's book, the gala charity ball on Fri Sept. 27th started with cocktails at 7, dinner at 8, and dancing at 9, meaning if Silvia was in the process of dressing preparing to go to that event would she not be doing so at an earlier hour? Silvia never mentioned the charity ball, either in her WC or Fonzi HSCA interviews, which would be an easy event linkage to remember. Silvia said she was going out "to a friend's house", not to a charity ball. Her sister Annie had come over to babysit. From Silvia's WC testimony (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45#relPageId=380&tab=page), p. 380 of the Mary Ferrell site's numbering at the link:

ODIO: It either was a Thursday or a Friday. It must have been either one of those days. In the last days of September. And I was getting dressed to go out to a friend's house, and she [Annie] was staying to babysit.

And again, p. 382 of the Mary Ferrell site's numbering, referring to her three visitors at the door.

ODIO: They kept mentioning that they had come to visit me at such a time of night. It was about 9 o'clock, because they were leaving for a trip. And two or three times they said the same thing. They said, "We may stay until tomorrow, or we might leave tomorrow night, but please excuse us for the hour." And he mentioned to or three times they were leaving for a trip.

[...]

The next day Leopoldo called me. I had gotten home from work, so I imagine it must have been Friday. And they had come on Thursday. I have been trying to establish that. He was trying to get fresh with me that night...

I suggest Silvia Odio's testimony in 1964 of the circumstances of her going out that evening is correct and Father Machann is incorrect. In Silvia Odio's HSCA interview, Gaeton Fonzi's report (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60438&search=Fonzi_odio#relPageId=3&tab=page ).

She recalls when she was interviewed by Hosty that he kept pressing her to remember the specific day that the three men came to her apartment and she couldn't specifically remember. Still they kept pushing her for the exact date. ("I kept telling them that I don't remember the date but I know that it was in the last days of September because we were moving at the time and that we had boxes all over the living room and that in order to open the door we had to jump all over the boxes. But I could swear I don't remember the day, but when I read the Report I found they had set a day and that they had done it for me.") ("I only remember it must have been the last days of September because we had already a lease for another apartment and that it was the middle of the week, not a Saturday or Sunday.")

And again regarding the date (Fonzi report): 

Silvia specifically remembers that when Leopoldo called her back on the telephone and told her about Oswald talking about killing Kennedy, it was not a weekend day (Sat. the 28th or Sunday the 29th) because she remembers working that day and getting the call after she came home from work, about 7:30 p.m. She is pretty sure it was not the day after their visit, but the following day (which would make it Friday the 27th at the latest; because Monday was the 30th and she was moving by then.)

If the Leopoldo followup phone call to Silvia Odio was Fri the 27th, and it occurred "not the day after their visit, but the following day", that would agree with Wednesday the 25th as the evening Oswald was there.

Wednesday the 25th as the date of the Oswald visit to Silvia Odio removes the argument from timeline incompatibility with Oswald's trip to Mexico City per the reconstruction I have outlined. The Warren Commission and FBI spent a lot of fruitless time trying to reconstruct bus schedules from New Orleans to Houston, trying to confirm Oswald's presence on some such bus from New Orleans to Houston, and came up with nothing. It is somewhat astonishing that so little, if any consideration, was given to the possibility that Oswald got from New Orleans to Houston by car--WC's only consideration of that idea seems to be over the issue of whether Oswald could drive and had rented a car. Whereas the Silvia Odio visit has Oswald in a car as how Oswald got from New Orleans to Dallas, and Silvia Odio said they told her that the three of them were leaving on "a trip", then they left with Oswald in a car . . .

Edited July 25, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

And what was Sylvia Odio's response when she was shown this photo?

Hi Joe--I think David Boylan said above that there is no confirmation that Odio saw that photo. But here is what Fonzi said about photos shown to Odio (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60438&search=Fonzi_odio#relPageId=3&tab=page ).

She says she doesn't specifically remember being asked [by WC] about Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard or William Seymour but she was shown numerous photographs, many even after she had moved to Miami in September of 1964, but was never told the names of anyone whose photograph she was shown. She recognized no one but Oswald. (I showed her photographs of Hall, Howard and Seymour which were in Tattler, Sept. '75, and she recognized none of them.)

[...]

(Showed her all the photographs I had with me and she could identify only Oswald in any of them. Except for one photo which I believe was taken of individuals coming out of courtroom following hearing in New Orleans concerning the Bringuier-Oswald fracas.) She identified the man in the background (center left) as her uncle and said she didn't know her uncle was involved with Bringuier. I told her that according to an FBI report, her uncle, Dr. Augustin Guitart, admitted to being at that court hearing. 

[...]

She said she has always wondered who the other two men who came with Oswald were and has always looked for photographs of them.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 7/23/2020 at 1:24 PM, David Josephs said:

If we could proceed accepting that our Oswald was not in Mexico on those dates, it may help other things come into focus..

Well the Oswald Odio visit can be on Wed Sept 25th for those who think Oswald did not go to Mexico City, and on Wed Sept 25th for those who think Oswald did go to Mexico City. Everybody can be happy? 🙂

Edited July 25, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Despite much effort searching archives of this forum I have not been able to verify what I thought was a memory of reading James Richards referring to his having named the de Torres identity of "Leopoldo" prior to Gerry Hemming. I apologize for that mistake. This means the Bernardo de Torres "Leopoldo" identification has no known prehistory before Gerry Hemming. That by definition makes it questionable, given Hemming's industrial-strength bullsh--t.

Also another point: a lot has been written and is known about Bernardo de Torres, but never any mention of use of a name "Leopoldo" by de Torres. Perhaps "Leopoldo" was someone not only tall (ca. 6'), ca. 165 pounds (thin), with a distinctive male-pattern-baldness, but also was named Leopoldo. The only reason people have been considering persons not named Leopoldo all this time is solely derivative from a speculation of Silvia Odio, who recalled use of "war names" of activists and warriors. But that was no more than speculation on Silvia's part. I now see that a CIA document from July 1978 sought to identify "Leopoldo" by looking at possible Leopoldos, and named 13 listings, two of whom were associated with figures named Angel: https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=7276&search=Leopoldo_araujo#relPageId=2&tab=page. That was released in 1998 without anything censored. (For the same document now improved with some things blocked out, released April 26, 2018, https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=159599&search=Leopoldo_araujo#relPageId=1&tab=page.) 

 

Update 10/22/20: I found the Education Forum post in which James Richards identifies himself as having proposed the de Torres identity for Silvia Odio's "Leopoldo", prior to Gary Hemming or Joan Mellen: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14207-silvia-odio-a-new-look/

James Richards, April 7, 2009: "Just to clarify things, it was many years ago now that I suggested the 'Leopoldo' character in the Sylvia Odio affair was Bernardo De Torres. GPH agreed with this and later said same to Joan Mellon."

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Matt Allison]

The photo of DeTorres that David Boylan posted is from the mid to late 50s.

I hope someday we will find out officially that Odio IDd DeTorres as Leopoldo, as I believe she privately did to Gaeton Fonzi.

Fonzi did his best to ID Leopoldo as Bernardo DeTorres in his book, without coming right out and saying it. At the time of publication, DeTorres was still very much alive, engaged in nefarious activities, and not someone that anyone would want to anger. If you carefully re-read the pertinent sections regarding Leopoldo, you'll come to the same conclusion as I did back when his book was first published in the early 90s.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Matt Allison
Getting David's name correct!!!

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

The photo of DeTorres that Steve Boylan posted is from the mid to late 50s.

I hope someday we will find out officially that Odio IDd DeTorres as Leopoldo, as I believe she privately did to Gaeton Fonzi.

Fonzi did his best to ID Leopoldo as Bernardo DeTorres in his book, without coming right out and saying it. At the time of publication, DeTorres was still very much alive, engaged in nefarious activities, and not someone that anyone would want to anger. If you carefully re-read the pertinent sections regarding Leopoldo, you'll come to the same conclusion as I did back when his book was first published in the early 90s.

Matt Allison you are right, I just read much of Gaeton Fonzi's book, The Last Investigation, and I see what you mean and agree. It is definitely suggested, just not confirmed. Fonzi says his only justification to HSCA for investigating a circle of persons centered around Carlos (de Torres) in the late 1970s was because "There were two men in [Carlos's] operation who fit the description of 'Angel' and 'Leopoldo', the two men Silvia Odio said had visited her apartment in Dallas with Oswald" (p. 240). Fonzi directly says he had two particular men in mind, never names them, but they are in a circle of persons close to Carlos (de Torres).

"Leopoldo" as a war name was not Silvia Odio's speculation but, according to Fonzi that is what Leopoldo himself said ("identified himself as 'Leopoldo', although he admitted he was giving her an alias or a 'war name'", p. 111).

Fonzi tells of wanting to get photographs of Carlos (de Torres) and associates, and that he obtained cooperation from the Metro Dade Organized Crime squad to set up a surveillance van to take such photographs, but Blakey in Washington D.C. ordered Fonzi not to proceed with that (p. 241). 

Fonzi tells of Silvia Odio's deep continuing fear for the safety of herself and her children when he interviewed her, and his attempts to protect her from further abuse of the kind she received from the Warren Commission (pp. 115-116). That context offers a very simple explanation for why no identity of "Leopoldo" has been publicly confirmed from Fonzi or Silvia Odio. 

Carlos (de Torres) told of having been "in contact with Oswald", according to Fonzi's informant (p. 234).

And de Torres matches the physical description given by Silvia for "Leopoldo". 

I think your comment has been the most valuable comment of this topic. 

[Greg Doudna]

Some final thoughts from reading Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation (2016 edition, first published 1993):

-- how very scary it must have been for Silvia Odio and her sister Annie. When they saw Oswald on the news following the JFK assassination they were terrified, resolved that neither of them must ever speak of it. But they confided in their sister Sarita, who confided in a close friend who promised to keep it confidential and only told one or two of her closest friends and next thing they knew the FBI came calling. Silvia Odio gave her testimony to the Warren Commission and the WC said she was deluded and Oswald could not have been at her door. The WC's evidence for this was a bogus timeline argument, in which WC explained that it would be difficult for Oswald to get from Dallas to Houston, a 3.5 hour drive, by car the evening of Wed. Sept. 25 after being at Silvia Odio's door and be at a Houston bus station by 2:35 am that night, and also make a brief long-distance telephone call of a few minutes' duration to Houston at some point that evening, because, WC explained:

"Therefore, it appeared that Oswald's presence in New Orleans until sometime between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on September 25 was quite firmly established [OK, yes] ... the only time not strictly accounted for during the period that Mrs. Odio thought Oswald might have visited her is the span between the morning of September 25 and 2:35 a.m. on September 26 [OK, yes] ... Automobile travel in the time available, though perhaps possible, would have been difficult [why?] ... It thus appeared that the evidence was persuasive that Oswald was not in Dallas on September 25, and, therefore, that he was not in that city at the time Mrs. Odio said she saw him."

Oswald was not driving when he arrived in a car to Silvia Odio's, with Leopoldo explaining to Silvia that the three had just driven direct from New Orleans, and Oswald was not driving when Silvia saw the three leave her apartment in the same car "on a trip" (destination not said). But that was WC's explanation of why their investigation found it "persuasive" that a 3-1/2 hour drive from there to Houston between 9 pm and 2:35 am did not happen: "it would have been difficult". Such a pivotal point to WC's finding, WC's basis for excluding Silvia Odio's testimony as of any further interest, with that as the explanation! My favorite television program was "Colombo". What would Columbo have said to that? I have driven from east Texas to Houston myself. I did not find it difficult.

-- then came HSCA in the 1970s, and Fonzi, the honest dogged investigator, tells of the machinations and politics of HSCA, and like a great pall over everything, CIA covering up and obstructing. Blakey comes in and, like a good team player in the name of effectiveness, cooperates with CIA so that Congress and CIA can share in the process of investigating the JFK assassination while not investigating actions of CIA. Fonzi went to a lot of work to gain Silvia Odio's confidence that this time would be different and to be willing to testify again, and HSCA called Silvia Odio to testify and arrangements were made, but at the last minute there is pressure from above and Silvia Odio is told she is not wanted to come to Washington, D.C. to testify, citing some unrelated reason of a scheduling problem, while Fonzi is placated with a promise that her story will be told well in narrative form in HSCA's report so not to worry, it would effectively be the same; then at the hearing Silvia's narrative is not read out so that news reporters would report on it, but citing lack of time, is simply stipulated put into the record without reading it aloud and moved on, meaning it did not become a news story by the covering press. The appearance of purposeful downplaying of Silvia Odio's witness account by both WC and CIA-pressured/cooperating Blakey of HSCA. Blakey taking HSCA to a Mob-did-it conclusion, not necessarily wrong as a half-truth, but the notion (the implication of Blakey's conclusion the way Blakey framed it) that Mob bosses would on their own in consultation with one another decide to hit a sitting president and declare war on the entire US Government bringing down the wrath of God on themselves, makes no sense at all; they simply could not be that irrational. Blakey pursued the Mob angle while overseeing steering HSCA investigators such as Fonzi from CIA angles.

-- It is established on the basis of Fonzi's book (assuming Fonzi's 1993 edition has the same as the 2016 edition) that the de Torres identity of "Leopoldo" originated from Fonzi 1993, not from Gerry Hemming's or Angel Murgado's or Joan Mellen's later endorsements of it, all in their various ways attempting to discredit Silvia Odio's testimony even while not contesting that de Torres was "Leopoldo", likely professional disinformation with Joan Mellen unwitting purveyor of it even though Mellen meant well. Is there professional (as distinguished from free-lance) disinformation in the case of the JFK assassination which does NOT go back to CIA?

-- Fonzi tells Silvia Odio's story of meeting "Leopoldo", "Angelo", and Oswald, giving physical descriptions except for the most striking feature of physical description for Leopoldo remembered by Silvia Odio: the unusual forehead and hairline. A male pattern baldness in which one side of the forehead hairline goes "way back" more than the other could fit many men, but it is a striking match to de Torres photographs--Fonzi leaves that out of his book, just as he refers to de Torres by the pseudonym "Carlos" and not by real name in that book.

-- The way the JFK assassination chewed up innocent people. Silvia Odio did not seek publicity, told the truth, lived in fear. She did not ask for it, but through an accident of history encountered the ones driving Oswald to Houston on the first leg of the Mexico City trip whatever that was about, and through another accident of history that which Silvia and her sisters intended never to be publicly disclosed because of fear, came to attention and was "investigated" and dismissed on the most transparently flimsy grounds. So went the investigations into the assassination of an American president who threatened structural change in good directions for America. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[David Boylan]

So, if de Torres was Leopoldo, who would he be Angel/Angelo?  Who was de Torres hanging around with in 1963? It wouldn't be Murgado.

More than a few researchers believe it was Herminio Diaz-Garcia.

[Chuck Schwartz]

And, per this post by John Simkin,  Herminio Diaz-Garcia was an assassin for Operation 40:

•  

Posted April 18, 2006

The issue is whether Operation 40 remained active after 1963. Is it possible that a network of CIA agents, right-wing businessmen linked to the arms and oil industries and Cuban exiles continued to assassinate people seen as dangerous to the interests of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Intelligence Complex? I believe this group were also involved in corrupt business activities that date back to Lyndon Johnson in the 1950s.

I would suggest that the following people were key members of Operation 40 who need to be looked at very carefully:

CIA Officers: Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, Tracy Barnes, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Rip Robertson, E. Howard Hunt, Carl E. Jenkins, William Harvey, Daniel Hopsicker, William C. Bishop and Edwin Wilson.

Assassins: Rafael ‘Chi Chi’ Quintero, Luis Posada, Orlando Bosch, Roland Masferrer, Eladio del Valle, Guillermo Novo, Eugenio Martinez, Antonio Cuesta, Hermino Diaz Garcia, Felix Rodriguez, Ricardo Morales Navarrete, Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard L. Barker and Frank Sturgis.

Business Sponsors: William Pawley, George Bush and Jack Crichton.

 

[Matt Allison]

9 hours ago, David Boylan said:

So, if de Torres was Leopoldo, who would he be Angel/Angelo?  Who was de Torres hanging around with in 1963? It wouldn't be Murgado.

More than a few researchers believe it was Herminio Diaz-Garcia.

Leopoldo was always the one I focused on,  but yes, it would definitely be good to know more about Angel.

[Greg Doudna]

22 hours ago, David Boylan said:

So, if de Torres was Leopoldo, who would he be Angel/Angelo?  Who was de Torres hanging around with in 1963? It wouldn't be Murgado.

More than a few researchers believe it was Herminio Diaz-Garcia.

Physical description of "Angel" from Fonzi, The Last Investigation (p. 111). From Annie: "the shorter, heavyset one had dark, shiny, hair combed back, and 'looked Mexican'." Silvia: "[Silvia] described him as her sister did, 'looking more Mexican than anything else.'"

It is a little puzzling what "looking Mexican" means, but in thinking about that and class language it may have included a connotation of darker skin color (compare at the end below), perhaps some sense of closer to Native American look, less Spanish-European-white?  

Mrs. Odio. ... And the other one was short, very Mexican looking. Have you ever seen a short Mexican with lots of thick hair and a lot of hair on his chest? 

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

[...]

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

Mrs. Odio. Shorter than Oswald. 

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

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

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

Mrs. Odio. That's right. 

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

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

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

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

From photos turned up on search engines (there seem to be issues with some misidentified photos) Herminio Diaz Garcia seems to agree in height and weight and darker skin color in general agreement with the physical description of "Angel" up to this point. But in addition to no known evidence otherwise of actual association of de Torres and Diaz, Silvia Odio said "Angel" had a hairy chest, but photos do not seem to show Herminio Diaz Garcia with a hairy chest. And second, "Angel" had "dark, shiny hair combed back", but photos of Diaz seem to show him with "Afro" hair. These seem to me to weigh negatively against Diaz being the correct identification.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[David Boylan]

Here's a selection of photos of Diaz-Garcia.

https://tangodown63.com/diaz-garcia-herminio/

 

[Greg Doudna]

22 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Here's a selection of photos of Diaz-Garcia.

https://tangodown63.com/diaz-garcia-herminio/

 

Well the top right photo and the middle two on the bottom row show slicked-back hair, removing that objection. Does the 2nd photo from left of the second row/=top left photo show hair on the chest just above the top button of his shirt? Perhaps there is no actual negative objection from physical description after all.

As for association of de Torres and Diaz-Garcia otherwise, the only thing I can find is both are said to be involved with the Trafficante crime organization (de Torres according to this informant report at p. 2: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/180-10097-10488.pdf). This 1975 document, p. 12, cites a CIA 201 file on Diaz-Garcia with CIA denying it ever used Diaz-Garcia "operationally", but says CIA was in contact with him but decided to end contact with him in September 1963 (hmm): http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov9-2017/104-10103-10183.pdf. This from a previous forum discussion of Diaz: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/8257-did-herminio-diaz-garcia-really-die-in-1966/. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, David Boylan said:

Here's a selection of photos of Diaz-Garcia.

https://tangodown63.com/diaz-garcia-herminio/

 

It seem there's a pretty good physical match. Tony Cuesta was a rather tall guy, definitely above 6 feet, so the Commandos L photo with Cuesta, Font, Romero and Diaz-Garcia might be making the others look short. But that photo is also from 1963, which helps, as Diaz-Garcia's face looks the pudgiest of all his photos.