Identity of "Leopoldo" (Silvia Odio visit)

[Greg Doudna]

Steve Thomas--thanks, interesting, I missed that detail on Simkin's re the head surgery to remove bullet pieces. Although according to the sister de Torres was shot in the back of the head, it raises the question where in the head the four bullet pieces were removed, and if that surgery may have affected the hairline to de Torres's right (to the observer's left). 

David Boylan--thanks, are you able to confirm if or when that photo was shown to Silvia Odio--1964 Warren Commission? Fonzi/HSCA 1976? That photo does not show the male pattern baldness pronounced on de Torres's right side, of other photos of de Torres.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Robert Montenegro]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 if that surgery may have affected the hairline to de Torres's right (to the observer's left). 

Or cosmetic and plastic surgery for that matter.

In a community, such as the United States Military Intelligence community, you have an almost unlimited budget in terms of special operations.

And the anti-Castro narco-trafficking, white-slaver, terrorist groups had millionaires like William Douglas Pawley “QDDALE”, Patrick Joseph Frawley Jr., José Pepin Bosch, Clare Boothe Luce, Kurt Freiherr von Schröder, Shig Katayama (ID Corporation), Edward Levinson (Bank Of World Commerce), Burton W. Kanter (Castle Bank & Trust), Wallace Groves (Mary Carter Paint Co.), Willis H. Bird (Sea Supply Inc.), Joseph "Joe" Coors Sr. (National Strategy Information Center), Col. Paul Lionel Edward Helliwell (Red Sunset Enterprises), Michele "The Shark" Sindona (Propaganda Due), Nicholas Louis Deák, ect., supporting them...

Deep pockets and no accountability. 

If I were to murder the President of the United States of America, I would offer the option to my operators, on the scene of the crime, of disguises and cover stories (if captured by unfriendly and uninitiated sister law-enforcement units), including cosmetic surgical operations to the face.

Perhaps this is why photos of Oswald and other persons of intrigue in the case do not match eyewitness accounts.

That and body doubles, impersonating key operatives to throw off targeted witnesses.

Of course, if you had photographic labs like Lookout Mountain Air Force Station or the CIA National Photographic Interpretation Center in your pocket (like USAF Gen. Curtis Emerson LeMay and CIA Director John Alexander McCone most certainly did), then photographic analysis is worthless, because all of the pertinent first-hand film and photos have been altered.

End of story.   

Edited July 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[David Andrews]

I don't think the balding man carrying packages in the film is De Torres.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Robert M., your above post is very good.  McCone/Dulles were the brains behind the Big event.  Lemay provided the muscle.

[Greg Doudna]

On 7/19/2020 at 5:47 AM, Chuck Schwartz said:

Robert M., your above post is very good.  McCone/Dulles were the brains behind the Big event.  Lemay provided the muscle.

Dissent. The suggestion that "photographic analysis is worthless, because all of the pertinent first-hand film and photos have been altered", in my opinion is incorrect.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Robert Montenegro]

7 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I don't think the balding man carrying packages in the film is De Torres.

What about that huge man scratching his neck, think it's David “El Indio” Sánchez Morales?

In any case, I think it's Bernardo de Torres...

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Dissent. This Lyndon Larouche-style talk of sweeping plastic surgery and proliferating rabbit holes is not helpful to the specific investigation of the Silvia Odio incident. The suggestion that "photographic analysis is worthless, because all of the pertinent first-hand film and photos have been altered", in my opinion should be ignored.

I, Lyndon Larouche?!

That's the funniest insult that's ever been lobbed at me. 

As for non-proliferating rabbit-holes, well you came to the wrong place, friend-o. Everette “Eduardo” Howard Hunt Jr.'s lawyer is on this forum, trying to convince everyone that President Kennedy was murdered over the UFO phenomenon. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on this site has some insane theory to sling and no professional experience in the intelligence community to back it up with. At least I have twelve years in the military and a couple of combat tours working with military intelligence under my belt.

As for films and photographs of the persons and events surrounding the murder of President Kennedy, specifically the murder itself and photographs of the alleged murder, all of them exhibit some type of alteration or another.

Hell, Lee Harvey Oswald's passport photo (issued to him 11 September 1959 from a United States Department of Defense ID card) looks like two different faces spliced together.

Don't yap to me about rabbit-holes, you are in one.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[David Andrews]

1 hour ago, Robert Montenegro said:

What about that huge man scratching his neck, think it's David “El Indio” Sánchez Morales?

 

I'm as undecided there as I was when this was first brought up here years ago.  I don't see anything in the film that suggests these two men are together, though.

I do think the man in the suit near Oswald in front of the Trade Mart is Bill Shelley.

Edited July 19, 2020 by David Andrews

[Robert Montenegro]

12 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I do think the man in the suit near Oswald in front of the Trade Mart is Bill Shelley.

The Sexton Building for sure was a movie prop, in the purest sense of Hollywood-style CIA thelemic magick. 

To be sure, Oswald's other job at the William B. Riley Company was some type of intelligence operation, with overtones of stay-behind type infiltration of leftist elements in New Orleans.

I would agree that if Oswald had handlers in the Sexton Building, they would be present in New Orleans.

I can see William Hoyt Shelley being one of those men, certainly he provided testimony that Oswald was a loner, disgruntled and read communist literature on his spare time, all of which is horse manure. 

[David Boylan]

On 7/18/2020 at 9:40 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Steve Thomas--thanks, interesting, I missed that detail on Simkin's re the head surgery to remove bullet pieces. Although according to the sister de Torres was shot in the back of the head, it raises the question where in the head the four bullet pieces were removed, and if that surgery may have affected the hairline to de Torres's right (to the observer's left). 

David Boylan--thanks, are you able to confirm if or when that photo was shown to Silvia Odio--1964 Warren Commission? Fonzi/HSCA 1976? That photo does not show the male pattern baldness pronounced on de Torres's right side, of other photos of de Torres.

 

Greg,

I cannot confirm that that was the photo shown to Odio. Fonzi said that he had shown her quite a few though.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, David Boylan said:

Greg,

I cannot confirm that that was the photo shown to Odio. Fonzi said that he had shown her quite a few though.

Did Fonzi's smoking-hot lead and interest with respect to Bernardo de Torres come before or after his interviews with Silvia Odio? It does seem certain he would have shown photos of de Torres if the former, and unknown if if the latter but then he would have gone back to Silvia Odio at that point and shown her photos at that time. It is also known that Silvia failed to identify either Leopoldo or Angel from any photos she was shown, despite telling of seeking to identify who those two men were. That was James DiEugenio's point and it is a strong one. Yet again, in light of the utter and pivotal importance of this point, and because of the striking specificity of Silvia Odio's description of Leopoldo's distinctive forehead, it should be verified airtight up or down one way or the other, not assumed, in my opinion. I understand Silvio Odio is somewhere still alive? She could be shown the range of photos of Bernardo de Torres and could say directly. If it is a false positive, so to speak (between match of witness description and photo on a distinctive physical feature), so be it. But I would like to know Silvia Odio's direct and specific response to photographs of de Torres which did show the distinctive feature, and in response to which photographs. If Silvia, for example, said she was "uncertain" (neither certain for nor certain not) when shown a photograph of de Torres which did not show the unusual hairline, I would not call that a disconfirmation. 

[B. A. Copeland]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:50 PM, Robert Montenegro said:

Morales was De Torres' immediate commander during "Operation Zapata"?

Any topic about Morales, or De Torres, etc, is fascinating and worth a read. @Robert Montenegro, I actually asked Mr H @Larry Hancock about any connection to Morales that he would be aware of and I can't remember his response (it can certainly be found) but I believe he said there was none that he could find? I could be wrong. I'll try to dig it up but any evidence that the two men knew and worked with one another would be absolutely fantastic. No one is going to confidently ID any of the key suspects in a film where the subjects have their back facing the viewer. We've been down that road enough times and its better to be safe than sorry. Speculation until you could prove beyond doubt.

@David Boylan [East Coast Bureau Chief] its great to see you alive, well and researching as always!

On the subject of Morales, anyone else notice he was quite fond of carrying a camera with him often? I should say that there are a few photos of him with a camera strapped around himself. Very interesting but certainly no shocker for one of the best ever high level spooks.

Edited July 20, 2020 by B. A. Copeland

[David Boylan]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Did Fonzi's smoking-hot lead and interest with respect to Bernardo de Torres come before or after his interviews with Silvia Odio? It does seem certain he would have shown photos of de Torres if the former, and unknown if if the latter but then he would have gone back to Silvia Odio at that point and shown her photos at that time. It is also known that Silvia failed to identify either Leopoldo or Angel from any photos she was shown, despite telling of seeking to identify who those two men were. That was James DiEugenio's point and it is a strong one. Yet again, in light of the utter and pivotal importance of this point, and because of the striking specificity of Silvia Odio's description of Leopoldo's distinctive forehead, it should be verified airtight up or down one way or the other, not assumed, in my opinion. I understand Silvio Odio is somewhere still alive? She could be shown the range of photos of Bernardo de Torres and could say directly. If it is a false positive, so to speak (between match of witness description and photo on a distinctive physical feature), so be it. But I would like to know Silvia Odio's direct and specific response to photographs of de Torres which did show the distinctive feature, and in response to which photographs. If Silvia, for example, said she was "uncertain" (neither certain for nor certain not) when shown a photograph of de Torres which did not show the unusual hairline, I would not call that a disconfirmation. 

I believe Rolando Otero was one of the main leads. Fonzi had interviewed him and Otero gave more than a few names including de Torres. Otero was a member of the Golden Falcons parachute team along with Tony Izquierdo who according to Hemming was a the spotter for the DalTex shooter.  De Torres was a CI - Cooperating Individual for more than a few alphabet agencies including the BNDD, later the DEA, FBI and BATF/ATF. He claimed he worked for Pentagon Intelligence. 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

The Warren Commission, the MacAdams site (article "Silvia Odio: the Mother of all Sightings"), and some researchers conclude that Oswald could not have both been at Silvia Odio's front door and gone to Mexico City due to a supposed contradiction in timeline. WC and MacAdams cite the contradiction to exclude the Odio sighting of Oswald. Some researchers cite the same contradiction to accept the Odio sighting and exclude Oswald from having gone to Mexico City. The FBI documents investigating the issue of when Oswald could and could not have left New Orleans, focusing on the time of mail arrival of an unemployment check mailed from Austin which Oswald picked up from his post office box in New Orleans and cashed before leaving, is very strong. The only attempt known to me to address the timeline issue and argue that Oswald both visited Silvia Odio and went to Mexico City, in a book by Jean Davison, could only do so by supposing some unknown greater speed of the mail getting from Austin to New Orleans. But Davison could not explain how, and the FBI interviews and evidence on that point just looks extremely difficult to contest. I have studied those documents and tried hard mentally to imagine any credible alternative explanation that could allow Oswald to have left New Orleans a day earlier than Wed. Sept. 25, but failed.

But the timeline objection--the argument from implausibility against both the Silvio Odio sighting and the same Oswald going to Mexico City--is a non-issue, i.e. no reason both cannot be correct, as follows. First, WC, drawing from the FBI investigation, established that Oswald must have left Houston for Laredo on a bus leaving Houston 2 am. Thu Sept 26. Oswald arrived Mexico City 10 am Fri Sept 27, checked into a motel, freshened up, and by 11:30 was at the Cuban consulate seeking a visa allowing him to go immediately to Cuba (which was denied him, citing in part lack of any referrals or letters of reference from the US Communist Party, the usual method of streamlining such approval). There was a phone call from Oswald to Mrs. Twilliger in Houston asking for Mr. Twillinger the evening of Wed Sept 25, according to Mrs. Twilliger. That Oswald said in that phone call that he was flying to Mexico City can be disregarded, but the existence of the phone call and its date is strong: the existence of the phone call from Mrs. Twilliger's credibility, also an address and phone listing for the Twilligers of Houston in LHO's address book. The date of the call is established because Mr. Twilliger had not returned from a work trip, which Twilliger said he returned Thu Sept 26; therefore, eve of Wed Sept 25 for the phone call. 

But here is a simple, elegant solution to the alleged timeline problem which does not involve disputing the evidence concerning the unemployment check establishing Oswald could not have left New Orleans before the morning of Wed Sept. 25, as I work it out. First, WC dated the visit to Silvia Odio as either Thursday or Friday, Sept. 26 or 27, citing Silvia's testimony. But Silvia Odio told Gaeton Fonzi later (this is in Fonzi's writeup of his HSCA interview of Odio) that she had repeatedly told WC that she was not sure of the exact day, but WC had fixed on the Thursday or Friday (as opposed to some day earlier that week), basically deciding the uncertainty of Silvia for her. Silvia was certain of the incident, and certain that Oswald was there, but uncertain as to the exact day though it was late September, and told the WC of her uncertainty. With that background:

Wed. Sept. 25, ca. 9 am: LHO picks up unemployment check from PO Box, cashes it, and departs New Orleans in an automobile driven by others headed to Dallas

New Orleans to Dallas driving time is 7.5 hours (per a current website giving driving times)

Wed. Sept. 25 early evening: Dallas, at door of Silvia Odio, two others and Oswald, one of the two others, "Leopoldo" with the odd forehead, doing the speaking for the group. Seeking written letters of recommendation from Silvia (if the visit had been successful; Silvia declined). Silvia observed Leopoldo's companion Angelo sit in the front passenger seat of the car as they left, meaning Leopoldo was the driver. 

Same Wed Sept 25 early evening: phone call from Oswald to Mrs. Twilliger in Houston seeking Mr. Twilliger. Why this phone call? If Mr. Twilliger had been there to come to the phone, what would Oswald have asked or wanted? Perhaps a letter of reference--similar to what was sought from Silvia Odio, similar to what Oswald could not produce at the Cuban consulate which was cited to deny him what he sought there. But if the purpose of Oswald's call was to ask for a letter of some kind, then that is not the kind of call he would make from a Houston bus station while waiting for a bus to Houston. It would be made with intent to set up an in-person quick visit to the Twilliger house to pick up the letter that evening. That attempt, like the one at Silvia Odio's door, was also unsuccessful. With no letter in hand, the Oswald trip to Mexico City proceeds anyway.

Dallas to Houston driving time is 3.5 hours (per current website giving driving times). They drive there direct. Oswald is dropped off at the bus station in Houston by his drivers, and from there takes the Sept 26, 2 am, bus to Laredo.

Silvia Odio said the three men including Oswald arrived to her apartment in a car. She said Leopoldo said they had come from New Orleans and were leaving on a trip. They left with Oswald being driven in a car. Being driven in this car--with Leopoldo and another--is Oswald's method of transportation, from New Orleans to Dallas, and from Dallas to Houston. Trying to reconstruct bus schedules etc. is entirely irrelevant here: Oswald got to Dallas, and then to Houston, by car (driven by others). And the visit to Silvia Odio was actually the first leg of the Mexico City trip. It is not as if these two were unrelated. If Oswald had been successful in reaching Mr. Twilliger and getting him to agree to giving Oswald a letter of some kind, the car carrying Oswald would have driven to Twilliger's home, obtained the letter, and then dropped Oswald off at the Houston bus station.

There was some confusion in the WC reconstruction by testimony that Oswald was in Austin. That cannot have happened on this trip because of the timeline, but also because of plausibility: the purpose of Oswald's visit in Austin was to attempt to get his draft discharge issue fixed. But on this Mexico City trip from all appearances Oswald is attempting to get into Cuba immediately, leaving the US behind. If that was his objective on this trip, who cares what his draft discharge was at that point. But the Austin trip dealing with the draft discharge need not be identified with the time of the Mexico City trip. The date the Austin visit happened, apart from being remembered as a Wednesday, was not certain, and could have been a month or so earlier, per the testimony. Therefore assuming the Austin trip happened, that would have been some earlier round-trip from New Orleans not heretofore identified. But not at the time of the Mexico City trip.

With this timeline there are no more serious problems, removing the principal reason for the WC's rejection of Silvia Odio's testimony. And the Silvia Odio Oswald sighting, rather than being some freak anomaly unrelated to the Mexico City trip, becomes an integral first stop of that trip. Oswald was going to Mexico City, and he had assistance in the form of driving transportation as far as Houston, of that trip. It all works in the timeline, and it begins to make better sense as a coherent narrative.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Wagner]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Wed. Sept. 25 early evening: Dallas, at door of Silvia Odio, two others and Oswald, one of the two others, "Leopoldo" with the odd forehead, doing the speaking for the group.

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.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Greg Wagner

[Joe Bauer]

On 7/18/2020 at 9:54 AM, David Boylan said:

I believe that this was the photo that was shown to Odio. It appears to be an older photo. Pre-1963 I would guess.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=73167

 

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