Leopoldo and Angel

[Thomas Graves]

All of this is complicated by the fact that when Oswald was supposed to give his talk in Dallas, in June 1963, he was in New Orleans.

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40

Which leads me to believe that the Dallas talk never happened or, if it did, was given by a different "Oswald."

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

All of this is complicated by the fact that when Oswald was supposed to give his talk in Dallas, in June 1963, he was in New Orleans.

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40

Which leads me to believe that the Dallas talk never happened or, if it did, was given by a different "Oswald."

--Tommy

Well, Marina Oswald always believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was either at work or at school or doing "target practice." In fact, he was often out of a regular job for weeks before Marina ever learned about it. So -- if we think we can place Oswald here or there on any given day -- or that because he (allegedly) could not drive, that he was limited to the Greyhound bus system, we really should reconsider. David Ferrie, for example, was an expert pilot of small airplanes. Marina had no idea in the world that Lee Harvey Oswald was associating with Cuban Exiles, David Ferrie or Guy Banister. No idea in the world.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Paul/Tommy

And then GPH comes along and puts the rifle in the depository

The day of JFK's visit and superspy Oswald does not catch on?.

Ok this changes the dynamic again or produces another of GPH's

Red herring!.

IOW. Hemming puts the rifle there with no proof but his word.

And the research of proving the rifle was Oswalds and the notion it WAS

there all along .

I have to ask, do you think Oswald shot the president with it?.

Ian.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul/Tommy

And then GPH comes along and puts the rifle in the depository

The day of JFK's visit and superspy Oswald does not catch on?.

Ok this changes the dynamic again or produces another of GPH's Red herring!.

IOW. Hemming puts the rifle there with no proof but his word.

And the research of proving the rifle was Oswalds and the notion it WAS there all along .

I have to ask, do you think Oswald shot the president with it?.

Ian.

It's a logical question, Ian. There is always the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the shooters on 22 November 1963. Yet we have too much evidence to eliminate the possibility of a lone shooter. The ballistics suggest that there were more than three shots (more likely six) and that the head shot was made by a type of exploding bullet which would not be commensurate with Oswald's rifle.

The DPD found Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD buliding. That is circumstantial evidence. Actually, other rifles were also found there, including a German 7.0 Mauser, which was fully documented. Dallas was a gun-owning town. On that same week, other guys who worked at the TSBD building also brought their own rifles from home, to show them off to their fellow workers. It was a loose atmosphere.

So, yes, Ian, it is possible that Oswald was a shooter, but it is not a necessary premise -- there were too many other people in the plot, and they were more motivated and highly skilled.

In every Presidential assassination in US history, the shooter bragged about the shooting. No exceptions. Oswald, with all his faults, was a military man, and if he had shot JFK, I fully expect that he would have bragged about it. He denied it and I believe him.

One thing is fairly clear -- Oswald had no idea he was going to be the patsy. He knew who the other plotters were -- so that makes Oswald as guilty as any accomplice. But he was surprised on that moment when he realized he was the patsy. Once that word was heard by the US press, it was clear to the other plotters that Oswald must die quickly.

Tremendous pressure was placed on Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. As his jailer testified, Ruby was nearly insane with worry about Oswald in the hospital until he heard the news that Oswald was dead. Then Ruby calmed down to normal, and spoke to others normally, and with a sense of relief.

Oswald might have been a shooter, but why bother? He was groomed in the summer at New Orleans -- thoroughly -- to be the allegedly Communist patsy of a much larger plot involving at least 99 people -- including Guy Banister, David Ferrie, several Cuban Exile players and anybody else who trained at the Lake Pontchartrain paramilitary camp, as well as those named in Harry Dean's credible eye-witness account: Loran Hall and Larry Howard (Leopoldo and Angel), Guy Gabaldon, John Rousselot and ex-General Edwin Walker. This was the ground-crew.

(The few rogues among the DPD, FBI, CIA and Secret Service who may have been accomplices were mainly observers who were willing to look the other way for a few hours. The rest was carefully planned by a mad, ex-military zealot, IMHO.)

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 29, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Aside from all the other evidence (e.g. from Silvia Odio and Harry Dean) that implicates Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard (Leopoldo and Angelo) in the assassination of JFK, it remains my opinion that their frequent interaction with ex-General Edwin Walker in 1963, as verified through interviews with the soldier of fortune, Gerry Patrick Hemming, is the most compelling argument for deeper research into these two characters.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

bump

Edited April 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Mr. Trejo,

Some facts about the character of Loran Hall should be clarified first. His English grammar was compromised by the 'Spanglish' of his Hispanic neighborhood.

Where does Hall's alleged Spanglish influence come into play in his simple pronouncement that , according to his associate Crespi, Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro talk in Dallas? Hall had been in the U.S. Army, so his English must have been reasonably good. Good enough to know the difference between "pro" and "anti," yes? Let's face it-- his English is pretty darn good, overall, in the pertinent HSCA transcript.

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40

Also, Loran Hall (like Gerry P. Hemming) had little patience with interviewers and was notoriously sloppy in his responses to them. Hall seemed to hate providing clarifying detail.

Are you implying that Hall rather innocently failed to provide "clarifying detail" in this particular instance, or that he more sinisterly "muddied the waters" with the HSCA interviewer by saying "pro-Castro" instead of "anti-Castro" or just the neutral word "speeches?"

[...]

Because Loran Hall (like Niko Crespi) also suspected Oswald of being a double-agent, he believed that the anti-Castro speech that Oswald was going to deliver to the Cuban Exiles in Dallas, was carefully crafted to sneak in some disinformation to the Cuban Exiles.

In other words, because Oswald was a double-agent, Oswald's ostensibly anti-Castro speech would really become a pro-Castro speech, although only the truly informed (Hall and Crespi) would recognize the fact. Therefore, Niko Crespi went to heckle Oswald to ensure that Oswald's suspected disinformation did not succeed. That's my interpretation.

What possible disinformation would (double agent?) Crespi and friends be afraid Oswald might try to slip into his "anti-Castro" speech? "We are planning another invasion of Cuba?" "We are not planning another invasion of Cuba?" "The Ruskies still have missiles in Cuba?" "The ruskies took all of their missiles out of Cuba?" "Manuel Ray is our leader?" "Manuel Ray is not our leader and is a Communist?" Or worst of all-- "Manuel Ray's mother wears army boots?"

[...]

--Tommy

Edited April 17, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Where does Hall's alleged Spanglish influence come in to play in his simple pronouncement that , according to his associate Crespi, Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro talk in Dallas? Hall had been in the U.S. Army, so his English must have been reasonably good. Good enough to know the difference between "pro" and "anti," yes?

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40

What possible disinformation would (double agent?) Crespi and friends be afraid Oswald might try to slip into his "anti-Castro" speech? "We are planning another invasion of Cuba?" "We are not planning another invasion of Cuba?" "The Ruskies still have missiles in Cuba?" "The ruskies took all of their missiles out of Cuba?" "Manuel Ray is our leader?" "Manuel Ray is not our leader and is a Communist?" Or worst of all-- "Manuel Ray's mother wears army boots?"

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, I agree that Loran Hall's English wasn't poor, I only note that it wasn't great, either.

I personally accept Nico Crespi's claim -- and Loran Hall's repetition of his claim -- to be an ambiguous English statement.

Look at the dynamics. Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was going to address some Cuban s in Texas -- not pro-Castro Cubans (Communists) but anti-Castro Cuban Exiles.

Now, why would Cuban Exiles invite a pro-Castro speaker to their event? Answer: they wouldn't. Therefore, Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald -- under a pretense of giving an anti-Castro speech (and thus was invited to do so) would sneak in some pro-Castro propaganda.

That was Crespi's concern -- that his Cuban Exile compatriots would be fooled by Oswald, because, as the same account reveals, his worry was that Oswald was a double-agent.

Now -- Loran Hall didn't make that perfectly clear, IMHO. That's because his English skills, while good enough on the surface, were really imperfect. (Much like many native English speakers I can name).

See the ambiguity? Yet Loran Hall didn't unpack the ambiguity.

Now, you ask what possible disinformation would the double-agent Oswald try to slip past the gullible Cuban Exiles, that so worried Crespi?

It's a moot point, because Oswald wasn't really a Communist (as the Warren Commission falsely claimed) in the first place. Oswald was in Dallas to promote a war against Castro -- just as he cooperated (yes, cooperated) with Carlos Bringuier of DRE and Ed Butler of INCA in New Orleans in August, 1963.

Oswald's association with Guy Banister and David Ferrie in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 unambiguously places Oswald in the right-wing. However, part of his cover (as orchestrated by Bringuier, Butler and Banister) was that Oswald was an FPCC officer (a bald-faced lie).

Nico Crespi, however, was not one of the insiders, and he didn't know it was a ruse. He only believed the evidence he saw in the newspapers, or heard on the radio, or saw on television -- Oswald was an FPCC officer!

Therefore, when Crespi heard that Oswald was going to Dallas to give a speech to his own people, Crespi chose to stop the speech -- not knowing or caring what Oswald was going to say.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Where does Hall's alleged Spanglish influence come in to play in his simple pronouncement that , according to his associate Crespi, Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro talk in Dallas? Hall had been in the U.S. Army, so his English must have been reasonably good. Good enough to know the difference between "pro" and "anti," yes? Let's face it-- his English is pretty darn good, overall, in the pertinent HSCA transcript.

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40

What possible disinformation would (double agent?) Crespi and friends be afraid Oswald might try to slip into his "anti-Castro" speech? "We are planning another invasion of Cuba?" "We are not planning another invasion of Cuba?" "The Ruskies still have missiles in Cuba?" "The Ruskies took all of their missiles out of Cuba?" "Manuel Ray is our leader?" "Manuel Ray is not our leader and is a Communist?" Or worst of all-- "Manuel Ray's mother wears army boots?"

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, I agree that Loran Hall's English wasn't poor, I only note that it wasn't great, either.

I personally accept Nico Crespi's claim -- and Loran Hall's repetition of his claim -- to be an ambiguous English statement.

Look at the dynamics. Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was going to address some Cubans in Texas -- not pro-Castro Cubans (Communists) but anti-Castro Cuban Exiles.

Now, why would Cuban Exiles invite a pro-Castro speaker to their event? Answer: they wouldn't. Therefore, Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald -- under a pretense of giving an anti-Castro speech (and thus was invited to do so) would sneak in some pro-Castro propaganda.

That was Crespi's concern -- that his Cuban Exile compatriots would be fooled by Oswald, because, as the same account reveals, his worry was that Oswald was a double-agent.

Now -- Loran Hall didn't make that perfectly clear, IMHO. That's because his English skills, while good enough on the surface, were really imperfect. (Much like many native English speakers I can name).

See the ambiguity? Yet Loran Hall didn't unpack the ambiguity.

Now, you ask what possible disinformation would the double-agent Oswald try to slip past the gullible Cuban Exiles, that so worried Crespi?

It's a moot point, because Oswald wasn't really a Communist (as the Warren Commission falsely claimed) in the first place. Oswald was in Dallas to promote a war against Castro -- just as he cooperated (yes, cooperated) with Carlos Bringuier of DRE and Ed Butler of INCA in New Orleans in August, 1963.

Oswald's association with Guy Banister and David Ferrie in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 unambiguously places Oswald in the right-wing. However, part of his cover (as orchestrated by Bringuier, Butler and Banister) was that Oswald was an FPCC officer (a bald-faced lie).

Nico Crespi, however, was not one of the insiders, and he didn't know it was a ruse. He only believed the evidence he saw in the newspapers, or heard on the radio, or saw on television -- Oswald was an FPCC officer!

Therefore, when Crespi heard that Oswald was going to Dallas to give a speech to his own people, Crespi chose to stop the speech -- not knowing or caring what Oswald was going to say.

[...]

Dear Mr. Trejo,

I don't think we should somewhat glibly dismiss as a simple "language mistake" Loran Hall's HSCA statement that he'd heard that Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro speech in Dallas.

If Crespi and friend intercepted Oswald that day on the sidewalk and "convinced" him not to give his pro-Castro "Viva Fidel" speech, that would explain why no mention was made in the Dallas newspapers of such an inflamatory speech being made.

HOWEVER... Since Oswald moved from Dallas to New Orleans around April 24, 1963, I'm beginning to doubt that he was even in Dallas in June or July. If Crespi was being truthful and correct (and if Hall relayed Crespi's information correctly to the HSCA), then someone was impersonating Oswald in Dallas very early on, even before JFK's trip to Texas had been announced.

SO... Rather than Oswald's making special trips from New Orleans to give pro or anti-Castro speeches, and rather than someone's impersonating him so early on in Dallas, I think it's more likely that Loran Hall made up the "Oswald's Pro-Castro Speech In Dallas In June or July 1963" in an attempt to retroactively portray Oswald as a Castro sympathizer to the HSCA.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited April 18, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY IDEA HOW I CAN CONTACT SILVIA ODIO?

Open Letter to Silvia Odio:

Dear Miss Odio,

I am not going to ask you about Lee Harvey Oswald or JFK. My current interest is in ex-General Edwin A. Walker, the only US General to resign in the 20th century.

Did you, while you lived in Dallas, ever have occasion to hear Walker speak? Had you ever followed his career?

Were you aware that Walker led race riots at Ole Miss University on the evening of 30 September 1962; riots in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed?

Were you aware that Walker was wrongly acquitted of those crimes by perjuring himself before a Grand Jury in January, 1963?

Did you have any opinion one way or another about ex-General Edwin Walker?

Were you aware that in mid-1963 Walker turned his attention to the Cuban problem, and courted support from the Cuban Exile community?

If you'd like to know more about my research into ex-General Edwin Walker, please visit my web site at www.pet880.com

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Where does Hall's alleged Spanglish influence come in to play in his simple pronouncement that , according to his associate Crespi, Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro talk in Dallas? Hall had been in the U.S. Army, so his English must have been reasonably good. Good enough to know the difference between "pro" and "anti," yes? Let's face it-- his English is pretty darn good, overall, in the pertinent HSCA transcript.

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40

What possible disinformation would (double agent?) Crespi and friends be afraid Oswald might try to slip into his "anti-Castro" speech? "We are planning another invasion of Cuba?" "We are not planning another invasion of Cuba?" "The Ruskies still have missiles in Cuba?" "The Ruskies took all of their missiles out of Cuba?" "Manuel Ray is our leader?" "Manuel Ray is not our leader and is a Communist?" Or worst of all-- "Manuel Ray's mother wears army boots?"

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, I agree that Loran Hall's English wasn't poor, I only note that it wasn't great, either.

I personally accept Nico Crespi's claim -- and Loran Hall's repetition of his claim -- to be an ambiguous English statement.

Look at the dynamics. Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was going to address some Cubans in Texas -- not pro-Castro Cubans (Communists) but anti-Castro Cuban Exiles.

Now, why would Cuban Exiles invite a pro-Castro speaker to their event? Answer: they wouldn't. Therefore, Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald -- under a pretense of giving an anti-Castro speech (and thus was invited to do so) would sneak in some pro-Castro propaganda.

That was Crespi's concern -- that his Cuban Exile compatriots would be fooled by Oswald, because, as the same account reveals, his worry was that Oswald was a double-agent.

Now -- Loran Hall didn't make that perfectly clear, IMHO. That's because his English skills, while good enough on the surface, were really imperfect. (Much like many native English speakers I can name).

See the ambiguity? Yet Loran Hall didn't unpack the ambiguity.

Now, you ask what possible disinformation would the double-agent Oswald try to slip past the gullible Cuban Exiles, that so worried Crespi?

It's a moot point, because Oswald wasn't really a Communist (as the Warren Commission falsely claimed) in the first place. Oswald was in Dallas to promote a war against Castro -- just as he cooperated (yes, cooperated) with Carlos Bringuier of DRE and Ed Butler of INCA in New Orleans in August, 1963.

Oswald's association with Guy Banister and David Ferrie in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 unambiguously places Oswald in the right-wing. However, part of his cover (as orchestrated by Bringuier, Butler and Banister) was that Oswald was an FPCC officer (a bald-faced lie).

Nico Crespi, however, was not one of the insiders, and he didn't know it was a ruse. He only believed the evidence he saw in the newspapers, or heard on the radio, or saw on television -- Oswald was an FPCC officer!

Therefore, when Crespi heard that Oswald was going to Dallas to give a speech to his own people, Crespi chose to stop the speech -- not knowing or caring what Oswald was going to say.

[...]

Dear Mr. Trejo,

I don't think we should somewhat glibly dismiss as a simple "language mistake" Loran Hall's HSCA statement that he'd heard that Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro speech in Dallas.

One possible scenario is that Crespi and friend intercepted Oswald that day on the sidewalk and "convinced" him not to give his pro-Castro "Viva Fidel" speech. That would explain why no mention was made in the Dallas newspapers of such an inflamatory speech being made.

HOWEVER... Since Oswald moved from Dallas to New Orleans around April 24, 1963, I'm beginning to doubt that he was even in Dallas in June or July. If Nico Crespi was being truthful and correct (and if Loran Hall relayed Crespi's information correctly to the HSCA), then someone was impersonating Oswald in Dallas very early on, even before JFK's trip to Texas had been announced.

SO... Rather than Oswald's making special trips from New Orleans to give pro or anti-Castro speeches, and rather than someone's impersonating him so early on in Dallas, I think it's more likely that Loran Hall made up his "I Heard that Oswald was Gonna Give a Pro-Castro Speech in Dallas in June or July, 1963" story in an attempt to retroactively portray Oswald as a Commie Castro sympathizer to the HSCA.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

edited (highlighted) and bumped

Edited April 18, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Dear Mr. Trejo,

I don't think we should somewhat glibly dismiss as a simple "language mistake" Loran Hall's HSCA statement that he'd heard that Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro speech in Dallas.

One possible scenario is that Crespi and friend intercepted Oswald that day on the sidewalk and "convinced" him not to give his pro-Castro "Viva Fidel" speech. That would explain why no mention was made in the Dallas newspapers of such an inflamatory speech being made.

HOWEVER... Since Oswald moved from Dallas to New Orleans around April 24, 1963, I'm beginning to doubt that he was even in Dallas in June or July. If Nico Crespi was being truthful and correct (and if Loran Hall relayed Crespi's information correctly to the HSCA), then someone was impersonating Oswald in Dallas very early on, even before JFK's trip to Texas had been announced.

SO... Rather than Oswald's making special trips from New Orleans to give pro or anti-Castro speeches, and rather than someone's impersonating him so early on in Dallas, I think it's more likely that Loran Hall made up his "I Heard that Oswald was Gonna Give a Pro-Castro Speech in Dallas in June or July, 1963" story in an attempt to retroactively portray Oswald as a Commie Castro sympathizer to the HSCA.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Tommy, as I said, it wasn't so much a language mistake, as it was a common case of language imprecision. It happens all the time, even on this Forum.

Yet you seem to wish to rip Hall's statement out of its context. Loran Hall's sentence existed in a very specific context, namely, the context of the belief that Oswald was a double-agent. You're ignoring that. You are taking the phrase "pro-Castro" out of its context and trying to make it stand on its own.

Once again -- the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald moved in the circles of Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler and Guy Banister in New Orleans is our first evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro. Then, the fact that Oswald claimed to be the officer of an FPCC chapter in New Orleans -- when there was no such chapter aside from himself and his alias, is our second evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro.

Then, the fact that Oswald took all his newspaper clippings of his arrest, his radio program and his TV appearance with him to Mexico, as bona fides that he really was an FPCC officer, is our third evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro. Then, the fact that the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City rejected Oswald's claim to an instant entry into Cuba on grounds that he was an FPCC officer, is our fourth evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro.

Here is another place where the account of Harry Dean can be helpful. Harry was part of the 26th of July Movement in 1960, when Fidel Castro made a deal with the founders of the FPCC in New York City. Castro agreed to subordinate the 26th of July Movement underneath the FPCC. Many of the old guard quit the Castro movement because of this, but Harry Dean remained inside the network. He saw first hand how closely Fidel Castro cared for the FPCC, a major fund-raiser and supply line of materials and information for Castro. FPCC officers were privileged people in Havana in those days.

(Also the Cuban Consulate in Mexico had an official list of FPCC officers -- and the name of Lee Harvey Oswald was not on that list. Therefore, there was no way that Oswald was going to fool the Cuban Consulate -- but he didn't know that -- he lost his temper.)

Guy Banister had agonized over the FPCC since its inception. He was well aware that an FPCC officer would be admitted instant, unquestioned entry into Cuba from Mexico City, without waiting. This explains the ridiculous charade of Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 -- pretending to be an FPCC officer on the street, in the newspapers, on radio and on TV.

We know this is correct because when Oswald wrote to the FPCC to boast about his merits, he told them that he was arrested for fighting with a 'gusano' on the streets of New Orleans -- but that would not happen for another two days. So, Oswald was lying all along. He was working for Guy Banister, just as Jim Garrison plainly exposed in 1968.

Furthermore, you doubt whether Oswald was mobile enough to travel from New Orleans to Dallas on short notice. That mythology exists today, because Oswald had no car and most accounts say he couldn't drive. But Silvia Odio's account shows that Oswald had a chauffeur, namely Loran Hall, who's red car transported Oswald all the way to Mexico, according to Harry Dean and other researchers.

Further, I believe that Nico Crespi was being truthful and correct -- according to the knowledge he had. He only witnessed the newspaper, radio and TV events -- so it was absolutely certain to Nico Crespi that Oswald was a Communist. There was no doubt in his mind.

Yet most of Oswald's companions were radical rightists. Loran Hall and Larry Howard were only two of many. Oswald did not hang with Communists. Also, Oswald kept his rightist connections far from Marina's view. She thought Oswald was a loner.

I also agree with you that nobody impersonated Oswald in Dallas. Oswald was mobile. He had a driver. He got around and he was trying to make a name for himself so he could eventually be hired permanently by the CIA, FBI or ONI. But he was such a mediocre asset that he never got offered the job.

As for Loran Hall -- I think you should review the way he talked about Gerry Patrick Hemming -- he was inflammatory and violent. Yet in his interviews with Jim Garrison, Loran Hall admits he was pals with "Gerry Patrick" for a long time. So, Loran Hall was very shrewd and lied a lot.

As Harry Dean also reported, after JFK was finally killed, all these former "pals" suddenly stopped seeing each other. It was not a good idea to be connected with a fellow conspirator after the Crime of the Century.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Mr. Trejo,

I don't think we should somewhat glibly dismiss as a simple "language mistake" Loran Hall's HSCA statement that he'd heard that Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro speech in Dallas.

One possible scenario is that Crespi and friend intercepted Oswald that day on the sidewalk and "convinced" him not to give his pro-Castro "Viva Fidel" speech. That would explain why no mention was made in the Dallas newspapers of such an inflamatory speech being made.

HOWEVER... Since Oswald moved from Dallas to New Orleans around April 24, 1963, I'm beginning to doubt that he was even in Dallas in June or July. If Nico Crespi was being truthful and correct (and if Loran Hall relayed Crespi's information correctly to the HSCA), then someone was impersonating Oswald in Dallas very early on, even before JFK's trip to Texas had been announced.

SO... Rather than Oswald's making special trips from New Orleans to give pro or anti-Castro speeches, and rather than someone's impersonating him so early on in Dallas, I think it's more likely that Loran Hall made up his "I Heard that Oswald was Gonna Give a Pro-Castro Speech in Dallas in June or July, 1963" story in an attempt to retroactively portray Oswald as a Commie Castro sympathizer to the HSCA.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Tommy, as I said, it wasn't so much a language mistake, as it was a common case of language imprecision. It happens all the time, even on this Forum.

Yet you seem to wish to rip Hall's statement out of its context. Loran Hall's sentence existed in a very specific context, namely, the context of the belief that Oswald was a double-agent. You're ignoring that. You are taking the phrase "pro-Castro" out of its context and trying to make it stand on its own.

[...]

Dear Mr. Trejo,

Isn't saying "pro" when one means to say "anti" (or "black" instead of "white," or "expensive" instead of "cheap," or "short" instead of "tall," etc) a case of such really, really gross "language imprecision," as you call it, as to qualify as a "language mistake?" I mean, what's more "imprecise" in language than saying exactly the opposite of what you mean?

You strongly suggest that people on this forum often use language just as "imprecisely" as Loran Hall did when he said Oswald was going to make a pro-Castro speech but actually meant to say he was going to make an anti-Castro speech. Can you show us any examples of forum members' saying the opposite of what they meant to say?

I don't think people often speak so "imprecisely" (or make such a bad "mistake") that they say the opposite of what they mean, and I don't think Loran Hall spoke so "imprecisely," either. I think he knew exactly what he was saying and said exactly what he meant to say, just as I am doing right here.

So it makes a lot more sense to me that Loran Hall, rather than making a "language mistake" or using language so grossly "imprecise," made up a story for the HSCA about Oswald's alleged intention to make a pro- (or if you prefer, anti-) Castro speech in Dallas in June or July of 1963 in order to retroactively paint Oswald as a Communist Castro sympathizer and/or to just confuse the HSCA.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited April 19, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Dear Mr. Trejo,

Isn't saying "pro" when one means to say "anti" (or "black" instead of "white," or "expensive" instead of "cheap," or "short" instead of "tall," etc) a case of such really, really gross "language imprecision," as you call it, as to qualify as a "language mistake?" I mean, what's more "imprecise" in language than saying exactly the opposite of what you mean?

You strongly suggest that people on this forum often use language just as "imprecisely" as Loran Hall did when he said Oswald was going to make a pro-Castro speech but actually meant to say he was going to make an anti-Castro speech. Can you show us any examples of forum members' saying the opposite of what they meant to say?

I don't think people often speak so "imprecisely" (or make such a bad "mistake") that they say the opposite of what they mean, and I don't think Loran Hall spoke so "imprecisely," either. I think he knew exactly what he was saying and said exactly what he meant to say, just as I am doing right here.

So it makes a lot more sense to me that Loran Hall, rather than making a "language mistake" or using language so grossly "imprecise," made up a story for the HSCA about Oswald's alleged intention to make a pro- (or if you prefer, anti-) Castro speech in Dallas in June or July of 1963 in order to retroactively paint Oswald as a Communist Castro sympathizer and/or to just confuse the HSCA.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Tommy, we're not too far apart on the conclusion, anyway. Loran Hall intended to abuse the English language to foment a lie about Oswald -- that Oswald was a Communist. That was the modus operandi of the JFK plot -- to blame the Communists for the killing, when, IMHO, it was really the racist right.

We see Loran Hall (Leopoldo) making the same sort of deliberate lie when he was asked about Gerry Patrick Hemming in one of his last interviews. He lost his temper, and at first claimed that Gerry Patrick Hemming was a Communist; then he claimed that Gerry Patrick Hemming was CIA; then he claimed that if he saw Hemming again he would kill him.

I think Loran Hall's main point was to place as much distance as possible between himself and his long-time pal, Gerry Patrick Hemming.

I think this is because the truth of the JFK assassination will -- in the end -- turn out to involve not only Lee Harvey Oswald, but also Loran Hall and Gerry Patrick Hemming -- working in cooperation with ex-General Edwin Walker.

Even if we didn't have the eye-witness testimony of Harry Dean on this score, we have plenty of other evidence that links Walker with Hemming and Hall throughout 1963.

Finally, Gerry Patrick Hemming himself told A.J. Weberman that he personally invited Lee Harvey Oswald to bring his rifle to the TSBD building on 22 November 1963, in order to sell it for double its market price. Hemming asked Oswald to hide the rifle on the 5th floor (not the 6th) and that some secret person would retreive it, and then Oswald would get paid. So, Hemming has already confessed.

The reason Loran Hall exploded at his last interviewer, IMHO, was because the interviewer hit a nerve -- Hall and Hemming were key members of the ground-crew in the JFK assassination -- both in New Orleans and in Dallas.

I 'd like to reinforce the evidence that Harry Dean provides regarding Edwin Walker's participation in the JFK assassination. That's why I'm trying to eagerly to contact Silvia Odio. Any idea how I can reach her?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Silvia Odio's testimony correlates well with the claims of Harry Dean about Lorenzo and Alonzo (the original Leopoldo and Angel) IMHO.

It is interesting that the sworn WC testimony surrounding the Silvia Odio episode includes remarks about ex-General Edwin Walker, as well as the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald addressed right-wing Cubans in Dallas, encouraging them in their efforts.

The correlation is not entirely cryptic:

1. We find Loran Hall (Leopoldo) and Larry Howard (Angelo) in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

2. We also know that these two, Leopoldo and Angelo, were close companions with Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen.

3. We also know that Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen were close companions of ex-General Edwin Walker.

4. We know from Jim Garrison interviews that Loran Hall himself visited Edwin Walker himself at his Dallas home.

5. We know from Silvia Odio that Loran Hall characterized Lee Harvey Oswald as a right-wing extremist (i.e. Oswald allegedly said to Hall, "Cubans don't have any guts because they should have killed JFK after the Bay of Pigs."

6. This phrase matches what George De Mohrenschildt says that Lee Harvey Oswald said about the Bay of Pigs in early 1963, which was confirmed by Volkmar Schmidt. It was this sentiment, they said, the guided them to turn Oswald against Edwin Walker by February, 1963.

7. Harry Dean says that Edwin Walker, Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Larry Howard accepted a lot of cash from the John Birch Society *specifically* to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for their plot against JFK.

Therefore, we may conclude that Silvia Odio's testimony guides us to the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices.

As for Harry Dean's claims, since he admits that Oswald was framed, we are guided to the theory that Oswald had associates, who were only accomplices in a manner of speaking -- actually, they had framed him, tricked him, and betrayed him.

Nevertheless, in the plot to kill JFK, we can say with confidence (based on these statements) that Oswald did not act alone, either in his shooting at Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963, or in the assassination of JFK on 22 November 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo