Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Odio Incident


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ive always been wondering where William Seymour's testimony/interview has been??? anyone know where I could find this? (Ryan Crowe)

That's a very good question, Ryan. I am under the impression that Seymour's testimony has not been released which is curious in itself.

It is also curious that a CIA summary file indicates that the Agency possessed a 'soft file' on Seymour. :)

It would also be interesting to know the individual who was running that file. More questions than answers I'm afraid.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re how the FBI found out about the Odio matter, below is an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi (from the cuban-exile web-site):

Also of special relevance, I thought, was the fact that the FBI found out about the visit only inadvertently. Both Silvia and Annie had immediately decided that day in the hospital room not to say anything to anyone about what they knew. "We were so frightened, we were obsoletely terrified," Silvia remembered. We were both very young and yet we had so much responsibility, with so many brothers and sisters and our mother and father in prison, we were so afraid and not knowing what was happening. We made a vow to each other not to tell anyone." And they did not tell anyone they did not know and trust. But their sister Sarita told Lucille Connell and Connell told a trusted friend and soon the FBI was knocking on Silvia Odio's door. She says it was the last thing in the world she wanted but when they came she felt she had a responsibility to tell the truth. Even before I met Silvia and Annie Odio and had the, opportunity to evaluate their credibility, in reviewing all the FBI documents and the Warren Commission records of the Odio incident, I was especially intrigued by two aspects of it: One was that it seemed to contain the potential of something of keystone significant in any attempt to grasp the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald and the John F. Kennedy assassination. If the incident did occur as Odio contended, then no theory of the assassination would stand unassailable if it did not somehow account for it. Secondly, that was the very point the Warren Commission itself quickly recognized and was therefore forced, by its own conclusions, to pummel the facts about its investigation of the incident into conforming lies.

There is even more to it. As I recall, it started out with one school-child telling a story about his or her parent working in a law firm and Ruby had visited th law firm to make a will or change a power of attorney or something like that shortly before the asssassination. Turns out one of the classmate's parents was a FBI agent. So the FBI started to investigate the Ruby story and somehow that led them to Connell who then relayed to them Silvia Odio's story. Sometimes that is how the truth comes out.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I understand several Forum members seem to dislike whenever I post a suggestion of Cuban or Soviet involvement in the assassination but I do think we need to try to track down all leads if we are dedicated to finding the truth. In addition, the Forum can provide an avenue for "closing" loose ends. so in that regard I request comments or new information on this from Footnote 19 to Chapter XXI of Dick Russell's book.

(I know some of you are thinking of Ronald Reagan's famous phrase: "There he goes again!) Oh, well:

Russell states that he interviewed Blakey in 1980 and Blakey told him "we concluded there were three people that Angel and Leopoldo could have been [more gramatically: that could have been Angel and Leopoldo-TIM], but Mrs. Odio did not recognize any of them. . . The question is, on whose behalf were they acting? The report we got from the CIA indicated the background of the three possibilities was Cuban intelligence."

Does anyone know why Blakely and/or his staff had focosed on these three individuals, and who they were?

The Odio incident is so important that I think an evaluation of Blakey's statement merits our consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand several Forum members seem to dislike whenever I post a suggestion of Cuban or Soviet involvement in the assassination but I do think we need to try to track down all leads if we are dedicated to finding the truth.  In addition, the Forum can provide an avenue for "closing" loose ends.  so in that regard I request comments or new information on this from Footnote 19 to Chapter XXI of Dick Russell's book.

(I know some of you are thinking of Ronald Reagan's famous phrase: "There he goes again!)  Oh, well:

Russell states that he interviewed Blakey in 1980 and Blakey told him "we concluded there were three people that Angel and Leopoldo could have been [more gramatically: that could have been Angel and Leopoldo-TIM], but Mrs. Odio did not recognize any of them. . . The question is, on whose behalf were they acting?  The report we got from the CIA indicated the background of the three possibilities was Cuban intelligence."

Gee, now there's a surprise.  But, Tim, ask yourself why Cuban intelligence would do this.  The Odio parents were dedicated to Castro's overthrow, and at that time were in prison for their part in trying to bring this about.  If Cuban intelligence were trying to intimidate the Odio sisters, surely they would have done something more blatant, more overtly threatening.  And if, as you insist upon imagining, Cuban intelligence were about to try whacking the US President, why would they parade the soon-to-be patsy in front of the Odios?  If you're barking up the wrong tree, it's because you keep investing greater credibility than is deserved in the sources you choose, in this instance Blakey, all of whom track back to CIA.

Does anyone know why Blakely and/or his staff had focosed on these three individuals, and who they were?

Clearly, CIA nominated three suspects of its choosing, and Blakey accepted them at face value, as he did at every turn when dealing with the Agency.  When he was called on this boundless credulity for Agency bushwah by his colleagues, Blakey blurted out: "You don’t think they’d lie to me do you? I’ve been working with these people for twenty years."  What can one say when such a hopeless incompetent is placed in a position of such power to determine what was thought important enough to investigate, and what should remain under the rug?  And that's the most charitable interpretation of his service in that post.

The Odio incident is so important that I think an evaluation of Blakey's statement merits our consideration.

The Odio incident is important.  Blakey's comments on this, as on most other topics, are made irrelevant by his own refusal to plumb the truth, as reported by all HSCA colleagues and underlings, when he had the power and responsibility to do so.  Had he done so, those three Cubans would have been named in the Committee's final report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Robert Charles-Dunne:

Good to hear from you again. I suspected you would reply to that post.

I think you are incorrect that the CIA supplied Blakey with the three possibilities he suggested might be Angel and Leopoldo. The impression I got from Russell's footnote was that somehow the HSCA had focused on those three Cubans and the CIA then informed Blakey of its opinion that they were connected to Cuban intelligence.

I was hoping someone might know why Blakey had focused on these three; who they were; and that someone might have information why the CIA suggested they were associated with Cuban intelligence. Castro did have agents in South Florida; I hope you would admit that.

I have a somewhat different perspective on the Odio story. If Oswald was indeed at Odio's door, that fact in itself is not, in my opinion, sufficient to establish a conspiracy, despite that is what many people think. Suspend disbelief and try to adopt the position that LHO was a "lone nut", associating with both pro and anti Castro Cubans for his own agenda, whatever that might be. So he tells his anti-Castro Cuban colleagues that the Cubans had no guts or they would have shot Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. So for whatever reason Leopoldo calls Silvia Odio to tell her that LHO is a little nuts and has made extremist statements. The mere fact that LHO was hanging out with anti-Castro Cubans does not preclude the possibility that he shot the president by himself for reasons known only to him.

Understand that I am as much an adherent to the conspiracy theory of the assassination as anyone on this forum. All I am trying to say is that if you take the Odio story at face value it is not inconsistent with the WC theory.

What screams of conspiracy, in my opinion, is if it was not LHO himself at Odio's door but a deliberate LHO impersonator, and the whole visit was staged so violent anti-Kennedy statements could be falsely attributed to Oswald. I.e., it was part of the frame. This is why the fact that the Odio visit occurred at a time when LHO was supposed to be someplace else so frightened the WC, in my opinion. Because if it was not LHO at Odio's door, and if she was telling the truth except she did not discern the impersonification of LHO, then clearly the Odio incident was being staged as part of the frame of the patsy. Ergo, a conspiracy.

But if it was anti-Castro Cubans (or the CIA) behind the assassination, why would they frame LHO by having the false Oswald associate with people who claimed to be anti-Castro? Most people who posit CIA involvement suggest the idea was to falsely connect the assassination to a pro-Castro activist and perhaps even blame Castro for the assassination, prompting, so they hoped, a full-fledged invasion of Cuba. In this scenario, parading a false Oswald in front of Odio with proclaimed anti-Castro Cubans makes no sense at all.

If the Odio incident was part of a plot, the plot was, apparently, to link a man who had made violent suggestions about the President with anti-Castro Cubans. The clear inference, then, is that the people who staged the Odio incident were pro-Castro.

If LHO was working for some agency of American intelligence, and the Castro forces knew that, then it would be clever indeed to find a way to link LHO with anti-Castro Cubans as part of a plot against Kennedy by Cuban intelligence.

What sense does it make if anti-Castro forces were behind the assassination to parade Oswald before Odio and then tell her that Kennedy should have been shot because he had betrayed the anti-Castro forces by his decisions re the Bay of Pigs? Were the anti-Castro forces trying to create a record to prove their involvement in the assassination?

Is it not logical that if the Odio incident was part of the "set-up" for the assassination, then the people at Odio's door were not anti-Castro as they told her, but pro-Castro?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also point out that Blakey did not want to suggest a foreign conspiracy any more than he wanted to credit a CIA conspiracy.

Therefore, the LAST thing he would have wanted to put in the HSCA report would be that the HSCA had narrowed the possibilities of Angel and Leopoldo to three Cubans all of whom, it was suspected, had ties to Cuban intelligence. I found it interesting he even admitted this to Dick Russell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are incorrect that the CIA supplied Blakey with the three possibilities he suggested might be Angel and Leopoldo. The impression I got from Russell's footnote was that somehow the HSCA had focused on those three Cubans and the CIA then informed Blakey of its opinion that they were connected to Cuban intelligence.

You're entitled to whatever intuition you may feel, but Fonzi makes clear that Blakey wanted NO part of having Odio's [or Veciana's] testimony as part of the HSCA.  Both were disposed of as gingerly as Blakey could manage.  Needless to say, this is NOT the hallmark of a genuine investigation.

I was hoping someone might know why Blakey had focused on these three; who they were; and that someone might have information why the CIA suggested they were associated with Cuban intelligence. Castro did have agents in South Florida; I hope you would admit that.

Sure, along with virtually every other country in the world.  Your hopes about Blakey will remain unrequited, however.  Blakey never "focussed" on anyone connected with Odio, as Fonzi - who bore the responsibility of interviewing her - makes clear.  Also, for whatever it's worth, Odio thought one of her visitors was "Mexican-looking."  I would suggest, again, that Blakey asked for information about Odio's visitors and was told by CIA what was least damaging to the Agency and Blakey, that three leading suspects were all Cuban intelligence operatives.  Blakey's credulity was boundless when it came to analysis of whatever the Agency provided him.

I have a somewhat different perspective on the Odio story. If Oswald was indeed at Odio's door, that fact in itself is not, in my opinion, sufficient to establish a conspiracy, despite that is what many people think. Suspend disbelief and try to adopt the position that LHO was a "lone nut", associating with both pro and anti Castro Cubans for his own agenda, whatever that might be. So he tells his anti-Castro Cuban colleagues that the Cubans had no guts or they would have shot Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. So for whatever reason Leopoldo calls Silvia Odio to tell her that LHO is a little nuts and has made extremist statements. The mere fact that LHO was hanging out with anti-Castro Cubans does not preclude the possibility that he shot the president by himself for reasons known only to him.

Understand that I am as much an adherent to the conspiracy theory of the assassination as anyone on this forum. All I am trying to say is that if you take the Odio story at face value it is not inconsistent with the WC theory.

Again, feel free to indulge whatever scenario makes you feel comfortable.  However, most reasonable minds would balk at accepting that a lone gunman pre-announces his intentions to kill - whether the President or anyone else - if he is NOT part of a conspiracy.  However, more to the point, Odio could not testify that Oswald said any such thing to her, because he didn't.  This was second-hand hearsay, delivered to Odio by Leopoldo, and for an obvious reason.   

What screams of conspiracy, in my opinion, is if it was not LHO himself at Odio's door but a deliberate LHO impersonator, and the whole visit was staged so violent anti-Kennedy statements could be falsely attributed to Oswald. I.e., it was part of the frame. This is why the fact that the Odio visit occurred at a time when LHO was supposed to be someplace else so frightened the WC, in my opinion. Because if it was not LHO at Odio's door, and if she was telling the truth except she did not discern the impersonification of LHO, then clearly the Odio incident was being staged as part of the frame of the patsy. Ergo, a conspiracy.

The same conclusions holds true even if it was Oswald.  He didn't say anything provocative to Odio.  That was related to Odio by Leopoldo, for the obvious reason I alluded to above.

But if it was anti-Castro Cubans (or the CIA) behind the assassination, why would they frame LHO by having the false Oswald associate with people who claimed to be anti-Castro? Most people who posit CIA involvement suggest the idea was to falsely connect the assassination to a pro-Castro activist and perhaps even blame Castro for the assassination, prompting, so they hoped, a full-fledged invasion of Cuba. In this scenario, parading a false Oswald in front of Odio with proclaimed anti-Castro Cubans makes no sense at all.

Actually, it makes perfect sense once one parses the distinctions between JURE - the moderately leftist group favored by the Odios - and the more reactionary elements jockeying for position in what they hoped would be a post-Fidel government.  Tainting JURE with even a peripheral involvement in the assassination would have done for JURE what Oswald's peripheral affiliation did for the FPCC.

If the Odio incident was part of a plot, the plot was, apparently, to link a man who had made violent suggestions about the President with anti-Castro Cubans. The clear inference, then, is that the people who staged the Odio incident were pro-Castro.

Neither life, nor the events we're discussing, are as two-dimensional as you labour to make them appear, Tim.  Investigate the differences between JURE and the others [Alpha 66, DRE, et al] and you may yet reach a different conclusion.

If LHO was working for some agency of American intelligence, and the Castro forces knew that, then it would be clever indeed to find a way to link LHO with anti-Castro Cubans as part of a plot against Kennedy by Cuban intelligence.

Presumably, then, Oswald's attempts to ingratiate himself with DRE personnel in New Orleans were at Castro's behest too?  While simultaneously masquerading as a FPCC firebrand?  This is too comical...

What sense does it make if anti-Castro forces were behind the assassination to parade Oswald before Odio and then tell her that Kennedy should have been shot because he had betrayed the anti-Castro forces by his decisions re the Bay of Pigs? Were the anti-Castro forces trying to create a record to prove their involvement in the assassination?

No, they were trying to pre-emptively sully JURE, who were loathed by even other anti-Castro exiles, and to put into the record Oswald's purported propensity for violence, by claiming it for him while he refrained from claiming it for himself.

Is it not logical that if the Odio incident was part of the "set-up" for the assassination, then the people at Odio's door were not anti-Castro as they told her, but pro-Castro?

I would also point out that Blakey did not want to suggest a foreign conspiracy any more than he wanted to credit a CIA conspiracy.

Therefore, the LAST thing he would have wanted to put in the HSCA report would be that the HSCA had narrowed the possibilities of Angel and Leopoldo to three Cubans all of whom, it was suspected, had ties to Cuban intelligence.  I found it interesting he even admitted this to Dick Russell.

Pay less attention to Blakey and more to Fonzi, if you really want to get somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Robert’s post above:

As I recall the Odio story, Oswald did not announce his intention to kill anyone. He said that Cubans should have shot Kennedy in response to the Bay of Pigs disaster. Am I correct? This is different than an Oswald statement that he himself wanted to kill Kennedy, or intended to do so.

One could imagine a scenario that if LHO was indeed a Castro supporter and Castro wanted JFK killed, LHO could have been “taunting” the anti-Castro exiles to kill Kennedy by calling them cowards, etc.

I do not think this is what was happening because I suspect that LHO had some connection to a U.S. intelligence organization and I tend to agree with Robert that Leopoldo, whoever he might be, was putting words in Oswald’s mouth.

Robert says that the Odio incident might have been staged to blame the left-wing JURE organization for the Kennedy assassination. But stop and think this one through. Would the plotters expect Odio to come forward after the assassination and say, “Well, fellows, I guess my father’s organization must have done it because when Oswald came to my door he was with members of JURE.” Of course not. It is nonsensical to think Odio would implicate the organization her father started. And, of course, in the event she did not come forward. The Odio incident was discovered almost by accident. So it was clearly not an attempt to frame JURE for the assassination.

Through Odio, Oswald was connected to two anti-Castro Cubans. If it was a set-up, logic compels the conclusion that it was not engineered by anti-Castro Cubans. If anything, it was an attempt to link Oswald with the anti-Castro community before the assassination. Now who would have a motive to do that?

Robert wrote:

Blakey never "focussed" on anyone connected with Odio, as Fonzi - who bore the responsibility of interviewing her - makes clear.

However, I think Robert is mistaken about this. Below is language from the staff report on on the Odio incident, which was generated by Fonzi:

Finally, the committee requested the CIA to run a check on all individuals who used the "war names" of "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" during the period of interest. The CIA response resulted in the photographs of three individuals who might have been in Dallas in September 1963. [Photos of these three were shown to Odio and she stated she did not

recognize them.]

These had to be the three people Blakey refered to in his interview with Dick Russell. My point in this post is that it would be interesting to know the identity of these three individuals. Someone, whether Gerry Hemming, or James Richards, might have further information regarding them.

It is difficult to make sense of the Odio incident. If it was staged, it would appear it was an attempt to link Oswald to the anti-Castro Cubans.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert says that the Odio incident might have been staged to blame the left-wing JURE organization for the Kennedy assassination. But stop and think this one through. Would the plotters expect Odio to come forward after the assassination and say, “Well, fellows, I guess my father’s organization must have done it because when Oswald came to my door he was with members of JURE.” Of course not. It is nonsensical to think Odio would implicate the organization her father started. And, of course, in the event she did not come forward. The Odio incident was discovered almost by accident. So it was clearly not an attempt to frame JURE for the assassination.

Through Odio, Oswald was connected to two anti-Castro Cubans. If it was a set-up, logic compels the conclusion that it was not engineered by anti-Castro Cubans. If anything, it was an attempt to link Oswald with the anti-Castro community before the assassination. Now who would have a motive to do that?

Tim,

Manola Ray was not popular with other exile groups. Seen as Castro Lite. Not popular with CIA. JURE not only Socialist, but also eschewed CIA/USG intervention. Motive in either case to attempt to implicate (and thus destroy) the group, or to infiltrate it.

But the following is what I lean to...

A few months earlier, Odio had been "trying to establish a contact in Dallas with Mr. Johnny Martin, who is from Uruguay". When she did, he told her that "if he were in contact with one of our chief leaders of the underground, he would be able to sell him second-hand arms that we could use in our revolution."

A case could be made, despite Odio's denial, that Martin was none other than John Martino. Martino would have loved to make a connection with the Cuban underground. Odio said in testimony that her attempts to reach Martin culminated in a meeting on June 28, 1963 - we don't know how long she had been trying to reach that point. Operation Tilt was launched on June 8. Martino may have wanted to contact the underground to find out Pawley's fate, and to put his personal stamp on any attempts by JURE to start a counter-revolution. In any case, if there was a washateria owner in Dallas named "Johnny Martin" who ran guns on the side, why would Odio have had any difficulty in contacting him? Indeed, why has noone in the past 40 years found him for an interview?

Put Martino in the "Odio Incident" mix, along with Oswald as gun-running investigator and see what bakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Robert’s post above:

As I recall the Odio story, Oswald did not announce his intention to kill anyone.  He said that Cubans should have shot Kennedy in response to the Bay of Pigs disaster.  Am I correct?  This is different than an Oswald statement that he himself wanted to kill Kennedy, or intended to do so.

Tim, in either case, Oswald didn't say it.  Leopoldo claimed that Oswald said it, but since we cannot even be certain who Leopoldo was, it's unwise to read too much into it.  Now, had Oswald said similar things to a number of other people, it would have seemed part of a pattern, demonstrating a propensity for violence on his part.  That pattern doesn't appear to exist.  What we have here is part of a provocation.  I would urge you to read Peter Dale Scott on the topic of whether Oswald uttered a threat while dealing with Cuban consular officials in Mexico City.  Perhaps a different pattern will emerge for you.

One could imagine a scenario that if LHO was indeed a Castro supporter and Castro wanted JFK killed, LHO could have been “taunting” the anti-Castro exiles to kill Kennedy by calling them cowards, etc.

I do not think this is what was happening because I suspect that LHO had some connection to a U.S. intelligence organization and I tend to agree with Robert that Leopoldo, whoever he might be, was putting words in Oswald’s mouth.

Thank you.  Now, for what purpose?  Whomever Leopoldo was, he was familiar with father Amador Odio's circumstances, and used that as a introduction with Silvia.  For whatever reason, she wasn't taking the bait.  Moreover, in the subsequent letter from him, he cautioned her to be wary of whomever these men had been.  They both smelled a rat.  We should, too.

Robert says that the Odio incident might have been staged to blame the left-wing JURE organization for the Kennedy assassination. 

No, that's not what I suggested, Tim.  I said they wanted to "sully" JURE, as happened with FPCC.  After the assassination, prior proximity to Oswald would have been sufficient to do that, as happened with the FPCC.  As our mate from Down Under, Greg Parker, pointed out, JURE wasn't popular with other exile organizations - but had the ear of the White House via AMTRUNK, which pissed off both CIA and the other exile groups.  JURE was denounced by both as promoting "Fidelism without Fidel;" the same policies as Castro, just without Castro as the leader. 

If we infer that Leopolodo, and whomever he represented, had advance knowledge of the assassination and the pending invasion of Cuba, tainting JURE in this fashion with Oswald would have helped prevent JURE from assuming any pivotal role in a post-Castro government.  That's not the same thing as portraying JURE as responsible for killing Kennedy.

But stop and think this one through.  Would the plotters expect Odio to come forward after the assassination and say, “Well, fellows, I guess my father’s organization must have done it because when Oswald came to my door he was with members of JURE.”  Of course not.  It is nonsensical to think Odio would implicate the organization her father started.  And, of course, in the event she did not come forward.  The Odio incident was discovered almost by accident.  So it was clearly not an attempt to frame JURE for the assassination.

That strawman argument is your own concoction.  Oswald only needed to be consorting with JURE types to make that organization unworthy of trust, after the assassination.

Through Odio, Oswald was connected to two anti-Castro Cubans.  If it was a set-up, logic compels the conclusion that it was not engineered by anti-Castro Cubans.  If anything, it was an attempt to link Oswald with the anti-Castro community before the assassination.  Now who would have a motive to do that?

The more extreme anti-Castro elements and their Agency sponsors, who didn't wish JURE to continue receiving favourable treatment from the White House, or ascend to a position of power in a post-Castro government. 

Robert wrote:

Blakey never "focussed" on anyone connected with Odio, as Fonzi - who bore the responsibility of interviewing her - makes clear.

However, I think Robert is mistaken about this.  Below is language from the staff report on on the Odio incident, which was generated by Fonzi:

Finally, the committee requested the CIA to run a check on all individuals who used the "war names" of "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" during the period of interest.  The CIA response resulted in the photographs of three individuals who might have been in Dallas in September 1963. [Photos of these three were shown to Odio and she stated she did not

recognize them.]

Thank you for proving my point for me, Tim.  Blakey didn't identify and "focus" on three individuals and then learn from CIA that they were all Cuban intelligence personnel.  The Committee asked for a name trace on the "war names" and CIA identified three Cuban intelligence personnel.  However, when shown photos of those three suspects, Ms. Odio failed to recognize them.  So, we have CIA firing blanks, rather than hitting targets.

These had to be the three people Blakey refered to in his interview with Dick Russell. My point in this post is that it would be interesting to know the identity of these three individuals.  Someone, whether Gerry Hemming, or James Richards, might have further information regarding them.

It might be interesting to know who CIA fingered, but not because they were pertinent to the Odio incident, since - clearly - Odio didn't recognize them.

It is difficult to make sense of the Odio incident.  If it was staged, it would appear it was an attempt to link Oswald to the anti-Castro Cubans.

Well, anti-Castro Cubans of a very particular - and unpopular - stripe.  And, through such linkage, to neutralize the power JURE then enjoyed with the White House via AMTRUNK, which was loathed by both CIA and the broader Cuban exile community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I think the Odio incident remains a puzzle.

I agree with you that Leopoldo might have been putting words into Oswald's mouth. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that Oswald was "taunting" anti-Castro Cubans to kill Kennedy.

Re associating Oswald with JURE not necessarily to link JURE to the assassination, but merely to "muddy" JURE, my point was that the plotters could certainly not expect Odio to come forward with the information about Oswald, and indeed she did not.

The Odio incidenmt, in my opinion, does not easily fit anyone's scenario re the assassination. It was clearly not an effort to link Oswald to Castro. Also, if Leopoldo was really trying to frame Oswald, why did he not put words into Oswald's mouth about Oswald's wanting to kill Kennedy? The words he attributed to Oswald were not as incriminating as he could have made them.

Unlike Posner, I am sure we all agree the Odio incident did occur. I just don't think anyone (myself included) has come up with a good explanation of what it was intended to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To David:

Yes, Hemming states deTorres was Leopoldo, and Angel was Angel Murgado, who was very close to Manuel Artime and in fact changed his last name to Kennedy after the assassination of Robert Kennedy--suggesting, of course, that Angel was not involved in any plot to kill JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I think the Odio incident remains a puzzle.

I agree with you that Leopoldo might have been putting words into Oswald's mouth. 

There's no "might" about it.  Oswald never said anything about the Cubans lacking guts or that they should kill Kennedy.  These things were said for him, not by him.  And not just on Odio's doorstep.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible that Oswald was "taunting" anti-Castro Cubans to kill Kennedy.

To what end?  Oswald, himself, never displayed any animus toward Kennedy.  One could hypothesize that Oswald anticipated a radical departure in foreign policy should Kennedy be killed.  However, when Oswald was in DPD custody and asked by Fritz what changes would result from Kennedy's death, Oswald stated he thought Johnson would carry on the same policies.  

Re associating Oswald with JURE not necessarily to link JURE to the assassination, but merely to "muddy" JURE, my point was that the plotters could certainly not expect Odio to come forward with the information about Oswald, and indeed she did not.

A number of witnesses to "provocative events" that took place prior to the assassination failed to voluntarily come forward afterward.  But their stories were somehow "floated" despite their recalcitrance.  As I recall, Albert Bogard, Dial Ryder, Mrs. Whitworth and a number of other critical witnesses didn't come forward themselves.  Nevertheless, we learned of their important tales somehow.

Since we still don't know for certain the genesis of how Odio's story came to the attention of authorities, we might rightly wonder if Odio, like those cited above, had her story "floated" by the very same party or parties who arranged for the "provocative events."  Remember, there would be little point in staging a provocation such as transpired with the Odios, [or Bogard, Ryder, Whitworth, et al] and then letting it lie dormant.  This was done for a clear purpose, and it was related to the assassination.

The Odio incidenmt, in my opinion, does not easily fit anyone's scenario re the assassination.  It was clearly not an effort to link Oswald to Castro. 

JURE was considered "Castroism without Castro" by both CIA and the more extreme Cuban exile elements.  By placing Oswald in the JURE orbit, which would neutralize JURE after the assassination, the stagers of this provocation were using a putative Castro agent, who associated with JURE members, in a ploy to remove the former and disqualify the latter from serving in a post-Castro government.

Since both CIA and extremist Cuban exiles loathed the White House for creating AMTRUNK, which favoured JURE and stripped CIA of exclusive "control," it's not terribly difficult to imagine a motive for staging the Odio provocation, or those responsible for doing so.  However, this also presupposes the parties responsible had foreknowledge of the pending assassination.   

Also, if Leopoldo was really trying to frame Oswald, why did he not put words into Oswald's mouth about Oswald's wanting to kill Kennedy?  The words he attributed to Oswald were not as incriminating as he could have made them.

It was necessary to strike a delicate balance, and avoid any language that was too incendiary.  Had Leopoldo told Odio "Oswald says he will kill Kennedy," it created the risk that Odio may prematurely pick up the phone and inform authorities.  That would have defeated the purpose of the exercise.

Unlike Posner, I am sure we all agree the Odio incident did occur.  I just don't think anyone (myself included) has come up with a good explanation of what it was intended to accomplish.

Compare the Odio incident with the Parrot Jungle shop incident in Miami.  Again, we have a Cuban telling a virtual stranger small details that will take on a greater significance after the assassination.  The following, courtesy of Weberman:

Lillian Springler told the FBI that an unidentified Spanish-looking male made some remarks on November 1, 1963, which led her to believe he had been acquainted with OSWALD. The man had told her he hated President Kennedy, and would like to shoot him between the eyes, and he had a friend named LEE who was also a sharp-shooter, spoke Russian and German, who was either in Texas or Mexico. FBI S.A. James O'Conner interviewed her:

"On March 6, 1964, Mrs. Lillian Springler, the Parrot Jungle employee who previously furnished the information concerning the aforementioned unidentified male, contacted the Miami Office of the FBI to advise that the unidentified individual had returned to Parrot Jungle on that date, and was observed by her to drive a blue and white Chevrolet bearing 1964 Florida license 1-143874. Mrs. Springler said that Mrs. Mary Tyson, who operates the ticket booth at the Parrot Jungle and speaks Spanish, ascertained that the unidentified male's name was Martinez.

"Records of the Dade County, Florida, Automobile Registration Office, reflect that 1964 Florida License was issued to Jorge Soto Martinez, 464 N.E. 31 Street, Miami, for a 1954 Chevrolet four-door.

"On March 16, 1964, Mrs. Anna Fisher, 464 N.E. 31st Street, Miami, stated she recalled Jorge Soto Martinez as a tenant in one of her apartments for a period of about a year, until approximately 1963. She said she did not know his current residence, but recalled that he worked at the Fontainbleu Hotel in Miami Beach. She said she did not know any of his associates, and that he resided alone, although she understood he had been married.

"On March 17, 1964, Miss Kaye Bourbeau, Personnel Office, Fontainebleau Hotel, Miami Beach, advised that Jorge Martinez was currently employed as a bell boy at the hotel, and had begun employment with the hotel on July 14, 1961. His record indicated that he had worked for the Cuban Customs Service in Cuba during the period October 1949 to March 1959. She stated that Martinez's address was 711 S.W. 5th Street, and that his Social Security number was 262-70-6632. His employment references were reflected as Michael J. McLaney, casino owner, known three years; Jim Byres, Transportation Manager, place not identified, Emilio Garcia, property owner, place not indicated, and Miguel A. Garcia, Manager of the Light Company in Cuba.

"Inquiry conducted at 711 S.W. 5th Street, resulted in learning that Jorge Martinez was not known at that address.

"On March 18, 1964, Miss Kaye Bourbeau advised that the inquiry made of Jorge Martinez resulted in obtaining his current address as 301 N.E. 62nd Street, Miami, Florida.

"On March 17, 1964, record at the office of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Miami, Florida, Number A11 873 416, pertaining to Jorge Antonio Martinez Soto reflected that he was born on February 15, 1928, in Havana, Cuba. He had been granted a U.S. resident visa at the U.S. Embassy, Havana, on June 28, 1960, and arrived at Miami via Pan American Airways on July 21, 1960. His sponsor for immigration into the United States, who furnished an affidavit promising employment and keep of Martinez, was indicated at Michael J. McLaney.

On March 22, 1964, Jorge Martinez voluntarily appeared at the Miami Office of the FBI in answer to a telephone call placed to him at the Fontainbleu Hotel on March 22, 1964. Martinez said he is known as Jorge Martinez, and he felt he had sufficient comprehension of English to permit conduct of the interview in the English language.

"Martinez said he has, on occasions in the past, taken visitors in his personal car to tourist attractions in the Miami area, including the Parrot Jungle. He recalled the occasion on or about November 1, 1963, when he took tourists to the Parrot Jungle, and while there engaged in a conversation with the employees in the gift shop and displayed his ability to write with both hands simultaneously. During interview, he exhibited this ability by writing his name, Jorge Martinez, with both hands simultaneously. Mr. Martinez stated that he had no personal acquaintanceship with, or knowledge of, LEE HARVEY OSWALD. He said that if the Parrot Jungle employee thought he had expressed an association or acquaintanceship with OSWALD, this misunderstanding on the part of the employee must have resulted from his poor pronunciation of English, and lack of grammatical correctness. He stated that, in fact, he knew of no one with the first name LEE, and was at a loss to understand how the employee might have obtained this misunderstanding. He said, likewise, he had no friend located in either Texas or Mexico, and that the incident of his having allegedly spoken in this sense was completely erroneous.

"Martinez stated that he does regard himself as excitable, and particularly so with regard to the control of Cuba by Fidel Castro, and that he may have made some remarks related to Castro which were misinterpreted by the Parrot Jungle employee as directed toward President John Kennedy. He said he vaguely recalled having spoken about Castro and the Cuban situation. He said, by way of explaining remarks attributed to him by the Parrot Jungle employee, that he may have said that he wished he were in Washington, or that he were the President of the United States, so that he could exercise the power to blow up Fidel Castro. Martinez said he may have also expressed some displeasure as what he regards as the failure of the United States to rid Cuban of Castro, but it was not a criticism of the United States Government, which he considers to be the best in the world. Martinez denied that he would have made any such statement as 'shooting between the eyes of President Kennedy,' and explained that if he made any such references, it would most certainly have been with respect to Fidel Castro.

"Martinez stated that he is acquainted with no one whom he knows to be a U.S. citizen and Marxist, or such an individual who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. He stated that he himself, speaks Spanish and broken English, and no other language, and he does not have any friend or acquaintance who can speak the Russian language. Martinez said that, likewise, he could think of no acquaintance whom he knew to be a Marksman or Sharpshooter, and he added that if he had made some remark of this nature to the Parrot Jungle employee, it was unquestionably in reference to the means by which he would like to see Fidel Castro eliminated.

"Martinez said he did not recall what may have prompted him to talk along these general lines during his visit to the Parrot Jungle, but possibly some development in the Cuban situation had recently occurred which could have upset him. He said that it was incredible that anyone should think that he would have any relationship with a pro-Castro person, because, in fact, he has only hate for Castro sympathizers. He related that he was employed in the Ministry of Finance in Cuba as of 1949, and continued in that department until the beginning of 1959, at which time he was the Customs Inspector in charge of Havana Harbor and the Colombia Air Base near Havana. He said that he was economically comfortable, in that he was earning $900 a month as of 1959, and resided rent free in a $40,000 home in Havana which belonged to his aunt, and which he would eventually inherit.

"Martinez continued that his former father-in-law, Carlos Pujol, was a government administrator during the regime of Cuban President Carlos Prio, and it was through Pujol that Martinez originally obtained employment in 1949 in the Ministry of Finance.

"He said that his own father, Antonio Martinez Perez Abreau, had been a successful and well-to-do attorney in Cuba prior to the advent of Fidel Castro to power, but he had since lost his properties through confiscation by the Castro regime. He said he did not know the whereabouts of his father, although the latter might still be in Cuba. He said that his mother, Carmen Soto Urquiza, had divorced his father years ago, and married Emilio Garcia Perez, who had lost a large amount of income property in Cuba to the Cuban Government. He said his mother and step father continue to live in Cuba. Martinez said that his wife, Concepcion Luisa Cortes Madrazo, had come to the United States with him in July 1960, but they have since separated and are contemplating divorce.

"Martinez stated that his immigration into the United States was sponsored by Michael McLaney, who had operated the casino in the Nacional Hotel in Havana before the Government of Fidel Castro closed down such operations. Martinez said that when he lost his job in the Cuban Customs Service in the first part of 1959, when the Castro Government removed the pre-Castro personnel, he, Martinez, worked for McLaney at the casino in the general capacity of handling Spanish-speaking clients. He said that as of July 1960 he reached the decision that he could no longer accept the restrictions of freedom being imposed by the Castro regime, and decided to move to the United States. He said that very shortly after arrival, he began employment at the Fontainebleau Hotel at Miami Beach as a 'runner' handling cars, and with the exception of about three or four weeks during 1960 when he worked at a motel on the 79th Street Causeway, Miami Beach, he has been steadily employed at the Fontainebleau.

"Martinez stated that he is a graduate of the Belen College in Cuba, and had studied law for one year at the University of Havana. He said he had not joined the forces which engaged in the Cuban invasion of April 1961, but subsequently volunteered for training in the Cuban unit of the United States Army, but was not accepted, possibly because of overage. He stated he has never applied for nor received assistance or aid under the Cuban Refugee Program.

"In conclusion, Martinez stated that he would volunteer to take a polygraph examination at any time if the question remained as to possible acquaintance with, or knowledge of, LEE HARVEY OSWALD or any other individual who may be engaged in any plan or activity inimical to the interests of the United States."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I'm glad you detailed out the Parrot Jungle incident, I view it as

extremely key in lining out the real source of the conspiracy - perhaps

even more key than the Odio visit.

It's way too long to go into detail here, but my Lancer 04 presentation dealt

with what I feel to be a common link between the Parrot Jungle leak, the

leak (gossip) that Echevarria heard in Chicago and very possibly the same

source as related to the Kirknewton intercept incident and (remotely possible

at least) the Dinkin rumor.

At this point in time I'm putting forth the premise that Victor Hernandez may well have been the common source for all this gossip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...