Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Odio Incident


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. (Larry Hancock)

I have to agree with you, Larry.

Add that Hernandez was training at Belle Chase, his possible connection to Operation 40 and his participation within an assassination team which successfully targeted leaders of Batista's regime, and this character was right amongst the action.

There are connections to Rich Lauchli and Chicago based sources for weaponry which places him to hear the threats made by Homer Eschevarria.

If we are looking for a candidate who was 'Angel', one of the men who visited Sylvia Odio, this is the guy.

IMO of course.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re Robert's post above:

I wrote:

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

Robert replied:

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.

Robert, with all due respect, you cannot possibly know for a CERTAINTY that Oswald did not make that remark. You may strongly infer that Leopoldo made it up (in part because it is consistent with your scenario) but there is no way you can say it with a certainty. I mean, if Oswald was alive, and both Oswald and Leopoldo (whoever he was) were testifying in court, and Leopoldo testified that Oswald had said that and Oswald denied it, you still could not know with a certainty who was telling the truth, although at least in that case you could judge the demeanor of the two witnesses.

Like I said, I tend to agree with you it was a statement planted on Oswald, but neither you nor I nor anyone else can know that with certainty.

I wrote:

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

Robert replied:

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.

Oswald never displayed any animus toward Kennedy? How about Kennedy's policies, my friend? Whether or not correct, Oswald's public stance was as a Castro supporter and organizer of a Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The FPCC, of course, condemned Kennedy's POLICIES against Cuba. And Castro himself expresed personal hatred toward Kennedy, calling him, at various times, "a cretin", "a gangster", "a modern day Batista", etc etc. There were anti-Kennedy posters throughout Havana. We may very well agree that Oswald was not in fact pro-Castro, but we do not know that with certainty either. If Oswald was indeed a sympathizer with Castro, he certainly must have had an animus toward Kennedy's policies at least.

Castro certainly had reason to kill Kennedy. As has been discussed above, not only was the Cubela plot ongoing on November 2nd, RFK was also involved with a diferent Castro dissident to start a coup against Castro within weeks of November 22nd. It would have been a stroke of genius if Castro had used Oswald to inspire his enemies in the United States to kill Kennedy on his behalf.

And if as many think anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination, who is to say that they were not inspired to act against Kennedy by a double agent in their midst? The flip side of the coin is that if anti-Castro Cubans wanted Kennedy dead, and if Oswald was indeed pro-Castro, the anti-Castro Cubans could have inspired Oswald to act by, for instance, revealing to Oswald the ongoing Cubela plot to kill Castro.

One of the things that makes the case baffling is that Castro and his suporters had reason to seek the death of Kennedy. Many of the anti-Castro Cubans also had reason to think Kennedy's death would advance their cause (I would argue they were wrong, because they did not know what the Kennedys were ploting against Castro without their knowledge). Therefore, the trigger could have been pulled by an anti-Castro Cuban, but prompted by a Castro sympathizer, or by a pro-Castro Cuban, but inspired by someone whose agenda was indeed anti-Castro. This situation exists precisely because both sides had reason to believe their position would be advanced by the death of Kennedy.

And in the event it is clear that it was the pro-Castro side that benefited from Kennedy's death. There can be no dispute that LBJ wound down the war against Castro (even if, as you have argued, perhaps in violation of LBJ's policies the CIA still pursued an ocasional anti-Castro plot. We have previously seen that several of the prominent anti-Castro Cubans who were privy to what the Kennedys were doing knew that their cause had indeed ended with the death of Kennedy.

As you stated, Oswald might have anticipated a "radical departure in foreign policy should Kennedy be killed." If he did, he was prescient because the US war against Castro did effectively end with the death of Kennedy. LBJ was more interested in fighting the Communists 10,000 miles away than the ones in power ninety miles south of Key West.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote:

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.

Robert wrote:

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.

Robert, in this case I believe your response makes an effective point. Although I argued above that we do not know it to a certainty, we agree that it is most likely that Leopoldo planted the words on Oswald. Your point that the operation may have been revealed had a statement been attributed to Oswald that was perceived as a direct threat against the President is, I think, well-taken.

I continue to think that the point of the exercise was not to link Oswald to JURE. JURE may have been left-of-Center, but it was certainly not pro-Communist or pro-Castro. To posit that the plan was to portray the killer as pro-Castro, pro-JURE makes no sense, I think. If Oswald was indeed pro-Castro he was anti-JURE (remember Castro was jailing Odio's parents); if he was pro-JURE he was by definition anti-Castro. Couldn't be both. Had someone tried to portray him as both it would have destroyed the plot.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be worthwhile to consider that the first objective of the visit was to persuade Sylvia to wrote some fund raising leaders for her visitors. And the visitors represented themselves as JURE connected. And they had gone to some trouble to get background info on her father including his closely kept war name.

If the letters were the primary objective, the phone call back to Sylvia may have been a fall back developed after they failed to get letters from her.

In that case, the main goal would have been letters referencing JURE and signed by a JURE member with high level ties to Rey.

If such letters were planted along with a patsy after either an attempt or an actual assassination of JFK they could have been used to associate a Cuban sponsored assassin with JURE...many right wing exiles were constantly painting JURE with a pink brush anyway. Net result, get rid of Castro, get back into Cuba, eliminate JURE and Rey as a contender for power in a "free" Cuba. Nice neat package.

...except Sylvia didn't buy it....she thought the vistiors were suspicious, maybe even Castro agents.....which with the phone call afterwards would still have served to tie Oswald with possible Cuban agents if Sylvia had gone to the FBI

or Police the afternoon of Nov. 22.

Just think what a report like that from Odio would have done when combined with the Kostikov and Cuban embassy visit in Mexico City...and then Gilberto Alvardo shows up to close the loop.....still a nice package.

....excpept Sylvia didn't report it....by the time her information got in the loop the fix was in....no conspiracy, Lone Nut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry's point is very interesting and makes sense, that the original attempt was simply to get Silvia Odio to sign some fund-raising letters for use in whatever purpose.

I continue, however, to doubt whether it would have been possible to link JURE with an alleged Cuban plot to kill Kennedy. No question JURE's policies were left-of-center but I consider it doubtful anyone would reasonably believe that JURE and Castro had allied to kill Kennedy. As Robert pointed out, the Kennedys were supporters of Ray and JURE over the right-wing Cubans. So why would JURE conspire to kill Kennedy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, this is pure speculation of course, but I'm not sure the thought at that point would have been to associate JURE with the assassination. It could have been as simple as associating JURE with a Castro advocate and Russian defector like Oswald.

That sort of political ploy would have worked well against Rey and JURE even short of an assassination, say if Oswald had agreed to participate in some sort of demonstration or incident like the one that may well have been planned for the D.C. area (keep in mind his burst of letters just before leaving New Oreleans - all about moving somewhere in the NorthEast, possibly Baltimore). Nobody has ever really explained that and it has to be considered in any theory of the overall conspiracy that used him.

If my scenario is correct, the initial goal could have been as simple as a political stroke against Rey. Its important that the political in-fighting among the exiles was just about as animated as their efforts against Castro.

The ongoing line against Rey - used by virtually all the right wing parties - was that Rey was putting on a front and was to be distrusted as much as Castro, he would turn Commie after getting in power just like Castro had.

At this distance being able to separate short term / political objectives from things related to the actually conspiracy that played out on Nov. 22 is a real challenge. Hemming has reminded us all before that there were lots of players and lots of agendas, viewing them all against Nov. 22 os always tempting but probably not accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, as usual with you a very astute analysis. If I read you correctly, the Odio incident may have been a ploy to smear JURE but not associated with the assassination. You are correct that after the assassination it is easy to relate all incidents to it. I myself had never seen the Odio incident as a prof of the conspiracy, as Fonzi puts it (as much as I othewrwise admire Fonzi) unless it was proof that someone was impersonating Oswald.

The WC's portrayal of Oswald as a "lone nut" was of course wrong. But the mere fact that Oswald associated with pro and anti Castro Cubans in and of itself does not prove a conspiracy--of course.

Similarly, although so many people believe that Oswald's trip to Mexico City was also somehow related to the conspiracy (whether the plotters were pro-Castro or anti-Castro it matters not) that may simply be a false, if easy, assumption. Oswald may, for instance, have been sent on an intelligence mission simply to se how the Cubans and Soviets would handle him, but that mission might have no relationship to the assassination. (I think you sugested this to me once.)

So clearly the Odio incident shows there was more to Oswald than his portrayal in the Warren Commision, but it does not necessarily establish a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Angel and Leopoldo may have ben on a mission to besmirch JURE without any knowledge that two months later their stooge Oswald would be implicated in the assassination.

An interesting perspective on the Odio incidednt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. (Larry Hancock)

I have to agree with you, Larry.

Add that Hernandez was training at Belle Chase, his possible connection to Operation 40 and his participation within an assassination team which successfully targeted leaders of Batista's regime, and this character was right amongst the action.

There are connections to Rich Lauchli and Chicago based sources for weaponry which places him to hear the threats made by Homer Eschevarria.

If we are looking for a candidate who was 'Angel', one of the men who visited Sylvia Odio, this is the guy.

IMO of course.

James

Hi, James

Along the line of Oswald playing both sides, pro-Castro and anti-Castro I am reminded of the time after being appointed acting secretary of Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Chicago by Communist Party, and 26th Of July Movement leaders this while I was reporting to the local FBI, they then later assigned to me the task of infiltrating the opposition anti-Castro CIA combine in order to discover when the attack/invasion of Cuba that was soon to take place. I was instructed to renounce the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, the 26th Of July Movement and other connections. I was also instructed to enlist with the combine as a volunteer, pilot or other. No 'exact' info. resulted from this effort. A short time later the invasion took place, and I was then distributing pro-Castro anti-invasion 'Hands Of Cuba' leaflets on the streets of Chicago, and continued reporting to the Bureau.

Harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, James

Along the line of Oswald playing both sides, pro-Castro and anti-Castro I am reminded of the time after being appointed acting secretary of Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Chicago by Communist Party, and 26th Of July Movement leaders this while I was reporting to the local FBI, they then later assigned to me the task of infiltrating the opposition anti-Castro CIA combine in order to discover when the attack/invasion of Cuba that was soon to take place. I was instructed to renounce the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, the 26th Of July Movement and other connections. I was also instructed to enlist with the combine as a volunteer, pilot or other. No 'exact' info. resulted from this effort. A short time later the invasion took place, and I was then distributing pro-Castro anti-invasion 'Hands Of Cuba' leaflets on the streets of Chicago, and continued reporting to the Bureau.

(Harry Dean)

Interesting, Harry.

There seemed to be a fair bit of flipping sides during this period. Did you find that mistrust was the general atmosphere amongst the Cubans?

Can you say who in the FBI was running the show in Chicago?

Thanks as always.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To posit that the plan was to portray the killer as pro-Castro, pro-JURE makes no sense, I think.

Tim,

As with Larry, Robert was not saying the Odio incident was assassination related.

Your concern, though based on a false premise, does remind me of the conundrum arising out of Oswald displaying both Militant and Worker newspapers in the BY photos.

On a side issue, anyone like the coincidence of Oswald allegedly making remarks about Cubans lacking guts, and Ruby's alleged remarks about wanting to show Jews have guts?

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Robert's post above:

I wrote:

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

Robert replied:

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.

Robert, with all due respect, you cannot possibly know for a CERTAINTY that Oswald did not make that remark.  You may strongly infer that Leopoldo made it up (in part because it is consistent with your scenario) but there is no way you can say it with a certainty.  I mean, if Oswald was alive, and both Oswald and Leopoldo (whoever he was) were testifying in court, and Leopoldo testified that Oswald had said that and Oswald denied it, you still could not know with a certainty who was telling the truth, although at least in that case you could judge the demeanor of the two witnesses.

Like I said, I tend to agree with you it was a statement planted on Oswald, but neither you nor I nor anyone else can know that with certainty.

Due respect returned, Tim, here is what we can be certain of at this point in time.  Someone using the alias Leopoldo claimed that Oswald had said Kennedy should be killed by the Cubans.  Were that corroborated by similar statements made by Oswald to others, nobody would or should have a problem accepting that what Leopoldo said was true.  However, can you cite a single instance in which Oswald said such a thing?  To anyone, at any time?  If not, you're investing an incredible amount of faith in the credibility of someone whose identity and agenda you cannot know.  Why would you do such a thing, if not because it favours your own hypothesis/bias?

As I mentioned earlier, you may wish to revisit the pertinent chapters of PD Scott's works regarding the possibility Oswald uttered a death threat against Kennedy while in the Cuban embassy.  Whether or not he actually said such a thing, there is certainly recurring prima facie evidence indicating that some informants of the US government agencies reported that Oswald said such a thing.  Had that information been floated after the assassination, and corroborated by the floating of the Odio details, it would have clinched in the public's mind that Oswald was a dangerous threat to the President, irrespective of whether he was motivated by a love for Castro or hatred toward Kennedy.

I wrote:

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

Robert replied:

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

Oswald never displayed any animus toward Kennedy? 

If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do.  Can you cite a single witness who claimed that Oswald advocated Kennedy's death or removal from power?

How about Kennedy's policies, my friend?  Whether or not correct, Oswald's public stance was as a Castro supporter and organizer of a Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Yes, and when he was interviewed by Stuckey and debated on-air with anti-Castro types in New Orleans, he had ample opportunity to publicly declare his feelings about the President and his policies.  He struck a very moderate balance, particularly for a man who was being sandbagged and attacked by all sides, including the moderator.

Of course, even if Oswald had harboured tremendous animus toward Kennedy, I wouldn't expect him to say so while on radio; but I would expect him to say so to close personal friends.  Yet, he seems to have done just the opposite, praising Kennedy rather than vilifying him.  This is the crux of the issue with Leopoldo's assertions.  The only instance we know of in which Oswald reputedly said something negative about Kennedy comes to us courtesy of an unknown man with an unknown agenda.  It strains credulity that you would accept the exception, rather than the rule.

During the last election in my country, the Prime Minister showed up in my riding and I went to heckle him.  I can rant and rave at great length about the deficiencies of my government and its policies.  It doesn't mean that I advocate the Prime Minister's death, nor would I suggest that to a virtual stranger, as Oswald seems to have done with Leopoldo.  [Can we agree that Oswald and Leopoldo were not close personal friends?]

The FPCC, of course, condemned Kennedy's POLICIES against Cuba.

And yet I don't recall the FPCC calling for the President's assassination either.

And Castro himself expresed personal hatred toward Kennedy, calling him, at various times, "a cretin", "a gangster", "a modern day Batista", etc etc. There were anti-Kennedy posters throughout Havana. We may very well agree that Oswald was not in fact pro-Castro, but we do not know that with certainty either.  If Oswald was indeed a sympathizer with Castro, he certainly must have had an animus toward Kennedy's policies at least.

Castro certainly had reason to kill Kennedy.  As has been discussed above, not only was the Cubela plot ongoing on November 2nd, RFK was also involved with a diferent Castro dissident to start a coup against Castro within weeks of November 22nd.  It would have been a stroke of genius if Castro had used Oswald to inspire his enemies in the United States to kill Kennedy on his behalf.

And if as many think anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination, who is to say that they were not inspired to act against Kennedy by a double agent in their midst?  The flip side of the coin is that if anti-Castro Cubans wanted Kennedy dead, and if Oswald was indeed pro-Castro, the anti-Castro Cubans could have inspired Oswald to act by, for instance, revealing to Oswald the ongoing Cubela plot to kill Castro.

One of the things that makes the case baffling is that Castro and his suporters had reason to seek the death of Kennedy.  Many of the anti-Castro Cubans also had reason to think Kennedy's death would advance their cause (I would argue they were wrong, because they did not know what the Kennedys were ploting against Castro without their knowledge).  Therefore, the trigger could have been pulled by an anti-Castro Cuban, but prompted by a Castro sympathizer, or by a pro-Castro Cuban, but inspired by someone whose agenda was indeed anti-Castro.  This situation exists precisely because both sides had reason to believe their position would be advanced by the death of Kennedy.

And in the event it is clear that it was the pro-Castro side that benefited from Kennedy's death.  There can be no dispute that LBJ wound down the war against Castro (even if, as you have argued, perhaps in violation of LBJ's policies the CIA still pursued an ocasional anti-Castro plot. We have previously seen that several of the prominent anti-Castro Cubans who were privy to what the Kennedys were doing knew that their cause had indeed ended with the death of Kennedy.

As you stated, Oswald might have anticipated a "radical departure in foreign policy should Kennedy be killed."  If he did, he was prescient because the US war against Castro did effectively end with the death of Kennedy. 

And yet he did not expect any such thing, according to Will Fritz, who asked him precisely that question. 

LBJ was more interested in fighting the Communists 10,000 miles away than the ones in power ninety miles south of Key West.

After the ignomy of the Bay of Pigs, after the gnat's-hair close call over the October missile crisis, I can certainly understand Johnson's reluctance to continue picking at the Cuban scab.  Like Oswald, it's not what I would have predicted, mind you, but that's the way it played out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote:

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.

Robert wrote:

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.

Robert, in this case I believe your response makes an effective point. Although I argued above that we do not know it to a certainty, we agree that it is most likely that Leopoldo planted the words on Oswald.  Your point that the operation may have been revealed had a statement been attributed to Oswald that was perceived as a direct threat against the President is, I think, well-taken.

I continue to think that the point of the exercise was not to link Oswald to JURE.  JURE may have been left-of-Center, but it was certainly not pro-Communist or pro-Castro. 

Any cold-call approach made to the Odio sisters would have to, of necessity, pander to their politics, which were JURE.  Anything more extremist would have made them wary, and did.

In the simplistic black-and-white world view of Cuban exile politics, JURE was considered only a hair different to Castrosim; same policies, only under a different leader.  When CIA and its hand-picked Cuban proxies were sidelined, and JURE was elevated to favoured status by the Kennedy White House via AMTRUNK, CIA and its Cuban minions went ballistic.  The White House seemed to be backing the most leftist horse in the race, and insisted that CIA not be the jockey.  This did not sit well with the masters in Langley or the minions in Little Havana.

To posit that the plan was to portray the killer as pro-Castro, pro-JURE makes no sense, I think.  If Oswald was indeed pro-Castro he was anti-JURE (remember Castro was jailing Odio's parents); if he was pro-JURE he was by definition anti-Castro. Couldn't be both.  Had someone tried to portray him as both it would have destroyed the plot.

But it didn't, did it?  Somebody did try to portray him as both, and it didn't stop the bullets from flying in Dealey Plaza, or narrow the field of suspects when the bullets struck their target.  When he approached Bringuier, Oswald masqueraded as sympathetic to plans to oust Castro, even as he simultaneously corresponded with FPCC.  After the assassination, Oswald's statements to Bringuier took a decided backseat in public perception to his affiliation with FPCC.

As Greg Parker has astutely observed, such distinctions were lost - and clearly remain so - on all but the most perceptive investigators.  CPUSA and SWP?  At the same time?  Oswald might just as well have declared himself as a Republican and a Democrat simultaneously, for they are just as mutually exclusive.  But, in order to resolve such anomalies, we must focus our attention on which pledge of allegiance is false, and the purpose for which such false allegiance was sworn.  I would argue that Oswald's interest in JURE was just as genuine as his interest in FPCC, which is to say, not at all.  He was merely playing a role, and serving a function.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

Re Robert's post above:

I wrote:

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

Robert replied:

To what end?

What if LHO was serving as an agent provocateur?

The COINTELPRO papers are full of agent provocateurs urging others to commit acts of violence.

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, James

Along the line of Oswald playing both sides, pro-Castro and anti-Castro I am  reminded of the time after being appointed acting secretary of Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Chicago by Communist Party, and 26th Of July Movement leaders this while I was reporting to the local FBI, they then later assigned to me the task of infiltrating the opposition anti-Castro CIA combine in order to discover when the attack/invasion of Cuba that was soon to take place. I was instructed to renounce the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, the 26th Of July Movement and other connections. I was also instructed to enlist with the combine as a volunteer, pilot or other. No 'exact' info. resulted from this effort. A short time later the invasion took place, and I was then distributing pro-Castro anti-invasion 'Hands Of Cuba' leaflets on the streets of Chicago, and continued reporting to the Bureau.

(Harry Dean)

Interesting, Harry.

There seemed to be a fair bit of flipping sides during this period. Did you find that mistrust was the general atmosphere amongst the Cubans?

Can you say who in the FBI was running the show in Chicago?

Thanks as always.

James

James

There were always 'some' viciously pro-Castro persons in the 26 Of July Movement threatening and suspicious of other members who might betray the cause, moreso as the 'expected invasion' of Cuba drew near.

Raul Roa had earlier exposed the 'entire' invasion scheme to the United Nations.

Re; the FBI, Chicago, I only knew that Director Hoover made the Castro/Fair Play For Cuba Comm. et.al. top concern for the Bureau. I met with agents only at various pre-arranged places or via two way phone calls re; information, never at hdqrts. I would say it was the cointelpro{spelling} program?

Harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, James

Along the line of Oswald playing both sides, pro-Castro and anti-Castro I am  reminded of the time after being appointed acting secretary of Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Chicago by Communist Party, and 26th Of July Movement leaders this while I was reporting to the local FBI, they then later assigned to me the task of infiltrating the opposition anti-Castro CIA combine in order to discover when the attack/invasion of Cuba that was soon to take place. I was instructed to renounce the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, the 26th Of July Movement and other connections. I was also instructed to enlist with the combine as a volunteer, pilot or other. No 'exact' info. resulted from this effort. A short time later the invasion took place, and I was then distributing pro-Castro anti-invasion 'Hands Of Cuba' leaflets on the streets of Chicago, and continued reporting to the Bureau.

(Harry Dean)

Interesting, Harry.

There seemed to be a fair bit of flipping sides during this period. Did you find that mistrust was the general atmosphere amongst the Cubans?

Can you say who in the FBI was running the show in Chicago?

Thanks as always.

James

James I should have made it clear in the above post that it was the

26th and Communist leaders that gave me instructions to join the CIA anti- Castro

group,and was not a request by Bureau agents.

Harry

James

There were always 'some' viciously pro-Castro persons in the 26 Of July Movement threatening and suspicious of other members who might betray the cause, moreso as the 'expected invasion' of Cuba drew near.

Raul Roa had earlier exposed the 'entire' invasion scheme to the United Nations.

Re; the FBI, Chicago, I only knew that Director Hoover made the Castro/Fair Play For Cuba Comm. et.al. top concern for the Bureau. I met with agents only at various pre-arranged places or via two way phone calls re; information, never at hdqrts. I would say it was the cointelpro{spelling} program?

Harry

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...